Americans but not Christians

visit: www.lds.org

Official Website for the common nicknames: "mormons", "Latter day saints", "LDS faith"

Mr. Sam Rodriguez should have included this in his article, so as not to bias the official beliefs of the nicknamed "mormons".

to find out if mormons are christian. 3 questions

1. ask your self what is the "mormons" church's name? (the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints)

2. what says thier articles of faith?(believe in jesus as savior)

3. what is the book of Mormon? (christ in ancient america)

visit: www.lds.org

Official Website for the common nicknames: "mormons", "Latter day saints", "LDS faith"

Mr. Sam Rodriguez should have included this in his article, so as not to bias the official beliefs of the nicknamed "mormons".

to find out if mormons are christian. 3 questions

1. ask your self what is the "mormons" church's name? (the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints)

2. what says thier articles of faith?(believe in jesus as savior)

3. what is the book of Mormon? (christ in ancient america)

the mormon faith is christian.

says it in the church name: "the chuch of Jesus Christ of latter day saints"

Also read thier 13 articles of faith:

#1. We believe in god the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost

Only Christian faith that believes that Jesus Christ the Savior of the world wisited the American Continent. -Per the Book of Mormon.

Considering these 3 facts they should be considered the most christian faith. (no other church faith share these 3 simple facts!!!

further more,

they believe in the Bible(jews), B of Mormon(ancient american indian prophet), and modern prophet Joseph smiths writings in Doctrine and Covenants (ex: word of wisdom, they do not smoke or drink alchohol or coffee)

-very simple . . . .

Man, with all this confusion, it sure would be nice to have a prophet.

Man, with all this confusion, it sure would be nice to have a prophet in our time. Guess the Lord doesn't care as much about our eternal well-fare as he did the people of ancient times.

Man, with all this confusion, it sure would be nice to have a prophet.

I really enjoyed reading this article, though it's been a while since it first posted. (I'm behind the times while still raising children at home.)

I am a Latter-day Saint. I do not consider myself a "Christian" in today's definition of that term. I would have to say I consider myself a "Restored Christian," rather. What is the difference? It has nothing to do with how well Americans tolerate me or my Church. It has everything to do with how the Nicene Creed was created and dictated - through the then-modern, accepted and peer-pressure-infused Greek doctrine, orthodoxy and politics - what "Christians" OUGHT to believe and through pay-offs, bribes, peer-pressure, political maneuvers and pure pride and selfishness (without a trace of revelation, and dare I say evil influences) came to be. This is what all the churches who claim to be Christian today have founded their belief and theology on. All the while, "The Law", "The Prophets", and all other Biblical writings were writing to the Jews, in Jewish prose, and not for the Greeks. The Greeks, with their metaphysical inclinations could not understand these writings - try as they may. By the time the Nicene creed was calculated and written up, too much Greek philosophy and metaphysics had corrupted the belief and thinking of the people who wrote it (hence the idea of the "trinity" as "three-in-one," pure methaphysics!) The true power of God to direct His kingdom (aka: His Church) upon the earth, otherwise known as the Priesthood Power, which Christ gave to Peter and His disciples, had by this time died off. All those left had deviated from the true form of Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles. In Nicea we then had a group of "intellectuals/spirituals" who decided for themselves, with more political motives than religious motives, to write this "Creed" to serve as a "measuring stick" of sorts for all "Christianity." To use an old southern term, it was hogwash! They had no revelation, inspiration, nor authority to write such a creed, much less impose it on the world. Yet that is exactly what happened.

Fast forward to today. Today's "Christian" has deviated so far off course from what a "Christian" believed even only 150 years ago, as to make the two seem like they are from completely different religions. The Gospel does not change with the times - God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The commandments still stand today. Yet religions have changed, and continue to do so "to keep up with the times." You look at 98% of "Christians" today and none of them live the commandments. They break the Sabbath, they take the Lord's name in vain, they commit adultery, they lie, etc. So where is a TRUE Christian to be found today? Certianly not in today's Churches ( speaking overall.) None of these Churches are built on the foundation that Christ delineated for His Church when He first set it up while He was with His disciples. He founded His church on "The rock" - which is not Peter, but the Priesthood that Peter held. His true Church was to be founded on Prophets, Priesthood, and Apostles, and only through His authority. There is only one "TRUE" Christian Church today- that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.... RESTORED CHRISTIANITY.

