Why won't the rest of the world accept Mormons as Christians? For those that may be interested, Stephen E. Robinson wrote a book addressing six common arguments often used to claim that Mormons aren't Christians. The book is called.... wait for it .... Are Mormons Christians? It is a very thoughtful book and presents some wonderful arguments in favor of the inclusion of Mormons as Christians. I would also like to include a link to a blog that was recently posted by Amy Hall which presents a more contemporary argument against the inclusion of Mormons in the category of Christian.
In this post I do not offer a defense of Mormons as Christians. Instead, I offer a reason why many Christians may not accept Mormons as part of the in-crowd. Yes, I see the peculiarity of offering such an argument, being myself, a Mormon. But this proposal is one that I have deduced during my time going to school with some amazing Christians involved in worth while ministry. So, don't be mad at me; instead, see if you can put yourself in their shoes. My hope is that non-Mormons will also weigh in on this proposal and maybe offer further insight.
So why are Mormons not accepted as Christians? I propose it is because most Christians don't trust us. Most Christians are accustomed to a very bold message that comes in a variety of forms from the LDS people: 1) we are right and you are wrong; 2) you are an abomination in the eyes of God and we aren't; 3) You have some of the truth but we have it all; 4) We are going to be gods one day and you will be angels (suckers). The LDS people are coming up on nearly two hundred years of telling the rest of the Christian world a very consistent message that we alone have the legitimate access to God's full revelation, and the rest of the Christian world is floundering with only a portion of the Holy Spirit. If you can put yourself in the Christian's shoes for just one moment. That message, no matter how hard you try to soften it, is a very bold statement that is almost asking for confrontation. So it should be no surprise that confrontation and a lack of acceptance is what we get.
Where does our message come from? In the early 19th century the United States was experiencing a restoration movement. Many people were seeking to reestablish the ancient order of things - how it was back in the good old days when the apostles were alive. Notable people like Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone created a seed bed of membership for the early LDS Church in their efforts to reunite the many denominations of Christianity into one whole Church (thanks). In comparison, while Stone and Campbell attempted to reunite the many sects, Joseph Smith was starting the whole thing over complete with divine visitations, new scripture, etc. From an extremely early point in the LDS movement we have been declaring a bold message - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true church on earth. In other words, you may think you are Christian, but we are the Christians.
Our actions today continue to ring out this message of old. We continue to preach the message of being the only true church through an army of some 60,000 missionaries. We still have the glaring declaration in our scriptures that other churches are an abomination (not to mention the anti-Catholic rhetoric of McConkie that seems to have created a pretty deep wound we struggle to mend). We do not accept the baptisms of Christians even if done by immersion. We proselytize whom ever is not LDS, no matter how devout they may be to the Savior or how healthy their relationship with God and humanity. And now, while still acting out a very old message, we want the Christian world to accept us as one of their own? While we demand acceptance from the Christian world for who we are and what we believe, should we not look at ourselves and ask if we are ready to accept the rest of the Christian world for who they are and what they believe? If not, I am afraid that the Christian world will never accept us because our actions show that we do not accept them in their expression of faith in Jesus Christ. It seems that they are willing to give us just as much as we are willing to give them. Please note, I am not saying that Mormons believe Christians are not actually Christians. I am simply saying that our actions convey that message and for our relationship to change, we will have to change too.
I believe a relationship will have to form that is a bit more accepting of one another before the greater Christian world will look upon the Mormon faith as a partner and fellow Christian group. Many mainline Christian denominations have buried the hatchet long ago and approach their differences ecumenically. While some still squabble (with whom we have most of our confrontational conversations) most are accepting of each other, differences and all. I propose that if the Christian world is ever going to accept Mormons, Mormons are going to have to accept the Christians both in word and deed.
As always,
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
I think this goes great with "can't we all just get along?" I think more often than not members of the church carry the traits of those three that you listed. We need to find similarities with other denominations and celebrate them. I highly doubt that when it all ends God is going to stand with a clip board and say "______ group, congratulations you chose right! The rest of you, I recommend sunscreen with an SPF 100000" Being christian goes way beyond being a member of a specific denomination, being a christian is a way of life...Following Christ and treating others they way he would. It can be said that many times we all do the un-christian thing and not only judge others for their beliefs but sometimes reject them all together. It worries me sometimes to think that people are more caught up with the name of their church and it's level of correctness instead trying to live a Christ-like life. Anyway, great post!
