Members of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians.
They worship God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ. When asked
what the Latter-day Saints believe, Joseph Smith said: “The fundamental
principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles & prophets
concerning Jesus Christ, ‘that he died, was buried, and rose again the third
day, and ascended up into heaven;’ and all other things are only appendages to
these, which pertain to our religion.” The modern-day Quorum of the 12 Apostles
reaffirmed that testimony when they proclaimed, “Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. … His way
is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world
to come.” In recent decades, however, some have claimed that The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church. The most oft-used
reasons are the following:
1. Latter-day
Saints do not accept the creeds, confessions, and formulations of post–New
Testament Christianity. Scholars have long acknowledged that the view
of God held by the earliest Christians changed dramatically over the course of
centuries. Early Christian views of God were more personal, more
anthropomorphic, and less abstract than those that emerged later from the
creeds written over the next several hundred years. The key ideological shift
that began in the second century A.D., after the loss of apostolic authority,
resulted from a conceptual merger of Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy.
Whatever the
doctrinal differences that exist between the Latter-day Saints and members of
other Christian religions, the roles Latter-day Saints ascribe to members of
the Godhead largely correspond with the views of others in the Christian world.
Latter-day Saints believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving,
and they pray to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father
as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the
Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. In short,
Latter-day Saints do not accept the post-New-Testament creeds yet rely deeply
on each member of the Godhead in their daily religious devotion and worship, as
did the early Christians.
2. The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not descend through the historical
line of traditional Christianity. That is, Latter-day Saints are not Roman
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. Latter-day Saints Believe in a Restored Christianity. Latter-day Saints believe that by the
ministering of angels to Joseph Smith priesthood authority to act in God's name
was returned or brought back to earth. This is the “restored,” not a
“reformed,” church of Jesus Christ. The Latter-day Saint belief in a restored
Christianity helps explain why so many Latter-day Saints, from the 1830s to the
present, have converted from other Christian denominations. These converts did
not, and do not, perceive themselves as leaving the Christian fold; they are
simply grateful to learn about and become part of the restored Church of Jesus
Christ, which they believe offers the fulness of the Lord’s gospel, a more
complete and rich Christian church—spiritually, organizationally, and
doctrinally.
Members of creedal
churches often mistakenly assume that all Christians have always agreed and
must agree on a historically static, monolithic collection of beliefs. As many
scholars have acknowledged, however, Christians have vigorously disagreed about
virtually every issue of theology and practice through the centuries, leading
to the creation of a multitude of Christian denominations.5 Although
the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differs from
that of the many creedal Christian churches, it is consistent with early
Christianity. One who sincerely loves, worships, and follows Christ should be
free to claim his or her understanding of the doctrine according to the
dictates of his or her conscience without being branded as non-Christian.
3. Latter-day
Saints do not believe scripture consists of the Holy Bible alone but have an expanded canon of scripture that includes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Latter-day
Saints Believe in an Open Canon.
For those making this
argument, to be a Christian means to assent to the principle of sola scriptura, or the self-sufficiency of the Bible. But to claim that the Bible is the sole and
final word of God—more specifically, the final written word of God—is to claim
more for the Bible than it claims for itself. Nowhere does the Bible proclaim
that all revelations from God would be gathered into a single volume to be
forever closed and that no further scriptural revelation could be received. Moreover, not all Christian churches are
certain that Christianity must be defined by commitment to a closed
canon. In truth, the argument for exclusion by closed canon appears to be
used selectively to exclude the Latter-day Saints from being called Christian.
No branch of Christianity limits itself entirely to the biblical text in making
doctrinal decisions and in applying biblical principles. Roman Catholics, for
example, turn to church tradition and the magisterium (meaning teachers,
including popes and councils) for answers. Protestants, particularly
evangelicals, turn to linguists and scripture scholars for their answers, as
well as to post–New Testament church councils and creeds. For many Christians,
these councils and creeds are every bit as canonical as the Bible itself. To
establish doctrine and to understand the biblical text, Latter-day Saints turn
to living prophets and to additional books of scripture—the Book of Mormon,
Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.
Together with the
Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon supports an unequivocal testimony of
Jesus Christ. One passage says that the Book of Mormon “shall establish the
truth” of the Bible “and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people,
that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the
world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.”8 In its more than six thousand verses, the Book of Mormon refers to Jesus
Christ almost four thousand times and by over one hundred different names:
“Jehovah,” “Immanuel,” “Holy Messiah,” “Lamb of God,” “Redeemer of Israel,” and
so on.9 The Book of Mormon is indeed “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” as its
title page proclaims.
Conclusion
While members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no desire to compromise
the distinctiveness of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, they wish to work
together with other Christians—and people of all faiths—to recognize and remedy
many of the moral and family issues faced by society. The Christian
conversation is richer for what the Latter-day Saints bring to the table. There
is no good reason for Christian faiths to ostracize each other when there has
never been more urgent need for unity in proclaiming the divinity and teachings
of Jesus Christ.
