Mormons and the Bible: Part 1 (of 3)

Part I
General Information

Anyone interested in a thorough investigation of Mormonism and the Bible should read Philip L. Barlow’s book Mormons and the Bible, The Place of the Latter-day Saints an American Religion published by Oxford University Press (here).
 
Also read a 1989 essay by Philip Barlow in Dialog Journal of Mormon Thought, "Why the King James Version?: From the Common to the Official Bible of Mormonism." (free content)

Related Posts: Mormons and the Bible Part II ; Mormons and the Bible Part III
 

The traditional Protestant Bible consists of 66 books: 39 in the Old Testament (OT) and 27 in the New Testament (NT). The Greek word for testament is “diatheke…[which] in classical Greek [means] an arrangement, and therefore sometimes a will or testament, as in an arrangement for disposal of a person’s property after his death.” (“Bible”, LDS Bible dictionary). Diatheke corresponds to an OT word meaning covenant.

The LDS’ attitude toward the Bible is stated in our Articles of Faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith 1:8). The LDS cannon is referred to as the Standard Works which consists of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. (FYI: when these books are bound into a single volume it is referred to as a quad.)

“As far as it is translated correctly” needs to be explained. Mormons believe that after Jesus’ apostles died off, the church he established quickly fell into apostasy. This apostasy affected the records that would eventually become the New Testament: “many plain and precious things” were lost (1 Nephi 13:28). Also, many books were omitted from the OT (1 Nephi 13:23). The words “translated correctly” have been taken to mean a faithful language translation as well as the faithful transmission of the text.[1][2] Speaking for myself, I believe the Biblical text is mostly correct, and, for the greater part, authoritative.

The Old Testament
As mentioned above, there are 39 books in the standard Protestant OT. The Catholic Bible includes a few additional books that are authoritative for Catholics, but do not have the same weight for non-Catholics. These books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel. These additional OT books are known as the Apocrypha. (The Catholic collection of New Testament writings is the same as the Protestant one.) The LDS position on the Apocrypha is given in the Doctrine and Covenants.

…concerning the Apocrypha…There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.…whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. (D&C 91:1-6)

There are several books of scripture mentioned in the OT for which there is no known manuscript: The book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7); book of the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13 and 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9:29); book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12:15); acts of Abijah ... in the story of the prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); and the sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19). ( “Scriptures, Lost”, LDS Topical Guide)

The New Testament
Though the New Testament is considered authoritative and therefore scriptural, the books comprising the NT were never intended to be scripture. For example Luke writes his gospel (as well as the Acts of the Apostles) to a person by the name of Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). “It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught” (NASB, Luke 1:3-4; italics mine). Most of the epistles of Paul were written to congregations in cities such as Ephesus, Corinth, Laodicea, and Colosse. Other epistles were personal letters: for example to Philemon, Titus, Timothy, Gaius, “to the church in thy house”, and to “an elect lady and her children.” The only revelatory book in the NT is the book of Revelation.

Of the NT writers considered to be apostolic, we have writings from Mathew (1), John (4), Paul (14), James (1), Peter (2), and Jude (1). The remaining three NT books were written by Mark (1) and Luke (2), neither of whom were apostles. This means we have writings from only five of the original twelve apostles. It could be that the others simply chose not to write letters, but this explanation is (to me) unbelievable. I think it much more likely that they wrote many epistles which are now lost to us. At the very least it strains reason to suggest that Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, James (son of Alpheus), Simon (Zelotes), and Matthias didn’t bother to write a single letter throughout their entire career as witnesses of Jesus Christ. And further, why did it turn out that we have so many of Paul’s epistles and few to none from the other apostles? There is no way of knowing for certain why this is. But it does cast considerable doubt on the notion that we have most to all of what was written. Another more likely explanation is that the early church became so flooded with counterfeit epistles and gospels that only those with wide circulation were considered reliable, and thus survived.[3] And during times of persecution, when Christians were required to give up their books, they would most likely give up their less reliable ones--I believe that what we do have is more or less in its original form.