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points. I never thought about how members of the LDS church in a way don't accept other Christian churches as such. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wanted to mention, though. An underlying theme of the post and the first comment is that Christianity is simply following Christ (which, in my opinion, is true). However, may I be so bold as to make an assertion that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have the potential (notice the word potential) to more fully follow Christ than anyone else. Now, I recognize that such a statement sounds very arrogant. However, allow me to expound on this: Members of the LDS church believe that we are the only ones who can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The purpose of the Holy Ghost is to testify of Christ, and to guide (among other things). One way in which It guides is by helping us know how to follow Christ. Thus, if members of the LDS church really are the only ones that can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, then it stands to reason that those who truly seek It's influence can have more guidance about how to truly follow Christ. Thus, anyone on earth can follow Christ, but the gift of the Holy Ghost is crucial to have to truly know how to draw closer to Him (albeit the knowledge itself isn't sufficient--there still exists the more important need to actually apply the knowledge). Now, in regards to judgement day, I don't believe that we're going to be judged based on what church we belong to. However, I do believe we will be judged on who we've become (see http://lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/the-challenge-to-become?lang=eng for an explanation), and it's crucial to have the Holy Ghost to become who we need to become. Now, if the LDS church really isn't the only church with the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, then my argument doesn't hold any water. However, I believe that the LDS church really is the only one with the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt is scary to think that we seemed more concerned about who has the right doctrine than how we are living out our dedication to a Christ like life. I once had a conversation with a church leader who reminded me that when we are in the presence of God, we've all got it wrong. No one is perfect and neither is our understanding of everything, so let's celebrate not only or commonalities, but also our differences. Great insight and thank you for your thoughts.
Will,
ReplyDeleteGreat comment. I would like to try and play the Christian's advocate by responding in disagreement to your assertions. This is always a precarious position to take since I am speaking on behalf of someone else, so I hope this is helpful in some way in understanding why Christians may not respond so well to your point of view.
You point out the risk you take in sounding arrogant on your assertions and well, you're right. Like you point out, it is arrogance to think that the gift of the Holy Ghost is only offered to the LDS people. May I propose as an alternative that we recognize the soveriegnty of God; that God is not controlled by or limited to a particular sect and therefore the Spirit of God is free to move undictacted by our systems.
You state that we will not be judged by what church to which we affiliate but by who we become. You also state that in order for us to know who we are to become you must have the gift of the Holy Spirit, a gift only accessible in the LDS Church. I understand by your comment that Christians are unable to know who they are or what they are to be because they lack access to a gift which God only gives to the LDS people. That Christians can act like a disciple of Christ but to BE or at least have the potential of being a disciple, you must be LDS. It sounds like splitting hairs, but if that is true, doesn't that sound like setting the rest of the world up for failure in this life? Frankly, if God will judge me based on what I have become in this life and gives a special leg up to just one group of people, that's unfair and I don't want to be with such a God. That God set my Christian friends up to fail and live a life of vanity.
I prefer a soveriegn God which moves amongst the diversity of faith to freely inspire all people to live a life of being whole. As an example, Mother Teresa was made fully capable of becoming what God inspired her to be through the Holy Spirit, and Mormons would be well served to look at her and many others outside of our faith who live a Christ-like life more wholly than our fears will let us realize. There is no indication that she was somehow lacking in what God asked her to be. In actuality, Mother Teresa should be a reminder to all Christians including Mormons that we live an incredibly selfish and unchrist-like life often empty of purpose and being. Mother Teresa could not realize more potential because there was no more potential to realize.
The potential you speak of as something only made possible in the LDS church is yet another aspect that will drive a wedge between the general Christian world and Mormonism. Christ's ministry is an example of a man that disregarded the lines of society and dared to love - not just tolerate - the other. The fruit of the Spirit in the LDS people is really not that different than the fruit of the Spirit in the rest of the Christian world. Mormons would know that if they actually spent more time exploring other denominations before declaring them false. Before we decide that we are given a greater potential than the rest, let's actually learn about the rest to decide if that's true, and that will require more loving interaction and religious maturity than we typically offer. We will have to believe them when they say that they feel the Spirit of God at their place of worship for them to ever consider that we are telling the truth when we say that we feel it too at ours. We will have to relinquish control to God and know that he answers our and their prayers and is directing their lives just as fully as he is directing ours.
Thank you for speaking boldy in your thoughts. I genuinely enjoy them and hope that my response is in some way helpful in your interactions with FELLOW Christians.
Travis,
ReplyDeleteI believe the Gift of the Holy Ghost that Will is referring to (if I read him right), is the Laying on of Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the authority of God's priesthood power. There is clearly no doubt that the Spirit of Christ works in peoples lives of all walks. We would do well to follow the example of anyone who can build us up (think 13th Art. of Faith). That wasn't meant to be disputed by Will, I don't think. To be bold in our testimonies is not to rule out or diminish the faith of another. To know--not by man, not by studying philosophers, not by our own logic but by the Holy Ghost--that Christ Himself has established His church and Priesthood on the earth, is not weak or ignorant or meant to knock others down. I hold that knowledge more cherish and dearly than anything else. It is in living according to that knowledge that I am able to love and appreciate others beliefs more fully. Some of my riches friendships are with those who are not members of the church. To feel and see their goodness is powerful and helps me feel the Spirit. And still, I know the church is true.