If one were to unbiasly study the Holy Bible and the teachings of all the prophets, most notably Isaiah, one would come to understand that the Lord's Priesthood and Church was prophesied to "fall away" for a time from off the earth, and would, by necessity, need to be "restored" in the last days. The prophecies abound. They have come true. And here is His true and only Church today.

I gladly agree that we are not like any other Christian of today. In fact, I will say that Mormons are the only true Christians today. All other churches are the ones that are not Christian. They follow the Greek's philosophy of what "god" ought to be... they do not follow what Jesus Christ's philosophy of what "God" is.

I hope the LDS Church will never be considered "mainstream," for it will never be such. It shall forever stand as the only true, restored Church of Jesus Christ.

The Lord has provided for all people who are willing and desirous to know the truth, to come and learn of Him. One can visit www.mormon.org in order to do that or look up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the phone book and call them.

The Lord stated "By their fruits, ye shall know them" [who follow me.] One can look around and find no other Church, who as a whole, shows forth greater fruit. Our fruits prove it, the Holy Bible proves it, the Book of Mormon proves it, the Holy Spirit proves it - this is His Church. Try it!

Well, Mormon in SD,
Perhaps the reason mainstream America cannot grasp the idea that mormons are christian is because your own leaders said so. Then when it became advantageous to change they started talking out of the other side of their mouths...as they always do.

I just do not understand why mainstream America cannot grasp the idea that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are Christians. Jesus Christ and the Atonement are central to everything that we believe in. Mainstream society may debate whether we are considered a "cult" or not, but the arguement that we are not Christians is provincial and inaccurate.

m832k

Maryland said this: "Joseph Smith, a purported grifter in New York, claimed he dug up golden tablets (which no one besides himself ever saw)and created a whole new religion out of whole cloth, using the name of Jesus Christ and many Biblical words such as "salvation" and "grace" to put forward non-Biblical doctrines"

I have one thing to say, Maryland. For goodness sakes, read the Book of Mormon, at least the beginning of it, the preface where 11 witnesses state that they saw and/or handled the golden plates. Quit spouting off all the anti-Mormon nonsense. It only makes you sound uninformed.

To all you nay-sayers:
Truthfully, I think that if we ever become main-stream, as evangelicals think of as mainstream, then we, as a church, will be in danger of apostacy. But, I don't believe that will happen. It is abundantly clear that we are different. We are not a part of the Reformation, or of the Protestant rebellion. Our church organization and teaching is the Restoration of the ancient gospel, as taught in the Old Testament and the New Testament, before the early church councils of scholars,who had no claim of prophecy or revelation, created the creeds that completely contradicted the teachings of the Apostles, and made Our Heavenly Father into an unimaginable essence,without form, without body, without passions, not the True God that we worship. If any thing is heretical and non-biblical, it isn't our beliefs, it is the doctrine of the trinity, the man-made creeds that are part and parcel of traditional Christianity.
That whole argument was blown away by the simple faith, and prayers, of a young farm boy in 1820. Joseph Smith saw the truth for himself. Like others before him, such as Stephen in Acts 7: 55-56, he saw God the Father, and Jesus Christ. Why is it so hard for people to understand that? I wonder if it's because people are doing just what those who stoned Stephen did, as stated in the very next verse: "Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord..."

We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."

My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.

We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."

My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.

We seem to be back where we started. The Christian view of the Bible is not that it is an anthology but that it is the revelation of the Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. In John 6, Jesus said the Bible, or the Word of God, is "life," Jesus said. For those who receive the Word as truth, it is in fact life -- not simply ideas or doctrines but the very essence of God's life imparted to us by merely reading it and meditating on it. In fact, John so closely associated the Word of God with the life of Jesus that He identifies Jesus as the "Word."