Some NT writings did received wide circulation. For example the first epistle of Peter begins with “to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1)--These Roman provinces covered most of what is now Turkey. The letter to the Galatians begins, “unto the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2)--Galatia was a Roman province located in present day Turkey. The second epistle to the Corinthians begins with, “unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia.” (2 Cor. 1:1)--Achaia is a Roman province in southern Greece. The book of Revelation was sent to seven cities in the province of Asia: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Rev. 1:11). There is also evidence of letter sharing: “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren” (1 Thes. 5:27); “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea” (Col. 4:17). [Note: there is no known epistle to the Laodiceans.]

By the end of the first century the books now comprising the NT were in existence. At the beginning of the second century many of the NT writings had been collected and were available to Clement (c. A.D. 95), Ignatius (c. A.D. 100), and Polycarp (c. A.D. 120). Eventually consensus on the books of the NT emerged and by the end of the second century most of the current NT books were considered authoritative, with Hebrews, James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation being disputed.

There is nothing known about the autographs of the NT writings: exactly when they were written, when or by whom they were copied, who transported them, and (except for the epistles written to specific congregations) who owned them after the original owners died. How many congregations had copies? Which congregations owned copies? And why do we have so few letters out of what were likely so many? Also, why was the book of Acts never finished?[4] And what happened to the epistle to the Laodiceans? Why do we know so much of the missionary journeys of Paul but very little to nothing of the other apostles? I have never come across clear answers to these questions. We know the extant epistles were written from the middle to the end of the first century. By the beginning of the second century they were available to prominent Christians like Polycarp, but little to nothing is known about the in-between time.

Biblical inerrancy

Many Christian churches profess a belief in Biblical inerrancy: that the Bible, written according to divine inspiration, contains no error, self-contradiction, or inconsistency with scientific or historical fact. And, though there are errors in transmission and translation, these latter copies do not interfere with the fact of inerrancy. Since the original writings no longer exist, and since human error does corrupt a text, allowances are made for historical, geographical, and chronological errors; as well as errors in parallel accounts, numbers, secular history, and genealogy. Inerrancy is further qualified by the belief that human language (ancient Greek or Hebrew, or modern languages) does not diminish the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. They also affirm that there is no further scripture after the New Testament, thus all knowledge required for salvation is found in the Bible.

The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is one such statement. Here are some excerpts. “Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself”; “…that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic [original] text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy…[and] that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs…[and] that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.” “No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again…The Church’s part was to discern the canon which God had created, not to devise one of its own.” “Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored… for the present [where] no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true…[and] that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.”

From what I have been able to gather the Catholic position is similar. In addition to inerrancy they would add Papal infallibility and put scripture, the Christian creeds, and church tradition on equal footing. They would deny that the authority of the church is subordinate to the authority of scripture, and would affirm that Papal authority has continued unbroken through the centuries.

One of the difficulties with Scriptural inerrancy is that there is no statement in the Bible about the Bible being inerrant.[5] It is admitted that this is the case.[6] Further, the belief in inerrancy means the definition of doctrines made in synods or counsels (in the form of creeds) must reflect what the Bible teaches. However, such expositions are rarely, if ever, given in scripture--which is why counsels were necessary in the first place. No matter how one looks at it, the Bible needs interpretation. As such, authority to interpret Scripture must come from the Spirit. But teaching an inspired interpretation places the interpretation nearly on par with scripture: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). This reliance on the Spirit is, in fact, the position of Mormonism.[7] Though “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (ESV, 2 Pet. 1:20; emphasis added), scripture does need authoritative interpretation, and a person’s authority to interpret cannot come from the thing he is interpreting. Though one is free to believe in Biblical inerrancy, understanding and explaining the Bible’s message depends on Spiritual authority. And therefore, to a large extent, what the Bible teaches depends on that authority.