Either Christ established His church on the earth or He did not. Either he has given his priesthood authority in His church or He hasn't. Either you believe it or you don't. And if you do, you will be able to reach out in more charity and appreciation to all mankind than in any other state.
Take care and tell your family hello!
Mitch Sego
It seems as if you are looking at LDS people as an outsider seeing the facts but not understanding. It certainly doesn't follow in step with how I believe, my family believes, my LDS friends believe or my view of how the Prophet and Apostles teach and view other churches. I am not sure who you are referring to when you talk about LDS people? There are misinformed people in many religions and to generalize that most Mormons can't have a logical thought to come to the conclusion that someone as righteous as Mother Teresa isn't a true Christian and somehow falls short is ludicrous. You seem to be trying to extinguish these "close minded" opinions that simply don't exist in intelligent thinking Mormons. However if God does have one way and one doctrine and one truth then there is no need to apologize for it. That doesn't mean that God can't lead and direct everyone's life who follows Him in the best way they believe and know how.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous. I completely agree with you - to say that Mother Teresa is not a Christian is ludicrous. That is my point. To think that her lack of access to the gift of the Holy Ghost by the LDS authority somehow limits her ability to access God is indeed ludicrous. I use her as an example; a case study that exemplifies the ludicrous nature of our attitude towards the rest of the Chrisian world. If you do not feel our viewpoint needs to change, that's fine. Just don't expect the Christian viewpoint to change either.
ReplyDeleteI am not asking Mormons to apologize for their faith. I am simply trying to present the other side of the story so that we can understand and then hopefully be understood.
Thanks for your post.
The point I am making is that your opinion of "our" viewpoint is inaccurate. I do think it should change if what you wrote is in fact how Mormons feel. I am saying it has already changed at least in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate & commend the respect you gave both sides while addressing this issue. Having grown up LDS, left, & since attended multiple denomin., I feel like I have a unique perspective. I only voice my opinion in the hope that it will be received with respect & hope you know it is only in respect in which I share it. I agree with everything you said. I believe that this is a huge wedge that is driven between the two which often stops the two from wanting to even speak. In my opinion, the problem that is run into, when asked about whether the LDS church is Christian, is that this question has implications.Normally when a person hears that, they do not hear the simple question, “Do you believe in God?”There's usually an implication of things that tie in with this. The answer most people are wanting answered when they ask “Are Mormons Christian,” is “Do they believe the same thing Christians.” We attended a large number of Christian denomin. And I believe it is safe to say that within that body, the large majority have a common belief system. Whether you go to Presby or Bapt church, there are certain beliefs that do not often differ. Their music, traditions, or their views on the gray areas might, but the base of beliefs are usually the same.I have run into this question a lot. I want to state here, that I am not saying whether LDS should or should not be considered Christians. I am not saying one is right, one is wrong. I simply want to give you the reasons behind why I believe many people have a hesitation about this. Most people who know what LDS believe & what typical Christians believe, would admit that there are some diff. Below I have listed some reasons why I believe people hesitate.
ReplyDeletePLEASE SEE NEXT POST!!
#1 – The stance on the Bible. I put this in the list, because I believe it is worth noting. The later reasons are often explained by LDS by citing the BOM. “It says it in BOM.” So I will say first -it is a diff. Christians believe the Bible to be the W.O.G.. Most are sensitive when you say that the Bible isn't enough, that the Bible is incorrect. Most would say that it is the only book we go to read God's word & warnings. So before you start screaming “We do to.” Yes. Article of faith 8: “We believe the Bible to be the W.O.G., as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the BoM to be the W.O.G..” The diff. is this, LDS believe that parts of the Bible are translated wrong. “As far as it is translated correctly”. But of the BoM, there's no catch. Simply“We believe it to be the W.O.G..” I am not saying it is not, I am just saying that the BoM is believed to be more correctly translated than the Bible.
