Mormons Are Christians!
DISCLAIMER - Please let me begin by saying that any statements that I make on this Web site are simply my own opinions, and do not represent the official stance of the LDS Church or any other organization. In addition, much of the material presented uses specific references to research done by other individuals. Because this is the case, I have attempted to fully document this as well as possible with footnotes in order to give proper credit to these individuals, and to avoid unintentional plagiarism. This is also to enable the reader to verify this information from the primary sources as well if they wish to. It is important to note that this Web site is for educational and informative purposes only. And as I am not selling this information, and have properly documented it, no copyright infringement is intended.
It is also important to note that this site is in no way intended to be an official endorsement for presidential candidate Mitt Romney, but simply uses accusations that have been levied against him to illustrate a point.
It is also important to note that this site is in no way intended to be an official endorsement for presidential candidate Mitt Romney, but simply uses accusations that have been levied against him to illustrate a point.
As the 2012 presidential campaign gears up, much has been made of the fact that GOP candidate Mitt Romney is a Latter-day Saint (or “Mormon”). As is common in politics, one would expect each side to search for any negative that would cast their opponent in a negative light. In the case of Mitt Romney, many have once again started a huge campaign to show that true Christian voters cannot support Romney simply because Mormons are supposedly not true Christians. In fact, when Romney first ran for President in 2008, Internet evangelist Bill Keller stated that a “vote for Romney was a vote for Satan”
More recently, when questioned about whether or not the American public would accept Mitt Romney as someone they could feel comfortable about as president, infamous atheist Bill Maher made the following statement on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” …
More recently, when questioned about whether or not the American public would accept Mitt Romney as someone they could feel comfortable about as president, infamous atheist Bill Maher made the following statement on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” …
“MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, SUBSTITUTE HOST: Mitt Romney is the frontrunner. Do you think Republicans, the base that is, are ever really, truly going to place their faith in a guy who’s a Mormon?
BILL MAHER: No. That’s what’s going to be so interesting is when Rick Perry in sly and underhanded and no fingerprints methods starts putting out the idea, which is a true idea by the way that Mormons are not really Christians. You know, once America, which is a very Christian nation, finds that out, I think they’ll have a, certainly in the Evangelical part of the country, those folks, they will not be very fond of Mitt Romney.
Once they find out that Jesus Christ is like third in the hierarchy there. Really was about Joseph Smith. Actually, Mormonism is closer to Islam because in Islam Jesus is also a revered figure. He’s a wonderful prophet. He’s just not the ultimate prophet. You know, he’s like the middle act. He’s certainly not the headliner."[1]
BILL MAHER: No. That’s what’s going to be so interesting is when Rick Perry in sly and underhanded and no fingerprints methods starts putting out the idea, which is a true idea by the way that Mormons are not really Christians. You know, once America, which is a very Christian nation, finds that out, I think they’ll have a, certainly in the Evangelical part of the country, those folks, they will not be very fond of Mitt Romney.
Once they find out that Jesus Christ is like third in the hierarchy there. Really was about Joseph Smith. Actually, Mormonism is closer to Islam because in Islam Jesus is also a revered figure. He’s a wonderful prophet. He’s just not the ultimate prophet. You know, he’s like the middle act. He’s certainly not the headliner."[1]
To be honest, these types of claims are very disheartening to Latter-day Saints as they also consider Jesus Christ to be their personal Savior just as much as any other branch of Traditional Christianity. After all, the official name of our church is not the “Mormon” church, but rather the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!
In addition, we also accept the Bible as the word of God. Critics would say that we add a disclaimer onto that of, “as far as it is translated correctly,” and they would be correct in this assertion. But is correct translation important? I will go into that in more detail later.
We also use additional scriptures which we believe have been revealed to us in the latter days that profess that Christ is the Savior of the world. For example, the title page of the Book of Mormon states it is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”. Because this is the case, it does not replace the Bible in any way, but rather corroborates the message that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind.
Consider the following passage from the Book of Mormon found in the Book of Helaman 5:19:
In addition, we also accept the Bible as the word of God. Critics would say that we add a disclaimer onto that of, “as far as it is translated correctly,” and they would be correct in this assertion. But is correct translation important? I will go into that in more detail later.
We also use additional scriptures which we believe have been revealed to us in the latter days that profess that Christ is the Savior of the world. For example, the title page of the Book of Mormon states it is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”. Because this is the case, it does not replace the Bible in any way, but rather corroborates the message that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind.
Consider the following passage from the Book of Mormon found in the Book of Helaman 5:19:
9 O remember, remember, my sons, the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people; yea, remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, who shall come; yea, remember that he cometh to redeem the world. (bold and italics added)
However, this is still not enough silence the claims that Latter-day Saints are not Christian.
Why?
In the various interactions (both good and bad) I have had with traditional Christians who make this claim, I have found that there are four main misconceptions of why Traditional Christianity does not consider the LDS faith to be Christian.
Why?
In the various interactions (both good and bad) I have had with traditional Christians who make this claim, I have found that there are four main misconceptions of why Traditional Christianity does not consider the LDS faith to be Christian.
