I think that there are two separate issues here.

First, are LDSs Christian and should they call themselves Christian?

Second, is ecumenism between LDSs and “mainstream” Christians (by which I mean, in essence, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Evangelicals – I should point out here that there is a lot of disagreement between these groups as to which groups are “truly Christian,” but I will avoid getting into that right now) possible, as ThomasJayKemp seems to imply?

For the first issue, I would say that they are not Christian, because I believe that their theology is not Christian. However, I don’t have a problem with them thinking of themselves or referring to themselves as Christian, because obviously if their beliefs were correct, they would not just be Christians but would be the most theologically sound Christians, and obviously LDSs are going to think that their faith is the correct one (they would have to be pretty stupid to believe in a faith that they thought was the wrong one, to paraphrase Archie Bunker).

On the other hand, in a debate about LDSism vs. “mainstream” Christianity, I probably would not explain my theological differences simply as “Christianity vs. LDSism,” as phrasing it in terms that asserts that LDSism is not Christianity begs the question.

As for ThomasJayKemp’s (first) post, I think his assertions are wrong. He essentially says that LDSs are misrepresented, are “mainstream” Christians, and that their reverence for Jesus (as they understand Him) and their traditional values ought to ward off any doubts as to their faith.

But the fact of the matter is, as RedPhillips points out, and as a lot of the LDS posters acknowledge, is that regardless of the similarities between LDSs and “mainstream” Christians, the thelogical differences are far too large to simply paper over.

I appreciate the difficulty Mormons have in relation to Jesus and Christianity. Internally, amongst one another, I don’t have an objection to Mormons thinking of themselves as Christians, even as a more genuine form of Christian than the rest of the world. But to expect others to acknowledge them as Christians in the generally accepted sense of the word is just irrational and unrealistic. It’s not going to happen for very good reasons, as others here have pointed out.

There are a number of radical religious sects that have their own ideas about Jesus that fall way outside the mainstream. I’d point to the “A Course in Miracles” followers, who consider a channeled text written by a secular Jewish psychologist in the 1960′s to be the real teaching of Jesus, even though it openly contradicts much of the Bible and much of Christianity. I’ve read some of it, and some of the Book of Mormon, and if I had to choose which was more likely genuine, I’d pick A Course in Miracles. And yet, the notion that either book is the “authentic Christian teaching” is simply absurd. ACIM followers like to think of themselves as Christians, even the genuine article, but no one else does, and no one else ever will. Likewise, only Mormons will ever consider Mormonism a genuine form of Christianity, regardless of how highly they regard Jesus.

That doesn’t mean Mormonism, or ACIM, can’t be a genuine religion that attributes its origins to Jesus and acknowledges that he plays special role in God’s work. But nothing in what remains of Jesus’ historical teachings even remotely resembles the teachings of Joseph Smith. So it can’t rationally be called a form of Christianity, since Jesus didn’t teach it (at least according to the historical record). Creating an alternative Jesus and an alternative teaching that is mystically attributable to Jesus does not make one a Christian. It makes one something else. If you prefer that alternative and believe it is true, then by all means practice it. But don’t demand that others acknowledge your religion as a Christian one. They won’t, and you will have to recognize that you chose to depart from the Christian tradition, even in pursuit of what you think the true teachings of Jesus were. You can’t expect that tradition to pat you on the head and welcome you into the fold. It didn’t happen to Joseph Smith, and it won’t happen for the Mormon church unless it renounces the teaching of Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon, which makes the case moot.

The more realistic route for Mormons to take is to simply accept their status as a minority religion, just as Judaism or Islam is in this country, and not press for acceptance into the Christian mainstream.In fact, the more Mormons try to present themselves as the true Christians, the more they will be rejected by Christians. This is not unexpected.