ReplyDelete#2 -Nature of God.I believe this is the biggest hesitation.The statement can not only be said, “Yes, we believe in God & Christ,”without defining who you believe they are.Christians believe that God is eternal. He has always & will always be God.There was never a time without God, he is the only uncreated being. LDS believe God was once a man. Christians believe he has always & will always know everything. Since LDS believe he was once a man, there logically had to be a time when he didn't know everything.Christians believe He is the only God that has ever or will ever be. LDS believe in the potential of creating their own worlds. They believe, though they only worship their God, there are a potential of mult. of other Gods.#3 – How do I get to live with God. The last reason I will state is in how we get to live with God again. LDS believe in faith plus works. Most Christians would state that man is saved by faith alone. If you have a saving faith, then you will live with God in heaven. You do not have to (have being the key word) do anything else. Many LDS have said to me, “Then why would you serve.” I believe if you have a true saving faith, & have what I call a heart transformation, you will want to serve God. It will be a natural consequence.True service is when nothing is tied to it, in my opinion, a true gift is when nothing is expected. (Christ's sacrifice)
These are just the simple reasons why I think this debate has gone on this long. Just My thoughts! (Sorry I'm so long winded!)
Whoever "Anonymous" is since I last commented, I agree with your sentiment 100%. The leaders of the church I've listened to or read and every sound, dedicated member of the church I know cannot relate at all to the "viewpoint" Travis strives to paint for us here. It simply is not how I, and most faithful members I know, view other Christians.
ReplyDeleteMitch Sego
Sorry Mitch, I am a non-mrm, I just want to say that from my experience the "viewpoint" travis is refering to is about 90% of what I have encountered by LDS Members, not that they are rude or disrespecful in fact the opposite is true, however it is evident that they view me as lost or feel sorry for me since I don't have the "true" church. I am an outsider and I always feel a sense of judgement, and it is clear that they don't believe I will get to heaven (or live with God). I am married to an ex-mrm and the majority of her family is still in the church, so I encounter LDS members often and would argue that they are "sound,dedicated" members of the church. I love Travis' blog, it is not often that I have found an LDS person willing to openly and honestly discuss their beliefs, other than the beliefs we agree upon. When it comes to where we differ, most of the time the converesations end quickly and LDS don't want to talk about it.
ReplyDeleteIn Him, Jay
Jay when you are dealing in close relationships with family-ties you will encounter a different experience just because of the nature of the relationship. I have a close friend who joined the Mormon church and her family treats her the same way you describe your encounters with your family. You will probably find the same situation in most families where religion is a big part of the family but it is not unique to Mormons in any way.
ReplyDeleteMy encounters I describe are not only from family, but from Missionaries we encounter as well as my wife's friends. I give the missionaries more leeway because they are young men with little to no adult life experience, but the "viewpoint" or attitude has been the same. We have gone to church with family in other states where the people there didn't know us at all and there was still a feeling of judgement (most likely because we weren't in the LDS uniform i.e black suite, white shirt, tie and wife in a dress)I don't think they cared that we weren't dressed "appropriately" but the fact that we weren't dressed similarily, made it evident that we were not members. Again, this is not only with family encounters. Thanks for your response, I definately know family encounters are much different due to the nature of the relationship.
ReplyDeleteIn Him,
Jay
I would like to point out that the purpose of this post is to take on the perspective of a Christian that does not believe Mormons are Christians. So, the picture I am painting is not going to be accurate to all situations. It's not suppose to be. It is intended to function as the perspective of the 'other' side with whom we actually have very little positive interaction. And since the rhetoric of cult and the like is still rampant in our society, it should be clear that the change in perception of the Mormon faith has still not taken grasp as strongly as we like to think. Many in the general public still have not changed their view of the LDS faith despite the I AM A MORMON ads of the church and all of the other efforts made. In some circles it has changed. Great. But I am trying to give a perspective of those that in respect do not bring up the issue in general discussion. They still don't trust us and I am giving one reason why.
ReplyDeleteThanks Bridgette for your perspective. I hope it is one from which we can all learn. And don't worry, I'm never long winded :)
ReplyDeleteBased on the comments you have made about the Lord giving the Holy Ghost to diligent followers of Him, are you saying that the ordinance of the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost is wholly unnecessary, since we can receive the Holy Ghost by being devoted followers of Christ?
ReplyDeleteWholly unnecessary, No. The ordinance functions in our context to help us make palpable what otherwise is a mystery. We can't know the movement of the Spirit of God nor can we dictate it. Then how do we in our LDS world make sense of and experience God? Through wonderful and empowering ordinances. This is something we share with other denominations. But to say that the gift of the Spirit is restricted to us alone is a statement that restricts God's soveriegnty; He can function just as strongly in other contexts and I think personal experience with others of different denominations, the examples of other powerful Christians (ie Mother Teresa) and history should help us see that.
