The internet guy in me has come to believe that, based on the more inspiring parts of the restoration, perhaps Mormons should embrace the difference between us and the rest of the Christian body.
Real life makes things more complicated, unfortunately.
The question of whether Mormons are Christians is something that I think has been hashed out (but not resolved) many times. Each side has predictable arguments, and so…maybe I’m just desensitized now, but I think this question has lost its flavor. I think that Rebecca J at By Common Consent described the situation aptly:
…if an evangelical Christian asks you, casually or otherwise, if you are a Christian, he may very well be asking for more specific information than whether or not you consider Jesus your savior. Let us say that someone asks you for corn flakes, and you give them a box of Post Toasties. Those of unsophisticated palate don’t recognize a difference between Post Toasties and Kelloggs Corn Flakes. Some recognize the difference but don’t find it substantive enough to form a preference for one over the other. Others consider the Kelloggs brand the One True Corn Flake. Others of a more perverse bent actually prefer Post Toasties. The point is, you can’t just assume that Post Toasties will do when the requirement is “corn flakes.” Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. You have to understand what the individual means by the term “corn flakes.”
When an evangelical Christian asks you if you are a Christian, he is not only asking whether you believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ but also whether you affirm specific doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ. If you know what the heck he is talking about—and what your religion teaches–you will probably not be able to answer his question in the affirmative. This seems unfair from the Mormon perspective. After all, we believe that Jesus is divine, that his atoning sacrifice is the only means by which humankind can be saved, that following his teachings is the way to be happy—seriously, if that doesn’t make us Christians, then what are we? But from the evangelical (and other orthodox Christian) perspective, “Christian” is more particularly defined, and to accept the broader definition that Mormons (and some other people who don’t care so much about particular creeds and stuff) is to render the term less meaningful. They are trying to protect the brand name, even if they don’t have a registered trademark.
When we understand the nature of this situation (and the nature of more specific definitions as opposed to broader ones), then we can decide whether we even want to match ourselves against the more specific standards. As Nate Oman wrote at Times and Seasons:
…I don’t have any particular desire to squash Mormonism into the creeds, although I am perfectly happy to study and learn from the Christian tradition. (I tend to read Aquinas or Augustine for edification and enlightenment rather than to expose an apostate Christianity.) I also have no particular desire to muscle my way into a club with those that hate me and my most sacred beliefs. Hence, to the extent that the “Mormons really are Christians!” refrain is part of some sort of campaign to gain admission to the Evangelical Protestant club, I just don’t care.
Or, as the Seth R (who can only nominally be stated to blog at 9 Moons) put more pithily:
…A part of me doesn’t particularly care. We worship and venerate Jesus Christ. Good enough in my book.
But if you guys don’t consider us a part of your club, I’m not particularly heartbroken about it. We certainly aren’t a branch of Protestantism. We claim to be a new world religion in our own right – a restoration of the true order of religion had by Adam, Abraham, Moses, and then the Apostles…
In all of these comments, the poster recognizes that the restoration brought something different from the Protestantism of the day, and it still brings something different. We can quibble on how that should impact our relationship with other denominations (generally, people don’t like it when their churches and creeds are called “abominations”…) but our goal isn’t to eventually become just like the Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox denominations.
So, assuming that we can recognize the difference, and assuming (this one may be tougher) that we concede the definition of “Christian” as meaning something more specific or more “trademarked”, then can we get over the fight to be seen as Christian?
As I said before, the internet guy in me thought I would be ok with this. Nevertheless, real life made things complicated.
Last week, when other fencers and I were doing everything except for fencing, we somehow got on the topic of religion. Someone mentioned that he was nondenominational, and so another asked, “What does that even mean?”
“I’m just a Christian. Not any particular kind,” the first person responded.
“So,” another entered the conversation, “Does that mean that someone like a Mormon could just go to your church and be fine?”
“No,” the first person responded, “because Mormons aren’t Christians in the first place.”
My Mormon spider sense made the hairs on my neck bristle up. I felt a need to jump into the fray.
But now I have to ask: why?
I thought it was because if Mormons aren’t understood to be Christian, then we won’t be taken seriously in a religious or political landscape.