Thomas Jay Kemp writes:

“I knew many ministers at the time (mid 1960s) and they were of multiple opinions about Christ – but all of them pretty much agreed that Christ was just a man – that the entire concept of him as divine was added by writers later to add mystery to his teachings. They felt that their task, mission was a social gospel of ministering through actions – to encouarge, lift and improve the lives of the people they served. They considered the idea of Christ being divine as a discarded old fashioned notion.”

This means that TJKemp was raised a non-Christian in a heretical sect and continued to operate in heretical circles until he settled into the most bizarre heresy available to him, all the while confusing the various heterodoxies to which he was exposed with “mainstream” Christianity. TJKemp is either badly deluded about the vast majority of Christian churches or he is intentionally misleading readers. There are over a billion Cathlolics in this world, several hundred million Orthodox of various nationalities and denominations, and several hundred million Protestants of varying stripes. With few exceptions, TO A MAN these people would consider the rejection of the divinity of Christ and the trinity as apostasy. The only denominations who even toy with the rejection of Christ’s divinity are the extremely liberal wings of the Episcopaleans, who are also the only denomination that would toy with recognizing Mormonism as Christian, and for whom it is just a matter of time before they are themselves spurned by those who adhere to the doctrines. The process is already underway.

The doctrinal differences between the LDS are drastic to the point where they aren’t in the same theological Universe. Tell us, TJKemp, what exactly is Our Heavenly Mother? How was God a man on Earth before he became God? If that is the case, how was the Earth created? When do we get to reclaim our station as gods and godesses? Furthermore, what basis can possibly be constructed to argue that these absurd fantasies are any closer to the original Church than the allegedly compromised visions of the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants?

Furthermore, the problems with Mormonism do not stop with doctrinal differences. Mormonism is based on the private revelations of a certain Joseph Smith, which include historical absurdities and outright inventions of Nephites, Lehi, Moroni, and heaven-knows-what else. There is no witness to this revelation save for a sucker, Martin Harris, whom Smith took for all he was worth, as well as a couple of other credulous souls. This contradicts the spirit of both the Old and New Testaments, in which miraculous events are attested to by hundreds if not thousands. Christians understand that if Jesus were some dude issuing various proclamations he learned from looking into a hat, there would be no basis for believing in Him, just as there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe that the inventions of Joseph Smith were anything but fish stories. (Of course there are plenty of reasons to believe that Smith was the classic charlatan and that the LDS Texts are egregious fairy-tales.)

The Mormons believe the historical Early Church was corrupted by later developments, and they are right. However, if they were serious about doctrine, they would then turn to an Apostolic, communitarian movement, or at least base their sect on historical evidence on what the early Church was like. They would not invent stories whole cloth about Mephites etc. and produce doctrines more radical than anything Origen could have dreamed of.

I am not a Mormon. I ask the Mormons on this thread: even if Church doctrine is currently not perfectly authentic, what on earth compels me in any way to adopt the radical deviations of Joseph Smith? Why should I believe him, rather than Syung-Mun-Moon or one of the other ten million megalomaniacs who pretend they spoke with God? What evidence, witnesses, or testimonials does the LDS produce that would convince me?

Is it the wholesomeness of the Mormon life? Well, the thing is that the early Mormons were very much the aberrations in an otherwise rather pious country. It is only recently, with many reforms aimed at toning down the many eccentricities of Mormonism, that the tables have somewhat turned; but nonetheless, there are still, in absolute numbers, many more pious Protestants than pious Mormons, and the Christians who recognize Mormonism tend to be the most un-pious and unsound Christians around.

The LDS Church has adopted a credible Darwinian strategy for propagation, since it can make few converts. It’s amazing the lengths to which human credulity will go when some form of political identity is at stake.

You’re right that there are large differences in doctrine and practice between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity…but before you tell us to give up on the term, you need to understand that this argument against our “Christianity” is carried out at pulpits throughout the world and the meaning they give is different than the meaning you give. Our detractors try in every way to teach people that we do not believe in Christ…not just that we follow different cannon or traditions. To give up on the term “Christian” would be submitting to the argument that we do not believe in Christ. We do not consider ourselves a branch of traditional Christianity, but that is a different argument than whether or not we’re Christian.