ReplyDeleteTo say that the Holy Spirit can only be given in the LDS church is claiming a very restricted God, one that only gives a half-dose of the Spirit to other churches, which just sounds like He's a half-hearted monarch (Not that we mean to say it that way, but that's how it comes off). When one spends some time exploring other denominations and peoples I believe you will find that the Spirit of God functions just as strongly as it does in the LDS context. Experience should challenge our presupposition that the Spirit of God is somehow restricted to us. We are just as loving as others like our co-workers and friends. Likewise, there are plenty of LDS people that are just as insensitive and mean as some Christians. The Spirit of God empowers us to live a Christ-like life and I hope it will help us open our eyes to see that the Spirit is just as strong in the lives of others. The claim that we have it and they don't is just another way of building a gulf between us and them, one I feel Jesus was trying to fill in his ministry.
So, to summarize my point. The ordinance is an empowering religious function that helps us experience the Spirit of God. At the same time, the Spirit of God is not restricted to this function and empowers others who experience and work within a different context just as strongly as it does in ours. Another example of the Spirit of God functioning in a powerful way outside LDS ordinances: Martin Luther King Jr. Thank God for that prophet.
Let me start by saying that the doctrine of the Holy Ghost is not something I understand fully. Or even partly. However, one thing I do know is that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is different than the influence of the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, I know that a core belief of the LDS church is that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is only available to those who receive it by the laying on of hands by those that have the authority to do so. Now, having said that, do I believe that someone who hasn't received the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be influenced by the Holy Ghost more than someone who has? Absolutely. However, I also believe that a devout follower of Christ who has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be influenced in a different way than a devout follower who hasn't received the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Why do I believe that? Why am I putting limits on a sovereign God? I am not--I am just re-stating what He has already revealed about Himself to His representatives. You and I both know that a core belief of the LDS church is that the gift of the Holy Ghost is only available through the laying on of hands by those that are in authority. Furthermore, (and more importantly), another core belief of the LDS church is that our core beliefs are revealed by God. Now, perhaps Joseph Smith, and the subsequent leaders of the church, were just good men and that--as you mentioned--the ordinances they came up with are just nice outward manifestations of belief. Or, conversely, perhaps God really did reveal to them that the only way He would confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost is by those to whom He has conferred His authority (also through the laying on of hands). The latter is what I adhere to, and (correct me if I'm wrong) what the church adheres to. Thus, to me, it doesn't seem like the point of debate is whether God can give the Holy Ghost to Whom he chooses. The point of debate is whether Joseph Smith--and the prophets after him--really were called of God. If they were, and if God doesn't contradict Himself (why would He say that He only gives the Gift of the Holy Ghost to those that have received it by authority if He really didn't mean it?)--then the argument rests. Now, my question for you is that do you truly believe that this is God's only true church, that the First Vision did happen, and that the Book of Mormon is everything Joseph Smith claimed it is? I'm not asking this in an accusatory manner, but more out of curiosity. I recognize that this is a very personal question and if you choose not to answer I completely understand.
ReplyDeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteYou ask a lot of questions that deserve explanation and time. For now know that I doubt those basic assertions of the LDS Church concerning JS, BoM, Prophets, etc. I have been basically open that I have doubts from the very start of this blog so it is a bit surprising that this seems new. I am developing some of my other questions as we speak, but I really would like to frame them fairly, so they require some time. Specifically concerning the Church's monopoly of the Spirit of God, well, you can already tell where I stand. I find the Church's answers to be acceptable if you don't interact with other denominations (not just people of different denominations but the denominations themselves). My experience with others of different denominations and faiths has been so uplifting that to deny the reality of the Holy Spirit - the whole Holy Spirit - is to deny my heart and mind.
If this turns you off from reading my blog, I understand. I do hope that a healthy dose of doubt will be helpful for some, but I recognize that for others my responses are uncomfortable.
Request: Please do not start writing stuff about just needing to pray to know if it is true. That's a really shallow remark that assumes I don't pray and read my scriptures with enough fervor or address God asking the 'right' questions. I am searching, pondering, and praying. My searching extends beyond the LDS walls and Deseret Books. Does yours? If you choose not to answer, I understand.
Firstly, I want to thank you for pointing out the shallowness of my remark about your just needing to pray. It truly was shallow on my part. It is easy to play backseat driver in others lives, but I've found that whenever I try, I learn more and more how absurd it is to think that there are simple answers for the things others are going through.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question about searching beyond the LDS walls and Deseret Books--the truth is that I haven't extended my search much. While I recognize the worth in doing so, at this point in my life, I prefer to discover the truth of these doctrines (and the doctrines themselves) by studying them directly. Perhaps once I get a stronger grasp of them I'll venture to other works, but at this point I wish to spend the few precious moments I have each day to devote to theological study to studying the core LDS works.
