However, I just recently finished a book by Kathleen Flake, who is an excellent scholar. I noticed that she mentioned that Polygamous breakoff groups have traditionally avoided refering to themselves as “Mormons.”

So this issue is more complicated then perhaps you are indicating. Traditionally, there has been no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist” as a self label. Only the media used the term, or the occaisional LDS authority, as you mentioned.

But modernly, I’m not sure if that is still true or not.

Fundamentalists do refer to themselves as Mormon Fundamentalists. I believe that it was a general authority from the CoJCoLDS (Mark Petersen?) who coined the term.

Steve

It’s important not to be the victim of pograms. If we let people demonize us and don’t act to counter them, in my opinion, we’re leaving LDS children of future generations at risk. I understand that it’s the demonizers’ agency, their choice whether or not to slander us or indeed to tar-and-feather, rape, pillage, murder, or commit other violence against us. But making a big PR push to counter misconceptions can definitely help make friends. It’s a good idea to be friends, to the extent that we can, with our neighbors.

So that’s why I think the PR campaign is wisdom, to the extent that it doesn’t water down our message or doctrine. We’re not just exactly like evangelical Christians, but we’re also nice people. That’s a very important message to send abroad.

I graduated in ’73 (I was born in 1955).

I remember a strong focus on King Benjamin and being born again at BYU where I went before my mission (afterwards I finished my bachelor’s degree up at Cal State Los Angeles).

There was a real effort to rediscover the Book of Mormon going on then.

Honest question for you. Consider these two scenarios:

a) The LDS Church did a back to basics movement and rediscovered much that was always there in the Book of Mormon. Though they had always believed it, they hadn’t really emphasized it. This included such things as Jesus as a personal savior, Jesus as God (but not as God the Father), salvation through Jesus’ blood, Salvation by God’s Grace, etc. Discovering that they needed to emphasize this more, they did.

b) The LDS Church watched longingly at the Protestant Churches of the world and really wished to be one with them. So they started to adopt many Protestant beliefs.

Given these two scenarios, how would you tell them apart outwardly? Wouldn’t they look exactly the same to an outsider observer? Are we justified in assuming it’s b when it could be a? (And even if it is in fact “b” would there be any way to prove it? In other words, even if it’s “b” wouldn’t it be wrong to assume so because that’s the worst case scenario and we ought to give the benefit of the doubt when there is lack of proof?)

I also got over the preachers in my high school declaring that I was going to hell because I didn’t accept Jesus as my personal Savior. Now that I have and become a Mormon, heck, I’m no better off.

Rats!

I’m pretty much an old guy, no matter how much I try and deny it. I graduated from HS in 1972. The LDS church that I experienced as a child and teenager in the 60s and early 70s spoke much more about God the Father and less exclusively about Christ than the LDS church I experience today. In fact, I would say that the message I distilled from those years was that dwelling inordinately on Christ and speaking constantly of Christ was a hallmark of protestant Christianity. If Seth had asked me his question in 1970 I think I would have told him, “No, we don’t worship Christ, just like we don’t worship Joseph Smith. Both were accomplishing the plan of the Father, who we do worship as our creator and author of the plan of salvation. That is the reason we don’t pray Christ but rather pray to the Father.”

Now before some of the more academically blessed people out there start digging out theses, dissertations and quotes to prove me wrong, please note that I’m not saying that was the doctrine of the church in those days. I’m saying that is what my cumulative understanding of this topic was as an active, observant and committed LDS youth.

My personal experience is that the 21st century LDS church talks much more about Christ exclusively than it did 40 years ago. I see that as a manifestation of Seth’s observation that we LDS have an almost desperate desire to fit into the mainstream, a mainstream that really doesn’t want us and never did.

I have to agree with you that most Christians don’t care. We get a poor heuristic because the vocal ones tend to be the militant ones. We see them in dis-representative numbers. (And the Media disproportionally represents them too because they are entertaining.)