Our Articles of Faith says, “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” This means that the original scriptures were the word of God, but were not translated (transmitted) intact; that many vital books of scripture were lost; ordinances were changed; and that essential elements of the gospel were lost or corrupted.[8] The Book of Mormon teaches that corrupt men had “taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away” (1 Nephi 13:26). Then “after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles” (1 Nephi 13:29). In the Mormon faith there is no analogue to scriptural inerrancy. We believe there are significant omissions in the Bible, and possibly minor errors in the Book of Mormon.[9] We have many (if not most) of the original documents from the Doctrine and Covenants, so great confidence is placed in it. And the same is true for Joseph’s translations of ancient scripture found in the Pearl of Great Price. Because the idea of inerrancy tends to mean there can be no further scripture, we cannot agree with it in concept or in practice. Though we believe the true gospel has been restored, along with all things necessary for salvation and exaltation, we nevertheless affirm this: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

End Notes--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See Joseph Smith: The Choice Seer chapter 28; Book of Mormon Symposium Series page 207; A Bible! A Bible! part 1 chapter 6.

[2] Early in the history of the church (1830) Joseph Smith began his inspired translation of the Bible. What this means is that Joseph Smith restored much of the Bible’s original meaning. Non-LDS persons would say that he rewrote the Bible to make it say what he wanted it to say, and if Joseph had not been a prophet that would be true. In the Doctrine and Covenants this process is described as translation. For example D&C 77:15-18: “For while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty–ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was given unto us as follows--Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man: And shall come forth; they who have done good in the resurrection of the just; and they who have done evil, in the resurrection of the unjust. Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us of the Spirit ” (italics mine). This “translation” reads differently from the KJV of John 5:29. This is how the word “translation” in the Articles of Faith should be understood. This revision of the Bible is often called the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), the Inspired Version, or the Inspired Translation. (See here for JST excerpts.)

[3] Paul speaks of “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13) and John records that some false apostles tried to influence the church at Ephesus, “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev. 2:2).

[4] The book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome. “He received all that come in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ.” There is no account of his trial before Caesar, its outcome, and where he went afterward. Had he been released (he almost certainly was) it would be a triumph for the Gospel. Had he been executed he would have been a great martyr. Yet we have no record. Paul was an extremely important apostle and I think it unlikely that none of his companions or friends recorded what happened. Also, to where did he travel afterwards: Spain (Rom. 15:28), Colosse (Philem. 1:22), Philippi (Philip. 1:26), or to somewhere else.

[5] Some quote Revelation 22:18-19 as supporting the nothing-is-missing view of the Bible: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (22:18-19). Given that this passage is among the last in Bible it has the sense of a final pronouncement. However, it applies only to the book of Revelation, not to the Bible. Further, it contains very strong judgments (actually curses) against those who would alter its contents, suggesting a real possibility of alteration. This curse was included even though seven copies were distributed. Therefore, replication was not enough to assure the integrity of the text.

One can also make comparisons with the Received text (essentially the KJV) and the Majority text to get a feel for how many alterations have been made to the book of Revelation. (Note: The Majority Text is based on existing Greek NT manuscripts and is made by statistically comparing these texts and retaining the most common elements.) If you compare the differences between the Received text and the Majority text for all the books of the New Testament the book of Revelation has the greatest number of discrepancies at 385. The book of Acts has the second highest number of discrepancies at 91. This is interesting since Acts is about twice as long as Revelation. Most of these differences are not important, but they illustrate that the book has been extensively tampered with, more than any other NT book. (For a list of differences between the Majority text of Hodges and Farstad and the Received text go to http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html).

[6] The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy reads, “Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture…”

[7] “whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4).

[8] A list of NT fragments with their date and corresponding passage can be found at Wikipedia (here). Below is a histogram of the number of fragments plotted against their date. According to the Wikipedia list there are 11 fragments dated to the second century and early third century. Here is a list of their corresponding NT passages.

Year __ Passage
150. . . . . John 18
150. . . . . John 18-19
150. . . . . Revelation 1
150. . . . . Matthew 21?
200. . . . . Titus 1-2
200. . . . . Romans 5-6,8-16; 1 Cor; 2 Cor; Gal; Eph; Php; Col; 1 Th; Heb
200. . . . . Matthew 3,5,26
200. . . . . John
200. . . . . Matthew 3,5,26
200. . . . . Matthew 23
200. . . . . Matthew 13-14

[9] The Book of Mormon prophet Moroni writes, “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn no the things of God” (Title Page 1:2; see also Ether 12:23-28 and 1 Nephi 19:6).