…but should that really be the reason to push for Christian identification? Can’t we also try to strive for legitimacy in our own right? After all, our missionary efforts, even if they sometimes focus on commonalities, depend on people seeing enough difference, or enough “added upon,” to join us rather than stay where they are.
Wheat & Tares 
I think Bill summoned it up best, “It depends on what your definition of is is”.
What matters is how we see ourselves. I fear that if we abandon the Christian label, we are in danger of hearing the cock crow, just as Peter did.
Nicely said Last Lemming.
Carey,
haha, great.
Last Lemming,
How do you feel about people who purposefully abandon the “Christian” label, because “they don’t have a religion; they have a relationship with Christ”?
These people too recognize that Christianity is a trademark and disagree with that trademark…so they instead are untrademarked “Christ followers”.
My assistant was telling me about her church’s charitable efforts building houses for the poor. I asked what church she belonged to, and she said she was raised Catholic, but now she’s Christian. I said uhm, Catholics ARE Christian. She just kept saying that she was Christian. I asked what sect, what denomination, what was the name of her church. It was all Christian, Christian, Christian. Finally, she showed me the church’s web site. It’s a megachurch run locally. Very dynamic, very focused on helping the poor.
Great example of good people following Christ. Yet I can’t help but think there’s something uncivil in the way they are highjacking the term Christian.
We are not Christians, at least not the way it is defined by most of Christendom. I don’t know why members get in such a huff about this issue. When asked in my travels if we are Christian or not, my response coincides with the description above with a testimony of the correct view of Christ.
hawkgrrrl,
I actually had a similar instances with the Catholic/Christian issue. I raised the point too that Catholics ARE Christian, and the other person eventually said, “Oh, I’m sorry; I mean Catholics and Protestants. In Spanish, the word for Christian is generally used for protestants.” (I don’t know how his story checks out, because I don’t know which country he’s from, or whether there is that kind of cultural linguistic thing.)
Will,
I agree. I guess the question is, should we accept the definition of Christian as defined by most of Christendom (and say we are not Christians) OR strive to change/broaden the definition of Christian?
Are there practical differences for each option? e.g., what impact is it to missionary work if we insist we are Christians like the rest vs. highlighting our uniqueness?
People who call themselves “Christ followers” are Christian as far as I’m concerned. For Mormons to adopt that term is pointless, however, because any use of Christ’s name by Mormons is going to evoke the “different Jesus” charge (which, of course, is a valid point). We are commanded to take His name upon us, and I see no reason to tie ourselves in knots in a futile effort to keep that commandment in a way that satisfies our critics.
Last Lemming,
I also view “Christ followers” as Christians, BUT that is because I have a broader definition of Christian that essentially is “those who follow Christ and his teachings.”
The issue is that there are different definitions used by different groups. Do we push for a broader definition so we can say we are Christian or does it even matter?
If we are going to evoke the “different Jesus” charge, then what do we do? Do we just roll with it or what?
Andrew S: “In Spanish, the word for Christian is generally used for protestants.” (I don’t know how his story checks out, because I don’t know which country he’s from, or whether there is that kind of cultural linguistic thing)” Hmmm. In Spain, they did not make this distinction this way. There were ‘catolicos’ who sometimes called themselves ‘catolico, apostolico y romano’ (then we would act confused and say “Wait – you guys are Romans?” Missionaries enjoy being pains). Actually, they would call Mormons ‘esa de JesuCristo’ (that one of Jesus Christ), so IMO we were getting top billing. The other main sects were JW (testigos de jehova – testigos being similar to the word testiculos; did I mention missionaries enjoy being pains?) and evangelista. I suppose their evangelistas were our Christians. So I maintain that they are highjacking the term.
Of course, if you’re right, it could be. My assistant is Brazilian, so maybe it’s the same in Portuguese.
I enjoy attacking the brand version of the word Christian, and those who want to claim they own the trademark to it. I remind them that they don’t own Jesus or his title, and will always add “Orthodox” or “Mainstream” to “Christian” when describing them.