My point again is. Christianity is about a relationship with God. It is about knowing intimately the Person of Jesus Christ.

Maryland:
I believe that the Bible is an anthology. Some of the stories in it tell of events in Middle Eastern history. Some of the stories in it bear striking resemblance to stories from much older cultures. Some of the stories in it are fables. Some of the stories in it appear to be accounts of either nightmares or the result of eating some bad shrooms.
As with any anthology, I choose the stories that appeal to me, and skip the ones that I don't like.

A story need not be factually accurate to contain truth. Dr. Suess' story of The Sneetches is a good example. As far as I know, there are no beaches filled with frolicking sneetches, with or without stars on their bellies. But the story contains a vital truth - if you base your sense of worth on outward appearances and the superficial, live your life in a constant state of jealousy over what others have, and are constantly trying to keep up with the neighbors, you will make your own life miserable.

It is not necessary for me to believe all of anything I read in order to glean valuable insights from it. That applies to the Bible or any other religious scripture, as well as the writings of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Homer, Petronius, Carlos Castenada, Ray Bradbury, Starhawk, Pablo Neruda, Kurt Vonnegut, Barbara Kingsolver, Shakespeare, Lorca, Twain, Dr. Suess, Byrd Baylor, Merlin Stone, Silver Ravenwolf, and many others, the music of Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, John Lennon, George Harrison, and others, and even children's tv programs like Sesame Street, Captain Kangaroo, and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

Lepi:

I assume from your statements that you believe the Bible to be fantasy -- made up by men who elevated a gifted rabbi to become the equal of God.

Interestingly enough, that is precisely the reason the religious leaders of Jesus' time handed Him over the Romans to be crucified. Jesus claimed to be God. Standing before the Jewish high priest, He declared "I AM," using the name that God gave Himself in Exodus.
The high priest immediately condemned Him to death for blasphemy.

If you don't believe the Bible, that's fine. But then you need to exclude the Bible from your spiritual calculus. Otherwise you become self-contradicting.

For example, Biblical Christianity is completely incompatible with other religions. Not only does it profess that Jesus is God, but it also states that the only way to a right relationship to God is through faith in Jesus. Every other religion in the world states in one form or another that people have to do things to be in right relationship with God -- whether its good deeds, obey a moral code, go to Mecca, or whatever. Christianity says that it is impossible for people to do anything to make themselves right with God. God had to do it Himself. He had to come down in human form and pay the penalty for their sins so that they could, by grace through faith, enter into right relationship with Him. It is grace -- a free gift.

It is also noteworthy that Jesus did not take on the Roman Empire. Rather He took on the Jewish religious establishment, who were teaching people that hyper-legalism was the path to God.

Maryland:
The difference between the laws of physics and spiritual laws are that the laws of physics can be proven to apply exactly the same to all. Not only can I unerringly predict that a dropped object will fall, if I know the mass of the object and the height from which it is dropped, I can accurately predict the speed at which it will fall. Furthermore, anyone with basic math skills can do the same. In other words, it works the same for everyone.
Religion and spirituality are highly subjective and experiential by nature. Even within the same specific church congregation, you will find that no two people have exactly the same idea about what God is, no two people view their relationship with God exactly the same way, and no two people hav had identical spiritual experiences. Two people can pray identical prayers, both with fervent belief, and one may receive that which s/he prayed for while the other does not.
One of the spiritual organizations to which I belong has the philosophy that all religions spring from One source, but none are complete in and of themselves, and all have been corrupted over time. They believe that Moses got part of the divine message, but only that part which was needed for his day and time. The same goes for Jesus, Gautama, Mohammed, Lao-Tsu, Confucius, etc., on down through our contemporary philosophers, teachers, and prophets. Only by working toward peaceful co-existence and common ground among all religions will any of them find completion. Multiple spokes come from the same hub, and multiple roads lead to the same destination. That makes a lot of sense to me.
As far as Jesus is concerned, I see him as a radical rabbi who challenged the religio-political staus quo, and pissed off a lot of people to the point where they wanted him dead, and they got what they wanted. Like many other heroic figures, legends grew up around him after his death. I believe that he had some really good ideas - for example, sharing what you have with those in need is a good thing to do, no matter what faith you practice, or if you practice no faith at all. I don't believe that he literally fed thousands to satiation and had leftovers with 5 matzoh and 3 fish (or whatever the numbers were). I believe the story is an encouragement to share what you have, even if it's only a little, and both you and the person you help will benefit from it.