Lastly, I just wanted to comment that in your blog posts I would really appreciate it if you included both sides of the issues. I feel like you're taking the worst of Mormonism and comparing it to the standard Christ established. Yes, there are lots of Mormons out there who are misguided, and yes there are alternate interpretations of our doctrine, but to be fair to your non-LDS readers, I think it would be good to include the "rest of the story", so to speak.
Having said all this, I wanted to thank you for the kindness you always show. While we may not see eye to eye on everything, I appreciate the love you show to those around you, myself included. As you have pointed out, at the end of the day, these doctrinal points will have little importance if we haven't mastered the "simple" act of loving each other.
Will,
ReplyDeleteI am working on a post in which I attempt to provide both sides of the story. This takes longer, so you may have to wait a bit.
I should point out that this blog is not about providing a perfectly objective approach to ... anything. In my opinion, objectivity is not obtainable and is only an unachievable ideal. No one is objective, so if your request to provide both sides of the story is asking me to be objective, the reality is no one can. I will however try to provide sources for both sides of the argument as best I can, but I also appreciate the resources others bring to the table.
I can only provide you my perspective and right now it is not as positive as most stalwart LDS people. Opinion blogs should never be read with the idea that you are getting the full story. It's a blog, and the blog format has extreme limits. I have made it clear that my perspective is one perspective of many and not representative of them all. Any reader should know that. My questions (the bulk I still haven't even touched) are serious ones that, I am sorry, may not present the church in its best light. Really, that's okay. If you want to see the church in its pristine beauty, go to lds,org. Or if you would like to reply to my posts with a more positive perspective, awesome. It's a needed voice and is welcomed. The 'rest of the story' is our dialogue.
Why won't Christians accept Mormons as Christians?
ReplyDeleteThere are many answers:
1) For the same reasons the LDS Church won't accept Fundamentalists as LDS. (Read that again and really think about it, please.)
2) Even if you define "Christian" so broadly as "following Christ" then you still have the problem of the different Christ that is taught by Mormons. If you follow something different than the majority definition or identification of Jesus then you should not seek to be called by the same name. If you think you follow the Real Jesus, then call yourselves the Real Christians. If you want to sound less arrogant, then call yourselves Mormon Christians. But simply "Christian" is dishonest.
3) Christians are commanded to disfellowship with rebels and teachers of falsehood. What is disfellowship, but the negation of group identification?
4) For a group who has done their best to differentiate from Christianity, to pridefully deny that they are (regular) Christians, and demonized the group, it seems at least inappropriate, probably dishonest, and a bit two-faced.
5) The LDS Church has trademarked their Church name and even the name Mormon. While not legally bound, simply by time and population, Christians have the right to deny their name to others, as well. ["'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,' 'Liahona,' 'Book of Mormon,' and 'Mormon' are trademarks of Intellectual Reserve, Inc." - https://www.lds.org/legal/terms?lang=eng]
6) Being a Non-LDS Christian gets you no closer to the Father than being a moral atheist in LDS soteriology. If the LDS Church teaches that Christians are no better off than atheists, that God thinks so, then Christians might be a little uncooperative when the LDS Church wants to be known as (simply) "Christian".
7) Maybe Christians won't accept the LDS Church, and by relation its members, as Christian because the LDS Church teaches that Non-LDS professed "Christians" are at least deceived followers of Satan, paid and willing followers of Satan, completely wrong about their sense of being baptized with the Holy Spirit, completely wrong about their Holy Spirit given testimony of Christ, wrong about God's pleasure in them, and basically every other way that a Christian is a Christian. So, despite individual's claims that they don't think Christians are not Christians, the LDS Church, in basically every doctrine, denies "Christian" to traditional Non-LDS Christians.
or...
Or Systematically:
ReplyDelete1) "Christian" comes from a Latin term for "little christ". It has become part of the believer's taking on the Name of Jesus. It is a duty of the believer to defend the Name of Jesus from those who would use it for something other than who He was and is. This cuts both ways - this means LDS (as they believe they know the True Jesus) should defend Him and the use of His Name in the world and declare traditional Christians not Christians. But instead they want to lump them together no matter what they believe about Jesus. As long as His name is in the name of your church, you can be called a Christian. (I HATE it when LDS members use this reasoning. It's condescending and flippant (not something one should generally be about God).)As long as you say you believe in the historical Jesus, it doesn't matter what you believe or teach about Him. This works for academics that have to be impartial, but it doesn't for those dedicated to the Truth and the honoring of God.
2) Christian is a term that has meaning. For LDS to want to use that term for themselves after their leaders have abused and hurled such venom against it, is incredible.
3) Christian is a term for a group. The entire group has been mocked, scorned, demonized, and more by the founder and leaders consistently for the entire history of the LDS Church. To want to try to be part of that group or associated with that group is the height of ... something for which I can't think of the word right now.