Are Mormons
Christians? Stephen Robinson, 1991. - New Era, May, 1998
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.
But remember that the spirit of contention is always un-Christian (D&C 10:63).
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:
1. Exclusion by special definition- 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, 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.
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.
2. Exclusion by misrepresentation- 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.
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.
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.”
4. Exclusion by tradition- 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.
5. The canonical or biblical exclusion- 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.
6. The doctrinal exclusion- 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. 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.
7. 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. 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. (Adapted from the book Are Mormons Christians? Bookcraft, 1991.)
How Wide the Divide? A Mormon & an
Evangelical in Conversation, Craig L. Blomberg & Stephen E. Robinson, 1997. Bridging the Divide- The Continuing
Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical, Dr. Robert L. Millet and Rev. Gregory C.V. Johnson,
2007. 1. The Only True Church. 2.
Creeds 3. The Fall; the Nature of
Humankind 4. Cheap Grace 5. Falling from Grace? 6. Works Righteousness 7. The Need for Authority 8. The Place of Ordinances
(Sacraments) 9. The Nature of God; God and Man
Ben Witherington
recently posted the following essay on Patheos: “Why Mormonism is not Christianity–
the Issue of Christology.” It seems a
perennial Evangelical claim, that, unfortunately never seems to actually engage
Mormon response.
There he gives 6 reasons
why he believes Mormons are not Christians. While I have enjoyed Professor
Witherington’s biblical scholarship, I’m afraid his understanding of Mormonism is
inadequate. I’ll examine each of his six claims.
While there are many
reasons why Evangelical Christians of all stripes might disagree with Mormon
theology, perhaps the most important of these is Christology and the related
matter of soteriology. … (the study of religious doctrines of
salvation)
1. Mormons are
polytheists, not monotheists. That is, they believe that the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are three separate beings, thus denying the essential
monotheistic statements of both the OT and NT that God is One. Of course, Jews
and Muslims would deny that Christians are monotheists because we believe in
the Trinity. The problem here is not a question of the oneness of God, which
Mormons affirm, it is a question of the nature of that oneness. Mormons
believe that the Trinity is of one will, broadly comparable to Social
Trinitarian concepts. Be that as it may, the reality is that most Christians,
including most Evangelicals, would be unable to accurately explain the Nicene
Creed and its concept of Trinity, even if they affirmed it in theory. Are none
of them Christians? Was a medieval peasant not a Christian because he couldn’t
recite, let alone understand, the Nicene Creed? Must one affirm the Nicene
concept of the Trinity to be a Christian? Or must one affirm that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God?
2. Mormons, thus, not
surprisingly, deny the doctrine of the Trinity, calling it an amalgam of Greek
ideas with Biblical ideas. … Mormons see the ecumenical councils which produced
the Nicean creed or the Apostle’s Creed or the Chalcedonian creed as in essence
contradictory to what Scripture teaches.
Quite true. Mormons reject
the authority of the ecumenical councils, as necessarily did all Christians
during the first three centuries after Jesus. The theological and historical
problems of these councils are numerous–see, for example, J. Jenkins, Jesus
Wars (HarperCollins, 2010)–which certainly present real doubt about their
inspired nature. And their dependency on non-biblical Hellenistic philosophical
terminology and beliefs is undeniable. (Where does one find homoousios
in the Bible? The concept actually originated among the Gnostics.) But the real
question is: were the followers of Jesus before Nicaea Christians? They
certainly were. Yet none of them affirmed the Nicene creed. If Jesus’ original
apostles didn’t believe in the Nicene creed, why must Mormons? The Nicene Creed
was developed precisely because early Christians strongly disputed these
Christological questions. Furthermore, if the councils are authoritative, and
affirmation of their creeds a requirement for Christianity, why do Evangelicals
reject the theotokos doctrine and veneration of Mary established by the
council of Ephesus in 431? Do Evangelicals get to pick and choose which parts
of the ecumenical councils one has to believe to be a Christian? And what of
the monophysite churches (Syriac, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Armenian) who also
reject the council of Chalcedon (451)? Are they not Christians? That path leads
to historical absurdity.
3. Mormons believe that
even God the Father has, and apparently, needs a body, denying that God in the
divine nature is spirit. Indeed they believe that God the Father is an exalted
man!
We believe the Father has
a body, not that he is a body. But, for Mormons, the Father is equally
spirit. If the incarnate Christ can be God while having a body, why is that
problematic for the Father? At any rate, it is quite clear that the Bible
describes the Father as anthropomorphic, sitting, having a right hand,
speaking, etc. And many early Christians believed exactly that. (D. Paulsen,
“Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant
Witnesses” Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (April 1990): 105-116. See also
Paulsen’s online treatment.) Evangelicals may allegorize anthropomorphic
passages of the Bible if they wish; but we Mormons won’t say they are therefore
not Christians because of their rejection of this clear biblical doctrine.