For those who want to get pissy about the Trinity or other issues in the post-Biblical creeds, I ask how they can justify openly disobeying Jesus clear teachings of how they were to treat their enemies by mistreating followers of Jesus over teachings that weren’t important enough for Jesus to teach during his mortal ministry. Why should they get control of the term “Christian” when they’re going against the clear teachings of Christ?
I usually get blank looks. I’m kinda used to that.
Oh, and those who identify themselves only as “Christian,” I identify as “Evangelical.” They seem to be the ones who most want to take control of the brand.
I live in Utah (I’m a Presbyterian girl) and I like the way Facebook does it: Christian – Mormon, Christian – Protestant, Christian – Catholic, etc.
I think it helps people know what “flavor” of Christian someone is, and makes it easier to relate to them in religious discussions.
hawkgrrrl,
It could also be a “new world” country distinction (e.g., Spanish in Mexico or South America vs. Spanish in Spain…or Brazilian Portuguese vs. Portuguese…Portuguese.) Or regional. Or slang. As I said, it didn’t sound right to me but I didn’t know how to respond.
Blain,
Do blank looks help or hurt with sharing church teachings to others, I wonder? 😀
Debbie,
Thanks for commenting! I also like the way Facebook has done it. It allows as much specificity as one might want, as well as broadness.
I don’t know that Mormons will ever win this argument. The very premise of the LDS faith (in the first vision) is at odds with what other Christians consider the core of their beliefs. We believe in two separate beings. They generally don’t.
We therefore define what being Christian means differently than them. At the end of the day, however, we are few million. They are over a billion.
What boggles, my mind is that when I walk into a so-called Christian bookstore, they usually have an aisle that is full of Anti- books, not just about Mormon, But Catholics, Etc.
I always get the sneaking suspicion that the people they consider to be Christian are Evangelical Baptist. Even when I go to a Non-denominational church, they seem to have a Baptist flair.
Not that that’s wrong, its’ just something I’ve noticed
Mike S,
That is exactly how I see things on this issue.
14 — Beats me. I just get it a lot. I get it from a lot of Mormons, too. Even in the Bloggernacle. You just can’t see the facial expression, but you can feel the “… huh. Huh?” vibe.
When my Evangelical friends refer to “Christian” they mean conservative Protestants who have been born again/saved/accepted Jesus as their Savior. Certainly most Catholics (and probably most mainline Protestants) don’t qualify. A national conservative Protestant radio network reported this week that there were three or four Christians among the 33 Chilean miners who were rescued, and that one or two of them had “become Christian” during the ordeal. Somehow I doubt the other 28 or 29 miners were Atheists, Jews, Muslims or even Mormons.
As far as usage of “cristianos”, when I served in Mexico 35 years ago, the term was most used by Catholics to describe themselves. I cannot say whether since then our conservative Protestant brothers and sisters have coopted the term.
In parts of Central America, the term evangélicos is used not just for evangelicals, but also for most other types of non-Catholic Christians, including Mormons.
I hate Christians. They bug the crap out of me. Then again, so do most Mormons.
I think it’s a definition that’s only really important to evangelicals anyway. They think that if they can convince you that Mormonism doesn’t fit their definition of Christianity (or as they would phrase it, that Mormonism doesn’t agree with the Bible), then they can convince you that Mormonism is false. This isn’t really a big deal to, say, Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses, because they both think all other religions are false anyway, and it’s not a big deal to any non-Christian believer or atheist because a kinda-Christian religion isn’t any different than any other Christian religion to them. I think very few people actually care about the distinction, but those few are pretty loud.
#5 HG: “Yet I can’t help but think there’s something uncivil in the way they are highjacking the term Christian.”
I agree.
Much of this discussion still misses the point that if Mormons really believe, truly believe, that their religion is the one true religion then it doesn’t matter a whit if they are perceived as “Christians”.
Yet by and large, Mormons care. Not only care, but get ridiculously worked up about the issue.
Combined with a deep anxiety about being seen as “different” has caused Mormonism to become yet another wacky branch of mainstream Christianity. I believe that just lack of other offbeat branches of the mainstream, this insistence on being acceptable, on being just like everyone else, will be the demise of the church, not the other way around–after all, once there are only superficial differences between religions, what’s the point?