4) "Christian", given that there are other groups that use that term, and groups treated as 2 and 3 indicate, is a dishonest nomenclature for LDS. No LDS should simply say "I'm Christian" and leave it at that. To respect the other groups, to respect one's own church's teachings and history, there must be some qualifier "LDS", "Mormon", "Only True".
5) Lastly, for all the reasons above, Christians, at least those familiar with the beliefs, teachings, and history of the LDS Church, including recent history, are well aware of the way that the LDS Church can sound very Christian (God, Father, Jesus, Holy Ghost/Spirit, Salvation, Sacrifice, Heaven, Sin, Transgression, Temple, etc.). But they know that these terms all mean very different things than traditional Christians mean by them. Christians who are very concerned about the salvation of Mormons are consistently outraged by professed-Christians hearing these terms and not knowing the difference and begin attending and supporting an institution that these Christians beleive to be diametrically opposed to the True God and His Gospel. So it is no surprise that such Christians are vehemently opposed to that Institution attempting to use another term, the very name of a believer, Christian, in a sense totally different than its "correct" one.
What it boils down to is that LDS and traditional Christians are both Christian in the broadest definition - they both claim to follow the actual Jesus. (Every term and doctrine is different between the two, otherwise.) So each must specify what type of follower of "Jesus" they are - traditional (more likely to be the assumed definition by those non-LDS, non-traditional Christians that hear the term) or LDS.
Finally, two more.
If LDS feel it is important that they are the "only true church" then they should be equally concerned about being the "only true christians".
What would you say about someone who claims everything about your "testimony" (your experience, the content, your identity from it) is completely false and then proceeds to claim to be the thing your testimony said you were?
Travis said, "I am afraid that the Christian world will never accept us because our actions show that we do not accept them in their expression of faith in Jesus Christ. It seems that they are willing to give us just as much as we are willing to give them."
ReplyDeleteI think Travis, you're accepting a double standard here, i.e. that it's ok that Christians specifically single Mormons out because of doctrinal differences and we believe that we're the only true church, but We Mormons accept that other faiths (many of whom also think they're the only true church) can decide for themselves if they are Christian or not, despite the fact that many of them think we're on the highway to hell. Why is that something that you're willing to accept? We let other faiths describe themselves as Christian and accept their self-definition, even though they condemn us to hell. They should do the same, period. Your proposed "solution" sounds like an abdication of everything that makes us unique.
spartacus, I don't know what particular faith or church you profess, but you are probably aware that there are many churches that believe that they alone possess the totality of saving truth and are the unique vehicle to salvation. The catholic church could be convicted of at least the majority of accusations that you make against mine:
Catholic http://www.catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church
One quote here insists that there is no "Holy Spirit" outside the catholic church
(And as a side note, you can read there at the bottom a quote from Fulgentius that they believe that every baptism performed in the world by anyone is by definition a type of communion with the Catholic church, though not a full communion required to be saved. How many people have I heard in this blog and elsewhere express their offense that Mormons are baptized for others vicariously, and how do they react to the news that the Catholic church co-opts the baptism performed by their Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian minister as, in truth, a Catholic sacrament? It would sure be a lot less work for us Mormons if we simply did the same.)
I could go on that the Catholics have strange unique doctrines about Christ (transsubstantiation, for instance). Nevertheless, given this, spartacus, would you exclude the Catholic Church from your definition of a Christian faith for the same reason you exclude The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS?
I hope I'm not setting a double standard, but if I am, I apologize. I think the point I was trying to make is that we do not accept other Christians as authentic. If we did we would feel no need to proselytize them. So, by our actions we show that we are not just another denomination wanting acceptance to the whole of Christianity, but instead that we are the true Christianity. So yes, other denominations can declare themselves as Christians just as we do, but in order for other Christians to actually accept the LDS church as Christian we will need to start accepting them. I am not making any statement on the self-designations, simply more about acceptance between faith groups.