1. Latter-day Saints believe in a different Jesus Christ than the one of the Bible
2. Latter-day Saints believe they are saved by their works rather than by the Grace of Christ
3. Latter-day Saints have a different definition of both Salvation and Heaven & Hell
4. Latter-day Saints do not use the cross or crucifix as a symbol of worship
(Simply left-click on each point to bring up a more detailed explanation of each claim.)
As I go over each claim, I will use the following methods to explain the differences that exist between Traditional and LDS Christianity in each one, and why the divide may not be as wide as some may think.
- I will attempt to mainly use the Bible as a scriptural reference.
Out of fairness, I will attempt to use the Bible as much as possible to illustrate my points. Since Traditional and LDS Christianity both hold the Bible as scripture, it is the one piece of common ground that can possibly link our views.
However, from time-to-time, I will point out several verses in LDS scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, simply to show the unique parallels between the beliefs of both Traditional and LDS Christianity.
However, from time-to-time, I will point out several verses in LDS scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, simply to show the unique parallels between the beliefs of both Traditional and LDS Christianity.
- I will point out issues in language and translation
Why is this important?
As most people are aware, most of the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. Like all languages, Koine Greek has ambiguities that leave passages open to interpretation.
Critics may roll their eyes at this concept, but consider the following example …
Book of Mormon critics love to “beat a dead horse” when it comes to pointing out that many animals listed in the text never existed in the ancient Americas before the Spanish conquest. (However, there is evidence for each one that most critics refuse to acknowledge.)
Some of these animals include::
- the ass (donkey)
- bees
- the cow
- the elephant
- the horse
- silkworms
- swine (pigs)
Some sport is also had at the expense of two unknown animals, which are given untranslated names:
- cureloms
- cumoms
However, did you know that there are at least nine mentions of unicorns in the Old Testament?
Unicorns are referenced to in Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9-10, Psalms 22:21, 29:6, 92:10, and Isaiah 34:7
Job 39:10 - "Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow?"[2]
Moles
In addition, we read the following about “moles” in the Bible
Isaiah 2:20 - "In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats." (King James Version (KJV))
Leviticus 11:30 also tells us – “And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.” (KJV)
Okay, so maybe moles aren't nearly as impressive as elephants as mystery animals go, but as far as Israel is concerned, they are much more non-existent. There have never been any true moles (or even mole skeletons) in Israel.[3]
Once again, both mysteries can be explained by the fact that translators, when confronted with a term or animal they are unfamiliar with, will often pick a word in their own language or animal which they are familiar with. The Book of Mormon elephants could have been any large pack-animal unfamiliar to Joseph Smith.
Perhaps the Nephites or Lamanities may have called the animal in question something that directly translated to something entirely unfamiliar to us, such as “Eckoh”.
Therefore, God may have provided the word “Elephant” in the translation because it was a word that best described what the animal was like in appearance.
Of course, it is entirely possible that a few elephants or mastodons survived in the area well beyond the time we generally think of as their era of extinction. As for the moles in the Bible, most scholars think this refers to rats and mice.[4]
Critics may say…
That’s stupid! Supposedly when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon while placing his face in a hat the seer stones, or Urim and Thummim would “illuminate” the exact word in English for its counterpart in the Reformed Egyptian written on the plates!
Sound crazy?
Consider this, let’s take a look at a scripture in Isaiah (34:7) in two different translations of the Bible; the King James Version, and the Darby Translation.
Here is Isaiah 34:7 in the King James Version:
As most people are aware, most of the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. Like all languages, Koine Greek has ambiguities that leave passages open to interpretation.
Critics may roll their eyes at this concept, but consider the following example …
Book of Mormon critics love to “beat a dead horse” when it comes to pointing out that many animals listed in the text never existed in the ancient Americas before the Spanish conquest. (However, there is evidence for each one that most critics refuse to acknowledge.)
Some of these animals include::
- the ass (donkey)
- bees
- the cow
- the elephant
- the horse
- silkworms
- swine (pigs)
Some sport is also had at the expense of two unknown animals, which are given untranslated names:
- cureloms
- cumoms
However, did you know that there are at least nine mentions of unicorns in the Old Testament?
Unicorns are referenced to in Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9-10, Psalms 22:21, 29:6, 92:10, and Isaiah 34:7
Job 39:10 - "Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow?"[2]
Moles
In addition, we read the following about “moles” in the Bible
Isaiah 2:20 - "In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats." (King James Version (KJV))
Leviticus 11:30 also tells us – “And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.” (KJV)
Okay, so maybe moles aren't nearly as impressive as elephants as mystery animals go, but as far as Israel is concerned, they are much more non-existent. There have never been any true moles (or even mole skeletons) in Israel.[3]
Once again, both mysteries can be explained by the fact that translators, when confronted with a term or animal they are unfamiliar with, will often pick a word in their own language or animal which they are familiar with. The Book of Mormon elephants could have been any large pack-animal unfamiliar to Joseph Smith.
Perhaps the Nephites or Lamanities may have called the animal in question something that directly translated to something entirely unfamiliar to us, such as “Eckoh”.