Lepi:

The key difference between our points of view is that you seem to measure spiritual beliefs by whether they "work for you." I measure them by whether they are true.

In my view -- and in the view of the Bible -- the spiritual world has spiritual laws that are just as immutable as the physical laws of the material world, such as gravity and thermodynamics. I might stand on top of a building and declare that I don't believe in the law of gravity, i.e. "that's fine if it works for you but it doesn't work for me." But if I throw myself off the building the law of gravity still applies to me. The same is true in the spiritual realm. We might decide to pick and choose which spiritual laws we respect, but we do so at our own peril.

Again, the central question of the Bible is: Who is Jesus Christ? I took your path for many years, practicing forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, panthiesm, transcendentalism and other "isms." It was only in my 20s, thanks to the grace of God, that I discovered that what I was looking for was not a "what" but a "Who?" And He has a name: Jesus.

I have come to understand that Jesus is not just the Son of God, He is fully God. And yes, the cross is hard to understand, but no it is not child abuse. It is pure Love laying His life down for us that we might be set free from the power of sin and death and become children of God. This is indeed a spiritual truth. The Bible itself says that it cannot be understand by the natural mind and indeed is automatically rejected by the natural mind because it is spirtually discerned (see 1 Cor 2:12-15).

This is why I suggest that you view the Bible not in terms of a collection of statements or doctrines but as the revelation (or non-revelation, you be the judge) of this Person named Jesus. Who was He? Who is He?

(A final point: The Hebrew Scriptures were written many hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. One could argue that Jesus purposely lived His life to conform to what they say about the Messiah. But to what gain? The Hebrew Scriptures declare the Messiah to be a "man of sorrows and familiar with suffering" who would be led like a sheep to the slaughter to bear our sins and transgressions (see Isaiah 53). What possible gain could Jesus get from living a life that fits that description, ending in a torturous death on the cross? So either He was who He said He was or He was a complete nutcase.)

Maryland:

1) OK, we'll put it in your terminology. Once a person is born to physical parents, that person cannot be unborn. But children can emancipate themselves from their parents, basically voiding the relationship. I emancipated myself from the god of the Bible.
2) If Jesus is not mentioned by name in the OT, then whether or not certain passages are actually references to him is a matter of interpretation. And since the Bible was compiled into its present form long after the death of Jesus, it stands to reason that the editors of this anthology would have chosen texts that they could interpret that way.
3)I don't consider it extraordinary that your god would not only allow, but command, that his son die for someone else's sake. I consider it child abuse. And abused children usually do as their parents tell them without argument. I cannot accept an offer of someone else to be punished in my place, just as I would not accept the murder of an animal as a substitute for my taking the responsibility for the consequences of my own actions. I do my best to be a decent, ethical, moral person. When I make a mistake, I do what I can to correct it, deal with whatever consequences I have to because of it, learn from it, resolve not to make the same mistake again.

I'm glad that you have a path that works for you. It just doesn't work for me because I find too much of the theology/doctrine/dogma - hwatever you wish to call it - either impossible to believe or morally reprehensible. And I am well aware of the Christian tradition of "Believe it even if it doesn't make sense to you." But I can't believe something that does not makes sense to me. And I can't worship a god who does things that I consider immoral.