4. Just as they believe
that the early church became apostate, they also believe the Bible as we have
it is not inerrant or always truthful and trustworthy, even on major issues
like Christology, and therefore needs to be supplemented (and corrected) by
subsequent prophetic revelation in documents like the Book of Mormon, or even
The Pearl of Great Price.
There are several
questions to unpack here. First, what is the Bible? Is it the Protestant Bible?
Are the Catholics and Greek Orthodox not Christians because they accept the
deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament? What of the Ethiopian Bible, which
includes the Book of Enoch and Jubilees? Are the Ethiopians therefore not
Christians? And what of the Bible of Jesus? It included only the Old
Testament–the earliest Christians could not affirm the New Testament as
scripture because it did not exist at the time; it was probably not formally
compiled until a century after Jesus and not canonized until the late fourth
century. Obviously, then, one can be a Christian without even believing in the
New Testament.
Second, is the Bible inerrant?
From a historical and textual perspective, the only possible answer is no.
There are clear contradictions in the Bible, and many cases of uncertain
textual variants. There are also scientific errors of all sorts. Note, however,
that Mormons don’t maintain that the Christology of the Bible is false. We
believe it has been interpreted so many different ways by so many theologians
and churches that it alone is insufficient.
Third, is the Bible
sufficient? While Evangelicals claim that it is in theory, the fact of the
matter is, practically speaking, it is not. The thousands of Christian
denominations point to this most obvious fact. (See: C. Smith, The Bible
Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture,
Brazos, 2011). The fact that Witherington must turn to the Nicene Creed to
define his understanding of the Trinity indicates that the Bible alone is not
sufficient on this topic. If it were, we wouldn’t have needed a Nicene Creed.
But the real question is:
must one believe in the inerrancy of the Bible to be a Christian. The fact of
the matter is that many Christians, perhaps even most Christians, do not
believe in biblical inerrancy. While this may mean they are not Evangelicals
(though many Evangelicals also reject inerrancy), it cannot mean they are not
Christians.
5. In terms of
soteriology, Mormons deny the sufficiency of Christ’s death for salvation. They
suggest, as the linked article says, that each of us must do all we can and
then trust in the mercy of God. In other words, the de facto position is that
Mormonism is to a significant degree a works religion even when it comes to
salvation. If this is true, it must mean Jesus himself was not a Christian (Mk.
10:17-22). While this criteria may mean Mormons are not Evangelicals, it cannot
mean we are not Christians, unless one wants to claim that Catholics and
Orthodox are not Christians either. Must one affirm the tenants of the
Protestant reformation merely to be a Christian? Really?
6. The goal of Mormon
soteriology is that we all become as ‘gods’ become both immortal and divine,
blurring the creator/creature distinction which was already badly blurred by a
theology that suggested that God is actually a sort of uber-human being, with
less flaws. One rather familiar teaching is ‘as God was, so we are. As God is,
so we shall be’.
Although Protestants
reject Deification, it is nonetheless a widely believed ancient Christian
doctrine, and still is among the Greek Orthodox. (Are Greek Orthodox to be
expelled from Christianity as well?) Here is a bibliography of recent books on
Christian deification: (Over 30 books cited)
The concept of deification
is based in part on John 17: 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them
also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one;
as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one 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 one, even as we are one: 23
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that
the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast
loved me. However one wants to interpret this passage, it is declaring that the
disciples can be one with the Father and Son, just as they Father and Son are
one with each other. That is the essence of deification as understood by
Mormons.
In summary, none of
Witherington’s 6 criteria stand as coherent reasons to deny that Mormons are
Christians. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. That should be
sufficient. That we are not Evangelicals, nor Nicene Christians, nor Catholics,
we readily affirm. But this is an obvious category fallacy. The fact that dogs
are mammals cannot mean that non-dogs are not mammals. Dogs, lions, and horses
are all mammals; and dogs cannot say to horses: “you are not a mammal” any more
than Evangelicals can say to Mormons, “you are not Christians.” Christian is a
genus of which Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics, Ethiopians, etc. are all
species. Much as they would like to pretend otherwise, Evangelicals do not have
a copyright on the name Christian. It applies to all followers of Jesus
in their thousands of denominations. If Witherington wants to call me a
heretic, that’s fine. But I’m a Christian heretic.
One is not a Christian
because of acceptance of the Nicene Creed, nor an inerrant Bible, nor salvation
by faith alone. One is a Christian because one believes that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, and tries, however poorly, to live as his disciple.