Jews have a similar problem with Christians, except that at least Christians have the good sense not to think of themselves as a sect of Judaism, one that has the “truth” of Judaism that has somehow been lost by the historical Jews. I’m sympathetic to groups like Mormons who think the scriptures have been distorted over the years and that they have a better version of the “truth”. I just don’t see how such people can call themselves historical Christians, and demand that historical Christians acknowledge this about them. It’s never going to happen, because whatever the reality is behind these words, the words themselves mean something.

Historical Christianity means more than acknowledgment of Jesus. Hell, Hindus consider Jesus to be an Incarnation of Vishnu, the same as Krishna. Does that make them Christians? Of course not. Christianity is an historical tradition, like Judaism. Those who depart from that tradition, as Christians did from Judaism, don’t have the right to call themselves by the name of the tradition they have departed from. Christians don’t call themselves Jews, and Mormons shouldn’t call themselves Christians. They can do so if they want, but it doesn’t make sense to anyone else. Even if Mormons still venerate Jesus and consider him the sole path of salvation, they have departed from the Christian tradition in ways that are similar to how Christians departed from Jewish tradition, even though they still venerate the same God and acknowledge the same scriptural tradition. They added enough new scripture and new dogma to the Judaic tradition to be considered a new religion, not merely a sect of the old one. The same is true of Mormonism with the revelations of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

None of this means Mormons are bad people are even wrong. I’m not one of those people who thinks anyone knows truth for certain. I happen to find most Mormons wonderful people. Some of their ideas seem crazy to me, but so do some of the ideas of traditional Christians. Some of their ideas seem good to me, as do some of the ideas of traditional Christians. I’m not a traditional Christian myself, but I know what it means to be one, and it’s clear to me that Mormons are not within that tradition. That’s a choice they have made, and they have to live with it. I for one don’t believe the holy brotherhood of man excludes any religion, or anyone, but I understand that this is not an historically Christian belief, and I won’t pretend otherwise. But then again, even Jesus was not an historical Christian. He was a Jew. It was his followers who created historical Christianity and broke with Judaism, not Jesus himself. I’m not afraid to contradict Jesus’ followers, and I can acknowledge that what Jesus actually taught is probably not well preserved by his followers. So in my view “Christianity” is not the same as “what Jesus taught”, it is what his followers adopted and adapted from his teachings, and created in his name. That tradition is defined by the creeds of the various councils, such as Nicea. Stepping outside that tradition and asserting counter-truths is fine with me, but it’s not “Christianity” in any historical sense of the term. Mormons should openly acknowledge their departure from that tradition. One can claim to be a “Church of Jesus Christ”, and yet not be a Christian, just as one can worship Yahweh as God and not be a Jew (as is the case for Christians and Muslims). One can still say that Mormons are a branch of the Abrahamic faiths, just as Judaism, Chistianity, and Islam are, but it is its own branch, not a sub-branch of Christianity.

I know this blog is focused on foreign policy and sometimes presidential politics, but I would like to see a discussion about how the Declaration will help or hurt politicians outside the presidential race or Republicans in general for supporting/neutral/not supporting it.

I knew many ministers at the time (mid 1960s) and they were of multiple opinions about Christ – but all of them pretty much agreed that Christ was just a man – that the entire concept of him as divine was added by writers later to add mystery to his teachings. They felt that their task, mission was a social gospel of ministering through actions – to encouarge, lift and improve the lives of the people they served. They considered the idea of Christ being divine as a discarded old fashioned notion.

The church at the time even promoted a movie portraying Christ as a clown. The Sunday School manuals portrayed the familiar figures of the Bible as ordinary men with major imperfections – as a way of puncturing the idealism/beliefs of the “old school” approach.

This “he was just a man” approach is widespread among ministers even today. Yet – some writers here would accept members of these faiths as Christians – even though they only retain the name but not the beliefs and would reject Mormons as not believing in Christ – because they say so.