Is Mormonism Christian?

Related Posts: Four Important Early Christian Creeds; Mormonism and Creeds of Christendom; The Trinity ; The Nature of Christ ; Godhead: God or Gods?

Whether or not one thinks of Mormonism as Christian can depend largely on where one stands in the debate. Mormons would like to be thought of as Christian by others, and I suspect that many non-Mormon Christians do, but many well educated Protestants and Catholics do not. So on what basis is Mormonism Christian or not Christian? In a debate with Orson Scott Card, author of Ender’s Game, Dr. Albert Mohler argues, “Are Mormons ‘Christians’ as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is ‘no.’” (debate here) But why does he view Mormonism as affirmably non-Christian? He writes,

The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations. Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity...Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus. These doctrines are understood by Christians to be rooted directly within the Bible and rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time…The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith. These are precisely what Mormonism rejects. ("Mormonism is Not Christianity")

He also quotes Catholic scholar Father Richard Neuhaus who said that Christianity “is not honorific but descriptive” (Richard Neuhaus', "Is Mormonism Christian?"). Neuhaus writes,

[Christianity] is more than doctrines. Were it only a set of doctrines, Christianity would have become another school of philosophy, much like other philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. Christianity is the past and present reality of the society composed of the Christian people. As is said in the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." That reality encompasses doctrine, ministry, liturgy, and a rule of life. Christians disagree about precisely where that Church is to be located historically and at present, but almost all agree that it is to be identified with the Great Tradition defined by the apostolic era through at least the first four ecumenical councils, and continuing in diverse forms to the present day. That is the Christianity that LDS teaching rejects and condemns as an abomination and fraud.

(He also mentions that there is no doctrine of creation ex nihilo within Mormonism.) Neuhaus uses the words “Great Tradition” and Mohler uses the words “normative Christianity.” In their views Christ’s church has endured throughout the centuries in the Greek or Roman traditions, or is found in the reformations of the Protestant churches. But that the church has endured is beyond doubt for believers like Father Neuhaus and Dr. Mohler. Historical Christianity is bound together by the Bible; common history, including schisms; and agreement in the early Christian creeds. And agreement on the early creeds bind Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity to the early church. Since Mormonism does not profess any of the Christian creeds we have definitely broke with that thread. And as to the point that Mormonism is very different from historical Christianity--it is beyond debate.

‘I damn you to hell’ or ‘I darn you to heck’?
A devout believer from any religion will likely believe his faith is the true one: A devout Catholic believes that salvation requires baptism in the Catholic Church; a devout Protestant believes that salvation comes by accepting Christ’s free gift of grace. So from a Protestant view those who believe and live according to Catholic doctrine (to the exclusion of the Protestant view) are eternally damned; and from a Catholic view those who die without baptism in the Catholic Church are likewise eternally damned. And yet this is Christianity? However, Christianity stands for something virtuous, as expressed by the phrase “living a Christian life.” And its essential corner stone is the founder and finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ. “Is Christ divided?”, were the words of Paul. Is Christianity divided? That depends on how the word is defined.

Mohler mentions the Apostles Creed as one of the professions of normative Christianity. Though Mormonism does not profess any of the Christian creeds LDS doctrine does not prohibit me from believing anything that is true. For example, the Apostle’s Creed:

I believe in God the Father Almighty.

And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; the life everlasting. (For Important Early Christian Creeds)

It is true that Mormonism does not profess any formal creed, and that it must reject the Nicene Creed and similar creeds. But as a devout Mormon I can say that I believe in what the Apostle’s Creed professes. However one could argue that a Mormon could not believe in the phrase “I believe in…the holy Church” since it refers to the Christian church at the time the creed was formulated. That would be a correct observation. To me “holy Church” would refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; just as a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Christian would apply it to how he believes.

