So, recently I've been reading (as it seems I often do) complaints about the "Mormon" religion. Most recently I've run across one complaint that strikes me as particularly irksome. Don't get me wrong, I understand that a lot of people have a lot of hang-ups about my religion. I don't have a problem with that, I understand that there are plenty of confusing, ambiguous, and unexplained matters of LDS theology. But what I want I intend now to write about is not a matter of theology so much as a matter of common sense. Today my topic of choice is the assertion that Mormons are not, in fact, Christians.
As with any quasi-exhaustive explanation of mine, I begin with at least a handful of caveats (with the reserved right to include further caveats as I see fit further into the literature). The first is that, in an attempt to appeal to rationality rather than faith--or as Cicero may have put it, the logos over the pathos-- I will approach this from what I have recently termed a "third-theology" point of view. Which is to say, I will write it not as a "Mormon" but as a "Mormonologist" as it were. I'll attempt to remove my personal feelings from it as best I can. If you are LDS, don't get offended by this. It doesn't mean I don't believe what I'm talking about, it's just to aide those not of the same persuasion in understanding the argument.
To begin (and, more or less, to end) it is essential that we define a Christian. After we have done that, we can investigate whether or not the LDS fit the mold.
In this case, I'll appeal to a much greater mind than my own for our working definition. C.S Lewis:
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and indeed are forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word that we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouth's simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christian was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a questions of words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
I love the point that C.S Lewis makes here. The looser the definition of a word gets, the less useful it becomes. In order for the word "Christian" to mean anything, it's definition must be confined. So then, let us work from the definition presented by C.S Lewis, the first definition of Christian. It meant simply, someone who believes in Christ. We can expound on that someone to mean someone who believes in Christ and accepts him as the Savior of the world.
Mere Christianity: Preface, xiv-xv
Suddenly, every other defining factor becomes ancillary, and ultimately moot. Crosses and pews, clergy and psalms, do not a Christian make. If they did, then any Christian denomination should be biting at the bit to claim the definition for themselves. Understanding this (or at least accepting it for the sake of the argument), let's explore this a bit further.
The "Right" Christ
Those who say that Mormons aren't Christians, usually come with one of several prefabricated reasons. The first (which often percolates into hundreds of less consequential reasons) is that somehow or another, Mormons do not worship the "right" Christ.
This usually comes down to a matter of theology. If a pastor believes that Christ intended for man to understand that he need only profess Christ and he will be saved, it is understandable that he would rebuke the LDS for holding to the doctrine, "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." Christ is no political pundit, he doesn't change his opinions on issues of eternal significance. Obviously he would not want one group of people to believe that they need do no work for their own salvation, and then purposefully lead another group to a different conclusion. It is then reasonable to understand why the aforementioned pastor would accuse the Mormons of following a false Christ. But, taking Mormons out of the mix for a moment, couldn't the same be said for any "Christian" denomination? Denominations differ widely on hundreds of similar matters, from baptism, to sacraments, to obedience and personal responsibility. I doubt Christ's opinions vary as widely. Obviously Christ has one correct opinion on each of these matters. Therefore any of these denominations could accuse any other of similarly worshiping a false Christ, for holding to an alternate interpretation of a doctrine.
 |
| Apparently the interpretation here is that the apostles did a lot of swaying. |
The point is not that everyone is wrong, (though it can logically be inferred on many of these controversial matters of doctrine that most everyone is wrong to some degree) the point is that no one has the right to determine who worships the "right" Christ. All worship according to their understanding, and that is all that a reasonable human being can expect.
So let us do away with this "right" and "wrong" Christ business, and assume that, while interpretations vary, as long as we're talking about the Jesus Christ born around 6 B.C. we're all on the same page.
In summation of this point, I think it's fair to assume that while we can't say for certain who adheres to what Christ actually taught, one point of a Christian, will be someone who adheres to their perception of what Christ taught.