No such test is required within the fold of the old mainline denominations. The idea that he was just a man is “good enough” for membership in those faiths. Yet Mormons that assert that He is Divine – the Son of God, Savior and Redeemer of the world – and dedicate themselves to serving Him on full-time missions and a life time of service – at no pay – are rejected.

I would echo elbeau’s comment: “I’d rather leave the name-calling alone…I know I’m a Christian…everything else is just sticks and stones.”

He lives and because of His life, atonement and resurrection – so will we all.

Tom

We agree that Mormonism is not Christian in the sense that it is comparatively identified as Catholic or Protestant.

I believe the problem of identifying Mormonism within the Christian tradition arises out of the last few decades when Evangelical Churches have tried to reserve “Christian” to mean only a certain interpretation of the Bible.

The root word of Christianity is Christ. Mormons affirm that Jesus is the son of God and that the Old and New Testaments represents the life and teachings of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

What we are not is Trinitarians of the immaterial type.

We affirm the New Testament but reject the “creeds” that came in the 3rd, 4th and later centuries.

Christianity should include all those churches who believe in Jesus Christ.

Catholic and Protestants could be “Creedal or Trinitarian Christians”

Mormons could be “New Testament Christians”

What about those distinctions above? Better?

The reasons no Mormons have signed is twofold:

1. As pointed out by another commentor, we’re unwanted and unasked because it would drive away some of your flock to have to associate with us.

2. As pointed out by Red and others, we have theological differences with the 4th-century creeds about the trinity. I’m not looking for outside acceptance of whether or not I’m a Christian, I can answer that one for myself…I am. As a Mormon, I would not sign it because of its trinitarian reference. I’m sure that reference was put in so that more Catholic and orthodox members, as well as many protestants would sign, but it is exclusionary to Mormons. If you’re interested in a Mormon declaration or creed, please see our declaration on marriage and declaration on the divinity and atonement of Christ. They’re both modern and straightforward and our church not only authors them, but works with many other denominations to push forward what they espouse.

Can’t we all just get along? :)

I do have to say that evangelicals should not lose site of their beginnings remembering Luther, Calvin, Tyndale and many others. Around that time, 1520 AD, the Catholics were the “traditional religion” and the protestants were just beginning. Protestants were seen as “heretical”, a threat to “The Church” and definitely were not saved but would “burn in hell”. Sadly, many were killed for their beliefs. 500 years later they have become the “traditional religion”. It seems ironic to me that evangelicals have now climbed upon that perch previously occupied by the Catholics and have taken the same stance toward other religions including the Mormons. I wonder where the Mormons will be 500 years from their beginnings – 1830 AD? It is easy for me to say that when the roles are reversed and the Mormons are the “traditional religion” that they will follow the teachings of Christ and reach out to their brothers and sisters across the world, who have different beliefs, with a hand of fellowship, tolerance, service and love.

And finally, to put your mind at ease, when Mormons arise each morning they are as comfortable with their own feelings of being saved as you are in yours because of our faith in and acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ.

:

I would argue that if you asked a Jew or a Muslim whether Christians were monotheistic they would answere vehemently: NO! One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit is “trinity,” meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely appears to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.

The LDS church is not polytheistic. Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.

We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ – not glorious angels or Abraham or Moses or John the Baptist, no matter how great they may be in the kingdom of heaven as sons of God who have become “like Christ” (1 John 3:2). The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshiped – but the beings that Christ calls “gods” are not who we worship at all. In terms of worship, we are properly called monotheists.

This explains both our belief in the eternal progress of souls and the supremacy of God, and that if we have faith in Christ and keep his commandments we are to receive of [the Father's] fulness, and be glorified in [Christ] as [Christ] is glorified in the Father.

Additionally, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various commonly accepted Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled – including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin.