Though it is assumed that the doctrines in the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed can be traced back to the Apostles, it is because of unclarity in the Bible that creeds were necessary. And, it is true that the Bible does not contain an explicit trinitarian description of God. (See The Trinity, Mormonism, and the Godhead.) Though one is free to believe in the Trinity as God--implicit in the New Testament, preserved by tradition, and affirmed by creeds--the link is no stronger than one’s own belief. My own feeling is that the word Christianity should center on the divinity of Jesus, his teachings, life, death, and resurrection; and not “there are not three uncreated: nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated: and one incomprehensible.” But howsoever I may think, the Trinity is a central doctrine of received Christianity and many would argue that it is the central doctrine: Thus, the house (Christianity) is less important than the one who dwells in it (The triune Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). One counter argument is “how be it [Christ’s] church save it be called in [Christ’s] name?” (3 Nephi 27:8). If this is true for Christ’s church is should also be true for the meaning of the word Christianity: in its simplest form it refers to a profession in the divinity of Christ and that salvation comes by him.

The church of the Devil
One aspect of our doctrine that upsets many Catholics and Protestants is we believe there is only one true church. Consequently all other churches are the “Church of the Devil” (1 Nephi 14:10). There is no getting around this, for in God’s view there are only two churches: His True church and deviations from it. God cannot look upon apostasy with the least degree of allowance. While the term “Church of the Devil” is a strong stand to take, God’s stand is nothing less.

Though seemingly harsh, the phrase conveys the idea that God does not recognize any deviation from the true original Church. This idea is something Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons agree on and use in the context of their own religious convictions.[1]

However, apart from doctrinal error and lack of priesthood authority I don’t think of non-Mormon churches as the church of the devil. Though admittedly some Mormons do, and shouldn’t. But I strongly suspect that some Protestants are more keen about spreading the idea that Mormons believe they are the church of the devil than the Mormons are. Often Protestants will say that Mormons believe “normative Christianity” is the Church of the Devil, as if to convey the notion that we believe they are satanic. The Catholic Church and the Protestant churches are not satanic. In the Mormon view all things which inspire people to love and serve God are inspired by God (Moroni 7:13). I view Protestantism and Catholicism in this light: the truth they teach leads adherents to live a truer Christian life. When I use the words “Protestant Church” or “Catholic Church” I am referring to an organized body of believers who profess Christ’s divinity, resurrection, and who live Christian values; not to my view of their doctrinal errors. In this light it easy to separate “Church of the Devil” from the Protestant and Catholic churches--the church of the devil phrase has a narrow definition and some theological value. Some people, wanting to embarrass the Mormons, quote Bruce R. McConkie’s book Mormon Doctrine. “The Roman Catholic Church [is] specifically--singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches,’” reads his 1958 edition (p. 129; italics original; brackets mine). However, McConkie was not an Apostle when he wrote this; Mormon Doctrine is not published by the church or by Deseret Book (a publishing company owned by the church); the passage he bases his conclusion on is open to alternate interpretations; and, when the First Presidency learned of this book they had a committee go through it and Elder McConkie was asked to remove many things that were not established doctrine. McConkie did remove those things and consequently the above quote is found only in the first edition. (Many anti-Mormon writers conveniently set this information aside, which goes back to what I said: many Protestants are keen about spreading this “Church of the Devil” stuff--I say Protestants because we get the most flack about this from them. For example Dr. Mohler.)

Who gets to define Christianity?
One reason for believing that the word Christianity is “not honorific but descriptive” is Mormonism departs from many of the threads that bind Protestant, Greek, and Roman Christianity together. However, there is a simple and profound Christianity that traces itself to Jesus, and Mormonism is part of this. If Christianity is defined in view of traditional Christian orthodoxy then of course Mormonism is unique. But how someone defines Christianity can depend on his relationship to it. Does he believe that the Church has endured through the centuries? Is he an atheist? Or an agnostic? Or a true believer? Christianity may be defined in light of orthodoxy; tradition; normative Christianity; a body of those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins; or from a religio-historic view as a series of historical movements focusing on Christ’s divinity. The Encyclopaedia Judaica defines it as

A general term denoting the historic community deriving from the original followers of Jesus of Nazareth; the institutions, social and cultural patterns, and the beliefs and doctrines evolved by this community. …The vague character of the term provides this wide range of meaning…Christianity can be viewed as a religious institution (whether as a universal church or as distinct churches), as a body of beliefs and doctrines (Christian dogma and theology), or as a social, cultural, or even political reality shaped by certain religious traditions and mental attitudes. (parenthesis original)

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary under “Christianity” defines it as “The body of doctrine that consists of the teachings and way of life made possible by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the giving of the Holy Spirit.” The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “The religion based on the belief that Christ was the son of God, and on his teachings.” The Athanasian Creed defines it in this way: “The Catholic [i.e. true Christian] Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity” (Four Important Early Creeds). The Jewish Encyclopedia under “Trinity” opens with: “The fundamental dogma of Christianity; the concept of the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite persons.”