I always worry about folks who try to be like other folks even when they have strong differences of opinion. I never thought the Church should have to suck up to other denominations to be called Christian. If those other guys are so blinded by the “philosophies of men” not to see that we are more alike than different, it is their problem. I realize that can have some negative impact on missionary work, but there is always a positive side to that as well.
I think it’s interesting that the Pew Religious Landscape Survey classifies Mormonism as a major sub-division of Christianity just like Protestant, Catholic,. Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Orthodox. By contrast, Evangelical Protestants are classified as one of three main sub-divisions of Protestantism along with Mainline and Historically Black churches.
That is really about as far from other Christians as Mormon beliefs are. An orthodox believer wouldn’t know what an evangelical was talking about a lot of the time, either.
Andrew, I should also note that when the religious police came for my father when he was in Saudi Arabia the answer made a big difference.
One that is literally a matter of life and death some places.
When the pastors of creedal Christianity call us non-Christian, it isn’t really a problem. When they become a stumbling block for those really seeking the truth, who have faith in Christ, I am bothered by the misrepresenation.
Stephen Robinson does a good job of tracking the primary motivations for the distinction between Mormons and Christians. His book suggests that this nuanced approach should really allow Mormons to care less about this issue.
However, to understand this dynamic I suspect that we must be aware of the hierarchical lead in seeing this as a concern. It is this blend of assimilationist ‘we-are-christian’ rhetoric and retrenched ‘we-are-the-only-true-church’ discourse that makes us especially sensitive to this issue. The leadership want members to care about these distinctions.
The point has been made quite clearly, but just my two-cents. The whole debate over the word “Christian” is more about labels than anything. I was on my mission when President Hinckley addressed this point during conference. I won’t look up the quote, but to paraphrase he said something to the effect of “some charge that we are not Christian because we don’t adhere to the beliefs of Christ that were formed from centuries of creeds and councils. There is some truth to this…” then he continues to explain that Mormon views of Christ come from revelations such as the First Vision. I think that this was aptly put. Yes Jesus plays a role in Mormonism, but let’s not get so worked up over adopting a title that we forget that we reject their brand of Christianity just as much as they reject ours.
Cowboy: “let’s not get so worked up over adopting a title that we forget that we reject their brand of Christianity just as much as they reject ours.”
Nicely put.
If the Arians were deemed Christians, even by the Chalcedonians who got them branded Christian heretics, then Mormons — whose Christology is a whole lot more orthodox than the Arians, who denied that Christ was even fully divine — are Christians.
The consistent thing for traditionally creedal Christians to do, would be to call Mormons a Christian heresy, but still Christian.
Another question re: “Are Mormons Christians?” is — which Mormonism? The Mormonism of the Book of Mormon (which is frankly more expressly Trinitarian than the Bible) and early Doctrine & Covenants, or the Mormonism of the King Follett Discourse and subsequent riffs thereon?
The odd thing is that if you walked most Mormons through the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, line by line, you could find statements by prophets or latter-day scripture in support of almost every creedal passage.
(And I’m still a little annoyed at Elder Holland for screwing up his interpretation of the word “incomprehensible” in the Athanasian Creed as badly as he did, in his bad-taste mockery of the creed.)
Thomas,
This is a GREAT point, by the way. I’m always surprised when people want to say that the BoM is so far off from Christianity, when the BoM itself is quite “tame.” It just establishes (or hopes to establish) the validity of modern day revelation, which allows for doctrinal expansions like the D+C, King Follett Discourse, etc.,
I have vivid memories of sitting in a small house, with my last missionary companion, doing companionship study. From the preface literature to even Nephi’s talk, my companion would get confused saying “doesn’t this sound like the trinity”. He and I would argue over it, me trying to persuade him that the Book of Mormon was completely consistent with our teaching of the Godhead. Fast forward to yesterday’s Elder’s Quorum lesson, the conversation devolved to Mormons disdainful critique of infant baptism. Someone pointed out that Moroni must have been inspired to include this warning as it has relevance for “our day”, and after all The Book of Mormon was written for our day. So Moroni saw enough to pre-empt infant baptism, but still maintained a rhetoric of a schizoprhenic deity?