Lepi:

1) I was stating a principle that applied to your statement that you were a former Christian. The principle is, according to the Bible, that there is no such thing as a "former Christian." One cannot be unborn again if one is born again in Christ. So in that respect, I don't need to know you to be able to say that what you said was untrue, according to the Scripture.

2) You are correct that your memory of Scripture is rusty because the Old Testament makes many references to Jesus and the resurrection, even if His name is not mentioned. Isaiah 53, for example, is a prophetic chapter completely about the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The expression "Jesus is hidden in the OT, and revealed in the NT" is true. In fact, I could teach the entire Gospel from the first three chapters of Genesis. Every major theme of the New Testament has its foundation in those three chapters.

3) You are correct that it is extraordinary that God would send His Son to bear the price of our sin and rebellion on the cross. It is also remarkable that the Son would obey the Father and actually go through with it. That is what the Bible calls "love." It is the most powerful force in the universe. It is the very nature of God. There is no way for us to comprehend the sufferings of Christ on the cross, except to understand that they were beyond our imagining.

You touch on one of the difficult concepts in the Bible when you address the issue of substitutionary atonement, i.e. that sins could be transferred from one being to another. Under the law of Moses, the people of Israel were instructed to sacrifice animals, whose spilled blood would cover, but not remove, the sins of the people. In the New Testament, Jesus is the Lamb of God, on whom our sins were transferred and whose blood not only covers our sins bur washes them away -- paid in full. There is no logical reason that this is true. It is one of the givens of the Bible. This is the way the spiritual world works.

Finally, you mention all the bloodshed in the Bible. The Bible is a very real book that reflects both the physical and spiritual reality of the world. The world is covered in blood. So is the Bible. The world is filled with imperfect people, so is the Bible. The key to the Bible is that, through God's love and Jesus' blood spilled on the cross, God has overcome the evil in the world and redeemed those who have faith in Jesus from it.

If you do an extensive study of the Bible, you will find that it is completely consistent book from beginning to end. The themes and truths expressed in the beginning are carried through right to the end. While we may not understand every last verse or every last story, God makes it very clear what He is saying about the nature of the spiritual world and our place in it.

The question is not whether the Bible makes sense, therefore, it is whether it is true or not. It is an important question because if it is true, there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ.

Rodriguez is just another example of a so-called Christian pastor with a vested interest and hidden agendas.

"The vast majority of evangelicals still consider the Mormon faith to be a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy."

I hasten to remind the Reverend that Christ also was reviled and rejected by his own kind. So, is that a test of His divinity? Since he was dis-approved by his own He should be dis-avowed as God? Did that remove Him from the God category? Was He "mainstream"?

Who set themselves up as the moral authority to deny the title of Christian to someone else? Where do they get their authority? They have only assumed it.

So-called Christians who claim to love God but revile their neighbors because they worship the same God un-like the way they do, belie their own beliefs.

maryland:
Your contradicting my comments about what I do and don't believe perfectly illustrate a big part of the problem among religions. Having never met me, knowing nothing about me other than what I have posted in this forum, you feel qualified to make declamatory statements regarding the nature of my relationship with the divine.
When I go to pagan gatherings, people of many different paths are there. I would never dream of telling someone who followed a different path than my own that s/he wasn't really pagan. And if one of my pagan friends were to convert to Christianity, I would certainly never tell her/him that s/he was never really pagan.
It's not up to me to define other people's faiths for them according to my own. Each person's walk with the divine entity of her/his choice is their own to define.
And just FYI, my reasons for no longer believing in the resurrection:
1- It makes no sense, even within Christian theology. If your god can raise people from the dead, then why didn't he do it more often? My memory of your scriptures is rusty, but I don't recall any mention of it in the OT. And there were only a few in the NT.
2- It negates the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice and makes him a hypocrite. According to your scriptures, he knew that he would rise again. So he didn't really give his life for anyone; at the most, he loaned it our for a few days. He experienced no net loss. If I do something that I know will kill me in order to save someone else's life, I know before I do so that I am giving up something precious that I cannot get back, and I have deemed the loss worthwhile. That's what makes it a sacrifice.
3- It paints your god as one sadistic s-o-b and a lousy parent, neither of which inspire worship. He brings a child into the world for the sole purpose of allowing him to be tortured to death for sins he didn't commit? What kind of parent is that? Would you hand your innocent child over to the state to be executed in place of a serial killer? Of course not! And even if you did, how would that absolve the serial killer's guilt? It wouldn't - it would simply add to it, for now he would not only have the blood of the people he killed on his hands, but also the blood of the innocent person who was killed in his stead.