Pimp My Christianity
A more recent argument against The LDS being Christians actually places them on the opposite end of the spectrum. Rather than arguing that Mormons aren't Christian because they don't come close enough to Christ, they argue that Mormons have taken it too far. They've modified Christianity so much that what they have can no longer be construed as Christianity. The comparison goes something like this.
Jews are those who read and adhere to the Torah, (the first six books of the Old Testament). Add a book to that (the New Testament) and you've got Christians. While Christians might be comfortable calling themselves Jews, since they believe everything the Jews believe, Jews probably wouldn't be comfortable calling them that. Just because you say your in the club, doesn't mean its members want you in it. Likewise, Christianity is those who read and adhere to the Bible, add a book to that (The Book of Mormon) and you have Mormons. The cycle repeats, Mormons think they're Christians, but Christians might not be too keen on letting them use the label. Never mind the fact that "Christians" aren't the ones who started the club, the analogy has a few flaws.
While some Christians may believe that the New Testament is to the Old Testament as Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is to the Bible, there seems to be a key difference.
Christians don't believe Judaism "and then some." The Christ's teaching was not "all of that stuff is good, now add this to it and you're golden." Christ's teaching was, "that was a good prep class, but forgot that kids' stuff, here's real religion right here." He altered their system of worship considerably. It could be argued that Joseph Smith did the same thing, but herein lies the difference:
Jews turned Christian were saying "Ok, I'm going to stop doing what Moses told me to do and start doing what Jesus is telling me to do."
Christians turned Mormon aren't going through the same thought process. They aren't saying "Alright, I'm going to stop doing what Christ told me to do, and start doing what Joseph Smith tells me to do." At least not by their understanding. As Mormons see it, they are still just following Christ, just more so than other Christians. They believe that every revelation, every doctrine, is coming from Christ, to the prophet.
Mormons are doing the same thing every other Christian is doing, they just have more material to work with. The best analogy I've ever heard for this is that Christianity is to Mormonism as Star Wars is to Star Wars: Expanded Universe. Everything that Christ actually taught (again, according to the LDS perception) that Christians believe, is contained within Mormonism, Mormonism is just Christianity and then some.
The Long and Short (but mostly long) Of it
Putting aside concepts of varying degrees of Christianity, we're left we a few plain and simple truths:
Christians worship Christ, that's it. That's what it takes to be a Christian. There are great people who aren't Christians, and terrible people who are. It's not about how well you do what he told you to do ( or suggested you do, depending on your perception), it's just a question of whether you believe he was who he said he was. If you do, you're Christian by the very definition of the word.
Nobody has the right to apply, modify, or revoke the Christian label. The people who first started calling themselves Christians are dead now, they have been for quite some time. No one has any more right than anyone else to decide what actions and interpretations are and are not decidedly Christian.
Most importantly, (and I say this mainly for the few anti-Mormons who might be reading this) the LDS faith, by any "Christian" standard that I'm aware of (besides Catholicism and Jehovah's Witness) fulfills the requirements to make it to heaven. While you may not agree with our doctrines, that doesn't make them wicked or pernicious, it just makes them different.
Mormons; stuck up? Sometimes. Different? Usually. But Christian? Most definitely.
Post Script
In writing the bit about the LDS faith not violating any mainstream code of ethics I imagined a slew of responses. I imagine people who've been offended by members of the church because of their sexual orientation, or life choices. So I've appended this post script to preemptively try to respond to some of those. There or intolerant, bigoted, idiotic members of our church, I use to be one of them (to a certain extent). To whatever extent I can, I apologize for them. But I want to make it clear that these people, while professing to be LDS, clearly do not understand one of the most important lessons that Christ came here to teach. It has never been in the teachings of the LDS church to insult, demoralize, or condemn. No one has that right. I wanted to set the record straight here, it is the duty of every Latter Day Saint to testify of the doctrine we believe to be true, and encourage others to learn of the same for themselves. Nothing more. It is people like that who convince me that, regardless of religion, when it comes down to it. Being "Christian" is a 100% personal matter.