Therefore, God may have provided the word “Elephant” in the translation because it was a word that best described what the animal was like in appearance.
Of course, it is entirely possible that a few elephants or mastodons survived in the area well beyond the time we generally think of as their era of extinction. As for the moles in the Bible, most scholars think this refers to rats and mice.[4]
Critics may say…
That’s stupid! Supposedly when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon while placing his face in a hat the seer stones, or Urim and Thummim would “illuminate” the exact word in English for its counterpart in the Reformed Egyptian written on the plates!
Sound crazy?
Consider this, let’s take a look at a scripture in Isaiah (34:7) in two different translations of the Bible; the King James Version, and the Darby Translation.
Here is Isaiah 34:7 in the King James Version:
7And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. (bold and italics added)
And here is Isaiah 34:7 in the Darby Translation
7And the buffaloes shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. (bold and italics added)
What? All the pictures I’ve seen of unicorns sure don’t look like “buffaloes”! Even though both versions were translated hundreds of years apart (1600–KJV; 1890-Darby) you would think that these two English words still meant the same thing in each time period. (It’s also interesting to note that most other translations of the Bible, such as the New International Version, American Standard, etc., list the animals described in this verse as “Wild Oxen” – throwing another variable of discrepancy into the mix.)
But critics may claim …
Yes, but Darby’s intentions were to make a modern translation for the unlearned who have neither access to manuscript texts or training and knowledge of ancient languages of the Scriptures!
Really? Did John Nelson Darby think that the “unlearned” man was so stupid that he wouldn’t have known what a unicorn was so he called it a buffalo? Even an unlearned man might find that a bit insulting.
How could such a glaring mistake be made? These are obviously two different animals, but you think that they would be somewhat similar. But again, we see that this is a problem of language and translation! Again, we see that it is possible that when translators are confronted with a term or animal they are unfamiliar with, they will often pick a word in their own language or animal which they are familiar with.
Another example is that when the ancient Romans first encountered elephants they called them, “Lucanian Cows” (but they are obviously nothing that we would consider to be cows).
In addition, when the ancient Greeks first encountered the Hippopotamus, they called it a “River Horse” (which is what Hippopotamus means in Greek) – which again, is nothing like the horse that we know today.
Other examples include:
“Prairie Dogs” (obviously are not dogs)
“Ground Hogs”
“Sea Horses”
I certainly do not do this to rip on the Bible in any way, but to simply point out the double standard of the critics arguments, and to illustrate that language and translation issues can be very real issues to our understanding of the scriptures.
But critics may claim …
Yes, but Darby’s intentions were to make a modern translation for the unlearned who have neither access to manuscript texts or training and knowledge of ancient languages of the Scriptures!
Really? Did John Nelson Darby think that the “unlearned” man was so stupid that he wouldn’t have known what a unicorn was so he called it a buffalo? Even an unlearned man might find that a bit insulting.
How could such a glaring mistake be made? These are obviously two different animals, but you think that they would be somewhat similar. But again, we see that this is a problem of language and translation! Again, we see that it is possible that when translators are confronted with a term or animal they are unfamiliar with, they will often pick a word in their own language or animal which they are familiar with.
Another example is that when the ancient Romans first encountered elephants they called them, “Lucanian Cows” (but they are obviously nothing that we would consider to be cows).
In addition, when the ancient Greeks first encountered the Hippopotamus, they called it a “River Horse” (which is what Hippopotamus means in Greek) – which again, is nothing like the horse that we know today.
Other examples include:
“Prairie Dogs” (obviously are not dogs)
“Ground Hogs”
“Sea Horses”
I certainly do not do this to rip on the Bible in any way, but to simply point out the double standard of the critics arguments, and to illustrate that language and translation issues can be very real issues to our understanding of the scriptures.
- I will analyze the chronological development of specific beliefs from the early Church to modern-day practice
Few Christians (including Latter-day Saints) have a solid understanding of where the beliefs they hold to be true actually came from. Although the argument can be made that everything can be found in the Bible (which it usually can), some things literally evolved from ancient traditions and beliefs into what is practiced today. A good example of this would be why we celebrate Christmas on December 25th, which virtually all Biblical scholars (both LDS and Non-LDS) will tell you is not when Jesus was actually born.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Additional resources can be found at the following Web sites:
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/webguide
http://www.mormonvoices.org
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu
http://www.mormon.org
http://mormon.org/missionaries
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/webguide
http://www.mormonvoices.org
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu
http://www.mormon.org
http://mormon.org/missionaries
_______________________________________________________
1.Sheppard, Joel “Bill Maher: 'Mormonism Is Closer To Islam' Than It Is Christianity,” Newsbusters, August 3, 2011. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/04/bill-maher-mormonism-closer-islam-it-christianity (Retrieved on January 2, 2012).
2. Sageloff, Mike, “The Double Standard”, http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/doublestandard.html (Retrieved on December 29, 2008).
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
2. Sageloff, Mike, “The Double Standard”, http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/doublestandard.html (Retrieved on December 29, 2008).
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.