But where does Mormonism fall among the world’s religious traditions? Some people would put it in a class by itself; a class that includes all branches of the Latter Day Saint movement traced back to Joseph Smith. Others put it with Christianity. But an interesting question is where do Mormons put Mormonism. [When I say Mormons I mean members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.]

Do Mormons view Mormonism as Christian? Yes. Mormons believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ’s restored church. Do Mormons view Mormonism as a religion distinct from normative Christianity? Often. As a devout Mormon I am comfortable referring to Mormonism as a distinct religion and at the same time Christian. This is in recognition that many LDS doctrines are very different from those of received Christianity, and yet that we share a belief in the Biblical account of Jesus life, death, and resurrection.

Final Comments
Do most Mormons believe that the rest of Christianity is Christian? Yes, because we share a belief in the Biblical account of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. But this view contains a proviso that other churches are deviations from the true church. Do Mormons view the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches as the Church of the Devil? From my experience most don’t, but regrettably some do.

There are valid historical and doctrinal reasons for putting Mormonism in a class by itself. At the same time, because Mormonism accepts the Biblical account of Jesus life and divinity, and that he will come again, there are valid reasons to view Mormonism as part of Christianity. For Mormon believers (like me) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds the true gospel and is the Church of Jesus Christ. So naturally any suggestion that Mormonism is not Christian or is un-Christian is offensive to us. What further adds to the offense is that this is frequently done as criticism or condemnation of Mormonism. But for devout believers such as Father Neuhaus and Dr. Mohler, their view of Christianity and belief in the reality of Christ permits nothing less than a sincere and firm condemnation of heresy.

I must admit, before I started researching for this post I had no idea how central the Trinity was to historical Christianity. As a person who does not believe in it, and having been raised a Mormon believing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are always separate and distinct persons, it took a while for me to realize that the Trinity was a truly foundational doctrine in “normative” Christianity throughout its history. Most Mormons do not understand to what degree it is emphasized, which only serves to aggravate our incredulity when devout Protestants or Catholics say that Mormonism is not Christian. My original impression of those who used the doctrine of the Trinity as central to their definition of Christianity was that they were simply trying to keep the Mormons out. I have since learned that my perception, for the most part, was incorrect. The Trinity is truly central to received Christianity; so much so it could be said that historical Christianity is the religion of the Trinity.

The debate about how Mormonism should be categorized will rage on. But the most powerful argument for us Mormons is a simple one: “We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ” (2 Nephi 25:26). Then, as Jesus said, “let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). If we do this then the argument will be made for us.



End Notes--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] A statement released from the Vatican on July 10 titled “RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH” reads, “Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one Church and instituted it as a ‘visible and spiritual community’, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. ‘This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic…This Church, constituted and organised [sic] in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him’”.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. responded to the Vatican statement in an article titled “No, I’m not offended” published in the Baptist Press. He writes, “The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children; it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question…Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.” (emphasis added)

Michael Otterson, former as director of media relations for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, responded with “No Need to Pick a Fight” in the Washington post: “Of course, I profoundly disagree with this papal argument of Roman Catholic primacy, because on the basis of reason, secular history and revelation I reject the priesthood succession claim altogether. My own church stands firmly on the belief that priesthood authority had to be restored by divine intervention, not reformed, and that the apostles, lay ministry, missionaries and most especially the doctrines of the New Testament seen today in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are evidence of that Restoration…It matters not one whit to me that the Catholic and some other churches don’t accept ‘Mormon’ baptisms. We don’t accept theirs either” (emphasis added).