One thing that’s always interested me about the notion that the Book of Mormon being written for “our day”: What you mean “our,” paleface?
Does this refer to the “day” of Joseph Smith’s generation, where people lived subsistence-agriculture lives barely distinguishable from that of medieval peasants’ or the ancients’? To the next generation, which had to cope with some of the most wrenching changes in civilizational history, where the foundations of the modern world were laid? Or to the generation following that? Or to ours, where we may be settling down to living out the implications of a mature technological civilization, where the rate of change may have slowed enough that it no longer papers over all problems of scarcity?
Looking at the actual subjects addressed in the Book of Mormon, it seems to me that the “our day” it was written for was Second Great Awakening Protestant America.
There is the argument in the Book of Mormon that perhaps we should argue to be called “Christian”.
From Ether 3:14: “…Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son…”
From Mosiah 15:1-4: “…God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth…
And from Alma 46:15: “…yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.”
I think most “Christians” would actually be comfortable with the first two quotes, as it actually reflects what the “incomprehensible” creeds teach fairly well. And as far as the last quote, we obviously believe in Christ, but we focus far more on works being what will save us as opposed to Christ’s grace.
33 — Been a while since I read over the creeds, but I recall being able to accept the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, based on my own interpretation of the words in them in English. I’m pretty sure my interpretation would be at variance from the Orthodox view. But I’ve been telling Mormons for a long time that we don’t really have doctrinal problems with the Trinity so much as we do with the Augustinian insistence on a bodyless God.
“But I’ve been telling Mormons for a long time that we don’t really have doctrinal problems with the Trinity so much as we do with the Augustinian insistence on a bodyless God.”
True dat. If we need a creed to demonize, let’s make it the Westminister Confession.
It’s all those darned Platonists’ fault.
“I recall being able to accept the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, based on my own interpretation of the words in them in English”
The Apostles’ Creed, we could probably swallow straight up. (I thought it was noteworthy once when President Hinckley said we don’t accept the creeds, he referred specifically to the Nicene and Athanasian — not the Apostles’ Creed, which is pretty plain vanilla New Testament stuff.)
As for the Nicene Creed, if I recall right, it’s all about the homoousios. The question is whether that word should properly be translated as connoting that Christ and the Father are “one Being,” or that they are “of one Substance,” meaning that one is no more or less God than the other.
If the former sense was meant, then the Mormon teaching of the Godhead can still fit under the Creed’s fair meaning — as Mike S pointed out, there are multiple LDS scriptures that say that — at least in one significant sense — Christ and the Father are one Being, i.e., one God. Ironically (since we love to hate the Athanasian Creed), the Athanasian Creed actually makes it even clearer that the Persons of the Godhead — although they constitute one God — are not the proverbial “amorphous mass” that Mormons think the Trinity is understood to be: “Neither confounding [i.e. conflating] the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.”
If the latter sense, it becomes even easier to reconcile LDS teaching with the Creed: We do believe that the Son is equally divine with the Father.
What we have here, I conclude, is a bunch of insecure evangelicals who think that Mormons, with their kooky stories about gold plates and whatnot, are just weird — and the evangelicals don’t want to be thought of as weird, no, sir, so Mormons can’t be Christian. What this overlooks, is that the larger world is increasingly viewing evangelicals themselves as kooky, so I don’t know how much mileage anyone can reasonably get out of saying the next cult over is kookier.
39 — Yeah, pretty much.
40 — Yeah, that’s where the problem comes in, and I agree with your analysis. We can go a long with with just logically equating the Trinity and the Godhead. Past that, when we take it to mean “of one substance” that works fine if we take it to mean the same kind of substance, as opposed to the same set of substance.
My problem with the creeds, particularly the Nicene, has more to do with how they came about and how they’ve been used.
Liked the side-bar link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130682153 that while it was not a matter of life or death or being thrown out of a country and losing your job and possessions, was still harmful.
It matters.