RedPhillips, the longer I live the less concerned I am about winning converts as much as I am about being understood. I cannot force you to think/believe a certain way, nor would I want to if I could. But I can ask you to objectively view what I am saying and take it for what it is, not what it is not. Hopefully there we will find understanding.

When analyzing the creeds and contrasting them to mormon thought there are distinctions to be made, but one is not monotheistic and the other polytheistic. Both have their intricacies and cannot be explained by one-word pejoratives. Of course we reject the creeds outright. But in our rejection of the creeds we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater and condemn any and all that believe them as un-Christian even though we claim that we have the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such an absurd assumption would reject so much good that is being done by those who profess a belief in Christ as the Son of God.

Please keep asking questions, the “mormon defenders” will respond as best they can.

etrosie, “common ground” will not save anyone’s immortal soul. Only the Truth will, and that Truth is found only within the “creedal Church” and as an evangelical Protestant I would add, as would many of the signers, that that Truth would also include the doctrine of sola fide.

I agree with you that people of faith must resist galloping secularism, but they must do so on an honest basis. Please re-read ThomasJayKemp’s post, which is what I was responding to, and tell me you don’t see the sleazy muddling of doctrine that I was complaining about.

TJK wrote: “the fact that Mormons are very much mainstream Christians.” Ummm… no they aren’t. Even if we grant that they are Christian in some way, which I don’t but JFTSOTA, they are no more mainstream than Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists.

I do agree that an understanding of the character and nature of God is fundamental to ones belief system and any religion that wants to grow will need to make sure that that is one of their foundational clarifications. We just claim that ours is the correct one.

Here is a statement that every missionary in the church understands perfectly well and teaches every convert but clarifies our position on deity.

“As man now is God once was and as God is now man may become” ~Joseph Smith

From your earlier comments I would suggest you will struggle with this one. {shrug} Do you see a plurality of Gods here?

So Mormons do teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved. That the “trinity” consists of three separate and distinct beings, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. All three are Gods but are one in spirit and in truth. We teach further that we are children of God the Father. That we lived as spirit children before we came to this earth to obtain physical bodies and that after we die we will live in a spirit world awaiting the resurrection from the dead. :)

Besides these doctrinal forays, I would suggest that instead of making offending statements that create angst between religions, that we would be better off finding common ground.

Given the current state of the world condition, where religion and values of all types are being driven underground, that we at least unite on that theme. It’s my sense that we are seeing the rise of secularism that will continue to grow in such a way that any belief in a “God” of whatever character and nature will be minimized and perhaps even criminalized at some point.

If Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindi’s and any people that believe in God will unite and work together we can reverse this trend, we must reverse this trend away from secularism. If there is some type of end of the world struggle it will be between these two forces. My opinion.

:

If I called myself a Hindu because I used certain Hindu language or had sprung from a Hindu milieu but was actually a monotheist, then I wouldn’t be a Hindu. Because monotheism is not what Hindus believe. If I did so out of ignorance then I would be a dolt. If I did so knowingly in order to gain a proximity to Hinduism that I don’t really have then I would be a dishonest charlatan attempting to mislead.

Also, some of you need to get your heads together on doctrine. Is Mormonism an exclusivistic religion that teaches “that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved” as etrosie asserts or is it an inclusivistic religion that “informs him (Romney) that all Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or ATHEISTS are LITERALLY his fellow created brothers and sisters and that all of mankind (except a few) have an eternal destiny with God according to the truth that they accepted on earth” as jalfair asserts?

I don’t doubt that Mormons will defend their doctrinal specifics if asked, but in my experience they do not lead with them. They lead with we are just another denomination of Christianity as ThomasJayKemp did. With doctrines so fundamentally at odds with historic Christian doctrine, why not lead with telling “creedal” Christians where they get it all wrong? In my experience Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, are quick to point out where they differ from “creedal” Christianity.

So no Christianity and Mormonism are not in the same phylum. We are not even in the same kingdom although most Mormons insinuate they are merely a subspecies.