I do find it very interesting, though, that there is such a large over lap between the group of people that scream over Mormons “misrepresenting” themselves (and accuse them of doing it intentionally) and the group that misrepresents Mormons but feels it’s justified or sees nothing wrong with it. It’s a tweaked sort of thinking to be sure. But like I said, I think most of them just never really stop and think about their inconsistency in this regard and probably aren’t doing it intentionally.

Mormons label Christians as in apostasy and I’ve heard my share of silly stories about what Protestants and Catholics supposedly do and believe in LDS meetings. The Christians don’t really get worked up about what the Mormons teach about them. So why do the LDS care so much? Is PR really that important?

If you ignore those kinds of statements, you take away the Christian groups power. In this election year it may seem like all Christians believe silly things about the LDS, but in reality the Christians on the far end of the spectrum scream the loudest. Most Christians don’t really give the “are Mormons Christians?” questions the time of day. I say this as a person with a BYU degree living in the Bible Belt. People just don’t care!

Actually, McConkie himself was unclear. I have books from him where he says we worship Jesus. It seems to me that what he was against was addressing prays to Jesus, not “worshiping” Jesus. But he was inconsistent and not very clear. Jesus commanded to address prayers to the Father. See, for example, Matt 6:6, 9.

This strikes me as a semantics game. Confusion over words.

Consider this quote: 1 Chr. 29: 20 – “And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.”

Does this verse say that they worshiped the king? It sure does. But this doesn’t mean they worshipped the king in the same sense they worship God, right? Hmmm… can’t tell by the words alone since it says they worshiped the Lord AND the king.

In other words, you have to assume some context and not be legalistic about wording and scripture. Nor should you be about McConkie (even though he seems to have tried to be legalistic at times – lawyer that he was.)

I’m planning a post about this subject in the future… probably a long time from now.

No.

For what it’s worth, the current preoccupation with reinforcing our ‘Christianess’ seems a lot like Paul trying to show Jewish Christians that he still zealously followed the law even though he taught otherwise.

Good analysis. I hope you picked up on the fact that I was in general agreement with you. I don’t really care what they call us as long as they don’t misrepresent us and leave false impressions. The real life stories are the key point here because they show the obvious result of misrepresentation. Labels alone mean nothing; it’s the info being communicated that counts. For example, if they called us “non-creedal Christians” ore even “Christian Heretics” or even just “Heretics” (as this implies Christian usually, so there is little room for misrepresentation) I’d be fine with what they are saying.

I have a question for you about one point, however:

>>> 6. If we want to be called “Christian,” then we will have to quit getting all pissy whenever someone calls those polygamist whack-jobs in Arizona “Mormon.” If we can be called “Christian,” then they get to be called “Mormons.” It’s only fair, and the same logic applies.

This seems true enough to me as you stated it. But I was under the impression, perhaps a false impression, that most break off groups do not use the label “Mormon” about themselves. I haven’t been around a lot of breakoffs, but I have met some in the past. None of them, so far, has accepted the label “Mormon” as applying to themselves. “Mormons” were those other guys that aren’t them. So at least for the ones I met, not calling them “Mormon” is not analogous to others not calling us “Christian.” (However, if they eventually changed their mind and wanted that label I’d certainly be in favor of allowing it to them because they do believe in the Book of Mormon.)

Do fundamentalist groups utilize the label “Mormon”? Perhaps they do but I’ve just never met any.

Nevertheless, I can see some of the counterpoints made by these groups as to why Mormons are not considered “Christian” in the orthodoxical sense. Some of the doctrines are heretical and blasphemous by many “Christian” standards. But again, if a person believes that these things are truly revealed by God, then what does it matter if the mainstream refuses. Doesn’t this all go back to the idea of being a “peculiar people unto the Lord?”

I worship Jesus Christ, and I know many Mormons that do. I also know some Mormons who appear to worship other entities But are we only supposed to worship the Father in the name of the Son? Some statements, particularly those of McConkie, complicate this and make it unclear. I worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. That being said, I don’t think it’s part of Mormon discourse to talk about whom we worship. We get on with being a peculiar people and getting harangued about home teaching and worrying about our own salvation…

1. Mormonism most certainly IS much different than mainline Christianity. Probably just as different from traditional Christianity as early Christianity was from its parent Judaism.

