The Mormons
            QUESTION from michael on September 13, 2003

Hello Brother. The other day I challenged a Mormon and suggested that Mormons are not true Christians. He wrote back to me in detail. I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer his reply and was hoping you can assist. Here is What he wrote. I wonder on what basis you claim that members of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints are not Christians? After all what is a Christian? Using my Concise Oxford Dictionary as a basis for definition I find the following definitions: adj. 1) of Christ's teaching or religion 2) believing in or following the religion of Jesus Christ 3) showing the qualities associated with Christ's teachings 4) colloq. (of a person) kind, fair, decent noun. 1a) a person who has received Christian baptism 1b) an adherent of Christ's teaching 2) a person exhibiting Christian qualities If we first look at the definition of the noun, the second definition of exhibiting Christian qualities could not better fit any group of people as it does the Latter-day Saints. The humanitarian efforts of the Church are widely known and respected across most aid organisations, the ethos of the Latter-day Saints is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The outreach work and assistance given by Church members extents beyond their own community to those of other faiths, Christian and non-Christian alike. As to the adherent to Christ teachings, again you would not be able to fault Latter-day Saints in their adherence to His teachings. No where would you find a conflict in what was taught by the Saviour with Latter-day teachings. That leaves the one definition applying to one who has received a Christian baptism. If we look at the physical attributes of baptism we find a difference across what you would readily accept as the Christian community. On the one hand you have the likes of Baptists who believe in immersion and on the other Anglicans who believe in sprinkling. This is not even considering those who believe no physical baptism is necessary despite Christ's own words that one can not get into the Kingdom of God without being born of water and of the Spirit. As to the correct form of baptism if one studies the New Testament passages, as well as early Christian history, there is a clear indication that baptism was by immersion and was symbolic of being buried with Christ, a symbolism that could hardly hold true by sprinkling a little water on someone's head. Add to this that the root of the word baptize actually comes from the Greek word for immerse. So on the physical aspect of a Christian baptism the majority of the Christian world seem to have changed this from the time of Christ and the apostles. Given Latter-day Saints continue to baptize by immersion then perhaps we are closer to the original Christian baptism than a great deal of the Christian community. But then again perhaps you have a different definition of what a Christian baptism entails, which I would be more than happy to discuss. Again looking at the definition of the adjective form of Christian and asking the question as to whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church then again on the third and fourth definitions which relate to the way how one lives and acts then the Church could definitely be classed as Christian. The first and second definitions to a great extent boil down to the same thing, does it follow the teachings and religion of Christ? Religion is used either as believe in a god, which we certainly would qualify for, or a system of faith and worship. What system of worship did Christ Himself establish and can this be seen in evidence today? Clearly the ritual of the Christian high church is not one that existed in Biblical times but was introduced at much later periods and has been greatly modified as time went by. Clearly also many in the Christian community disagreed with the form Christianity had taken and felt it necessary to try and start again. John Wesley for instance writing about the early decline of spiritual power stated: "It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; . . . From this time they almost totally ceased, very few instances of the kind being found. The cause of this was not, as has been supposed, because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was that the love of many, almost all Christians, so called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the spirit of Christ than the other heathens. . . . This was the real reason the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian church because the Christians were turned heathens again, and only had a dead form left."-John Wesley's Works, Vol. VII, 89; 26-27. The early Christian church was established with apostles and prophets until "we all come in the unity of the faith". Today the Christian world is hardly in a unity of faith but where are those prophets and apostles today. So as to the system of worship we find that the general Christian community differs from that of Christ's time. That leaves us with the teachings of Christ and adherence thereto as a test of being Christian. I would be interest to know which teachings of Christ you claim that the Latter-day Saints do not adhere to. There are many teachings of the Christian community introduced at a much later date that we would disagree with but which of those teaching of Christ do we not adhere to? >Mormonism was begun by Smith either perpetrating a fraud >concerning his "visions" or by his actually having a >vision of the angel Moroni (who >could not have been an angel of God, but rather a demon). > >Either way, Mormonism is not of God. What leads you to the conclusion that the only possible explanations are fraud or being deceived by the Devil? You also overlook the fact that the first vision of Joseph Smith was not of the angel Moroni but of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. A vision by the way that immediately put pay to the concept of a three persons in one trinity taught by so many Christians despite the fact that it was not taught by Christ. Christ was very clear in His distinction between himself and his Father. He is recorded on more than one occasion praying to the Father. Was He taking to himself. He also often referred to His Father when talking with the disciples and others. >As the pre-existence of the soul, the Pharisees did >develop this idea. The >nature of the soul was worked out in the Church >over several hundred years, although the pre-existent >soul was never really Christian doctrine. >Essentially through St. Aquinas the Church now >understands that the fully >rational soul is infused into the embryo at the >first moment of its existence. I find it strange that a particular doctrine has to be "worked out" over several hundred years. Surely whether a doctrine is true or not stands from the first to the last and the knowledge of it comes from God and the teachings of Christ, the apostles and prophets. Unfortunately so much of what is seen in the Christian churches of today has been "worked out" over hundreds of years as man replaced Christ's teachings with their own teachings and traditions. >I "think" it was the Second Council of >Constantinople who gave this condemnation: >If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, >and shall assert the monstrous restoration which >follows from it: let him be anathema. I am intrigued as to what "the monstrous restoration" refers to. Is this the resurrection, where the union of body and spirit are restored? Or some other restoration? It also intrigues me how many in the Christian community argue against the Latter-day Saints that the Bible is sufficient and no further scripture is needed and yet at the same time believe in doctrines not in the Bible but which were at a later date introduced by these councils that you refer to. As to the teaching of a pre-existence it is evident that it was taught by some up until the Second Council which took place in AD 553. It indeed did take several hundred years to change what was taught generally in the early Church to what the Christian community generally accept today. The teaching of the pre-existence had in fact been around for some time. The Talmud and the Midrash clearly teach the doctrine of the premortal existence of souls. In another Jewish book, "God is represented as taking counsel with the souls of the righteous before he created the earth" (James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1 :x. [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924]). Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-167) also taught this doctrine, including the concept that if men "by their good works prove themselves worthy of His plan they are considered worthy... to return to His presence and reign with Him" (Justin Martyr, Apologia I pro Christianis, 10 Greek text, in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Graecae 161 vols. [Paris: n.p., 1857-68], 6:340F). Clement, Bishop of Rome, who was acquainted with the original Apostles, in a somewhat helpful passage urged his members, "Let us consider, therefore, brethren, whereof we are made, who and what kind of men we came into the world... [God] that made us, and formed us, brought us into His own world having presented us with His benefits, even before we were born" (I Clement, xxxviii, 3-4, p. 1:285, following the translation of Robert M. Grant and Holt Grahm, The Apostolic Fathers 2:67; see also Lost Books of the Bible [New York: Bell Publishing, 1979], p. 130). Origen wrote about present blessings being related to previous obedience, recognising that if individuals were elected "not on the grounds of justice and according to their deserts, but undeservedly," then God would be a respector of persons (De Principiis I, vii. 4; cf. III, v. 4-5). These early councils which introduced many new concepts and doctrine seemed to be quick to dismiss and condemn teachings of others which had been wide spread in the early Church. So in conclusion on what basis do you dispute The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being Christian in nature and belief? And on which Biblical passages do your refute the teachings of a pre-existence? If you are prepare to respond to these questions I am more than happy to discuss them with you point by point. I look forward to hearing further from you. Thank You Brother Michael