DeleteI don't think you're on a highway to hell :)
Delete1) I suppose some in the Catholic Church believe that Reformers and Protestants (a kind of LDS Fundamentalist equivalent) are not Christians. But I haven't come across that. So unsure about this one. (so we have 0 same for catholicism, 0 not same, 1 unknown)
ReplyDelete2) Catholics do not identify a different Jesus than other non-LDS mainstream Christians. So this doesn't fit Catholics. (0 same, 1 not, 1 unknown)
3) If I knew more about Catholic official teachings, I might say that the Catholic institution should be disfellowshipped and considered not Christian. But I don't. However I do know enough about the LDS institution to know that it is not Christian and has rightfully never been fellowshipped. I do want to say that in both Catholicism and Mormonism, I differentiate completely the members vs. the institution. So I completely concede that there may be LDS or Catholics that are justifiably "Christian". So this one might work for Catholicism. (1 possibly same, 1 not, 1 unknown)
4) This one isn't really equatable with Catholicism. Since Catholicism was the incumbent, and Reformers and Protestants the reactionaries, it doesn't quite match LDS reaction to Protestantism/all Christianity. For this one to even try to work for Catholics they would have to claim that they are Protestants. This doesn't happen. (1 possibly same, 2 not, 1 unknown)
5) Catholics and Protestants have agreed that they are exclusive of eachother insofar as one is Catholic and the other is Protestant. There certainly are Protestants that say that Catholicism is not Christian. There probably are Catholics who say that Protestants are not. But again, this is not synonymous. It would have to be Protestants saying that they are Catholic. That doesn't happen. (1same,3not,1unknown).
6) This will come up again - Catholicism, like LDS, relying on authoritative salvation-dependent works, may claim that all non-Catholic claimed-christians are going to end up like atheists. But, again, my ignorance doesn't allow me to confirm this. If, however, as your link said with Fulgentius = baptisms communioning with Catholic church (how it can be not save-worthy but still communioning is hard to grasp) then it would seem that non-Cath/Christians are not equally damned as atheists - there, at least, being levels to Hell. In LDS, however, belief in Christ does not differentiate the ethical non-LDS christian from the ethical atheist- they are equally damned, though put in a nice place to be damned because of their ethical living. So I don't think this quite matches for Catholicism-at least they respect non-Cath's attempts at believing in Christ. (1same,4not,1unknown)
7) Again, I suppose that Catholicism could teach that non-Cath "Christians" are completely deceived, that their pastors are paid by Satan (no-that's uniquely LDS), wrong about baptism-sure, not at all wrong about testimony of Christ-but wrong about salvation/gospel, wrong about pleasure-sure. There was a lot in this one- I count 3 possibly same (if I add in the "gospel" difference), 2 not, 1 unknown so I'll call it a draw. (1 same, 4 not, 1unknown(maybe 2))
Systematically
Delete1) Catholics don't have this "lumping" advocacy. So no. (1-5-1)
2) Again, not applicable to Catholics.
3) Not applicable.
4) Catholics actually do self-differentiate. They call themselves Catholics, or Catholic Christians, or true Christians. This is all I ask of LDS. So no. (1-8-1)
5) Catholics and Non-LDS Christians compare on these sample terms as follows: God-same, Father-same, Jesus-same, Holy Ghost/Spirit-same, Salvation-same, Sacrifice-same, Heaven-same, Sin-same, Transgression-same, Temple-same(maybe). So no. (1-9-1) [Ways they seem most likely to differ would be, not the description of salvation, but (maybe) the means of saving (faith/works), priesthood, baptism, communion-but this is far less than the number of differently defined terms between Caths/Christians and LDS)-so no.
So thats 1 that is only possibly the same, 9 that are not, and 1 or 2 that are unknown (if you include the 7's ambiguity). This is no where near "at least the majority of accusations that [I made] against [your church]." In fact, the best I can give you is 3-9 (the 3 made up of 1,3,&7) or 3-6 (if I get rid of the non-equatables of 4,2,&3). So, again, barely even 33%, let alone "at least the majority."
In the end, at least Catholics and non-Catholic Christians can both agree on the historical person whom they worship-His parents, His deity, His marital status/stati, His teachings (content if not meaning), etc. Everything else (different) comes from their understanding of that same person's "content"-teachings, meaning of actions.
In the end, though, it wouldn't matter if I thought Catholicism (the institution) was not Christian. That wouldn't change my issue with LDS claiming they are "christian" without a qualifier. Again, Catholics already do this qualification.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't know where you are coming from with the "many churches that believe that they alone possess the totality of saving truth and are the unique vehicle to salvation." If you want to point me to some official church (and I don't mean the LDS church's) statements/explanations, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I just see this as the usual LDS belief thrown out as fact.
Evidence contrary to this assertion would be the whole "evangelical" movement - multiple denominations (LDS call them "churches") working together under their common goal - the spreading of the gospel(which they just happen to agree upon being "the" gospel).
Just to review, the ONLY way that one can say that the LDS institution is Christian like other Christian groups is that they all CLAIM to believe in a historical guy named "Jesus" who lived and preached in the land of the Israelites and had an adoptive father by the name of Joseph, and a biological mother Mary. Between Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians there are many, many more equal terms/beliefs/etc., but quite possibly NO other equal terms/beliefs/etc. with LDS. (certainly not significant ones-terms/beliefs where you wouldn't have to add a big "but...".)