2. The God we worship most certainly is different from the one the traditional Christians worship. To get a sense of this, just consider that Mormons reject creation ex nihilo. When you really start thinking about the implications of that, it becomes clear that we are worshiping a much different being.

3. There is something rather pathetic and toadyish about the Mormon desperation to be a part of the American “in-club.” We want to hang with the popular kids on the playground. What’s even worse about it, is that group of popular kids is fast being marginalized and Mormons are too behind the times to realize it.

4. This is almost solely an American debate and American concern. Outside the US, this issue has little to no importance. The fact that Mormons remain so obsessed with it shows a bit of theological immaturity and that we are still very much wrapped-up in American popularity contests.

5. By many guy-on-the-street definitions, Mormons probably are Christians. We believe in Christ as the Son of God and our savior. Pretty simple. That’s what the common man considers “Christian” to mean. So why shouldn’t Mormons be allowed the title? Really a lot of this seems like little more than a sectarian negative ad campaign to keep people from listening to Mormon missionaries.

6. If we want to be called “Christian,” then we will have to quit getting all pissy whenever someone calls those polygamist whack-jobs in Arizona “Mormon.” If we can be called “Christian,” then they get to be called “Mormons.” It’s only fair, and the same logic applies.

7. Do we “worship” Christ?

That’s the key question for me. If we don’t “worship” Christ, then I have a hard time making a straight-faced argument for us being “Christian.”

So, do we?

Meanwhile, your dictionary-definition-based argument fails to address the merits of the question. The question is not whether Mormons use the name “Jesus Christ” or believe in what Mormons call “Jesus Christ.” Christian Fundamentalists can rightly point out that Muslims believe in “Jesus Christ” — it’s just that Muslims have an additional prophet who revealed a different book of scripture, which gives them a significantly different understanding of Jesus Christ. For them, Jesus is not God; Jesus is a great prophet. The question is whether Mormons, in rejecting monotheism, are sufficiently distinct to be considered a new world religion.

Were the Cathars Christian? Like the Mormons, the Cathars believed they were the true Christians. And like the Mormons, they rejected monotheism. Cathars were dualists who believed in two Gods: an evil God who created the world and all matter, and a good God who created spirits and light. They believed in Jesus Christ, but their concept of him was radically different, since they argued that he hadn’t had a human, material body.

Were the Cathars “Christian” or had they diverged sufficiently from the parent religion to be considered a new religious tradition? The question is academic and you can legitimately argue both positions.

Let me ask you a different question. When did the Middle Ages end? Was it 1453 with the fall of Constantinople? Was it 1492 with the discovery of the New World? Was it 1517 with Martin Luther and the 95 Theses? The dictionary defintion of medieval “of or pertaining to the Middle Ages” has no bearing on the question. The question is academic and a legitimate case can be made for all those dates and more.

Are Mormons Christians? The answer is both yes and no.

As Bruce has pointed out in earlier posts, this intellectual and historical definition was a hammer and cross credal creation sickle in the 4th Century. Arianus (2-person godhood model) and his group were drummed out as were others (Gnostics). New Testament Christians were also NOT in the category of one body with one substance trinitarians-it had not been developed to such an extent. I would use pre-Christian or proto-Chritian or retro-Christians, because Mormon definitions of Christ and God (two-person model) were alive and well predating the 4th Centurty AD. By the way, if modern Christians want to trademark “Christian” to be trinitarian (creedal) let them take it to court. I think its just a slam against their Mormom competitors to talk semantics like this.

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matt. 7:21-22

“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” (Matt 25:32-36.)

I wonder what makes people think they can substitute their own modern tests for what makes a true disciple of Christ, rather than just using the ones Jesus provided.

As far as I’ve always understood, Mormons consider people who meet the above descriptions to be true disciples of Christ, regardless of whether they are LDS. But some who label themselves as Christians do not hold reciprocal beliefs. It is strange to me.