Lepi:

Obviously it's a free country so people can believe what they want to believe.

My point was simply that the Bible provides clear statements about what it means to be a Christian. The Mormons contradict those statements yet still want everyone to call them Christians. This is dishonest. The Mormons should clearly state that they are a separate religion that believes things that contradict the Bible. Instead they want to have it both ways. They want to say "We believe the Bible" but then espouse doctrines that completely contradict Biblical truth.

Frankly, I don't think most Mormons know what their church really holds as doctrine -- the history of their theology is such a morass of oddball doctrines, not to mention a moving target. The central point that white males can become gods completely contradicts the Bible (based on a misintepretation of a single verse of scripture that is completely out of line with the sweep of Biblical truth from Genesis to Revelation). There are many web sites out there that will go point by point through Mormon theology and reveal the non-Biblical doctrines.

My point related to you was simply that, in my understanding of the Bible, once you are a Christian you are always a Christian. If you end up worshiping pagan idols later in life, then you were never really a Christian to begin with. Christianity is not about an intellectual decision we make about Christian doctrine, it is about a new birth in Christ. My experience is that those who experience this new birth personally know Jesus Christ, the Person, love Him dearly, are indwelt by His Holy Spirit, and simply could not truly leave Him.

Finally, you said you have ceased to believe in the resurrection. My experience is that people who believe in God but don't believe in the resurrection would not have any difficulty believing that God could raise a dead being to life again. After all, God is God. What troubles them is what the Bible says about the crucifixion and the resurrection -- i.e. that Jesus had to take upon Himself their sins and pay the price for them. In other words, they are helpless sinners dependent on the grace of a loving God. Many people have difficulty accepting that they are indeed sinners who need a Savior.

Maryland:
Your sciptures say that your faith is the only one true faith. You believe that your book is the only true book. That's fine for you.

Mormons believe there are two true books. Fine for them.

Many other faiths believe that their scriptures are the only truth. Fine for them.

I believe that no scripture is 100% applicable to all people, that all of it contains some truth, but none of it works for me in toto. Fine for me.

Some people believe that no scripture is true. Fine for them. It's all good.

lepidopteryx:

Fair enough. My original point, however, was that Christianity is, in fact, a one-size-fits-all faith. Jesus Himself said "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Likewise, John wrote: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

There is not a lot of wiggle room in those (and other) statements in the Bible.

Joseph Smith, a purported grifter in New York, claimed he dug up golden tablets (which no one besides himself ever saw)and created a whole new religion out of whole cloth, using the name of Jesus Christ and many Biblical words such as "salvation" and "grace" to put forward non-Biblical doctrines.

Maryland:
You are free to believe what you wish about whether or not I was ever a "real" Christian. I know what I was, what I believed, what I felt at the time I made my profession of faith, etc. What you believe about my afterlife destination really isn't relevant to anyone but you, as is what you believe about LDS' afterlife destination.
I now follw an eclectic path that includes some of the teachings of the monotheistic scriptures (Torah, New Testament, Qu'ran), as well as elements of Buddhism, Sufism, Mahikari, paganism, humanism, and other philosphies/theologies. I'd say that my path is predominantly pagan, and I have to say that I am happier and more spiritually balanced and at peace now than I ever was as a Christian. Your path works for you, and I am happy for you. But it does not work for me, just as my path would never work for you. When it comes to spirituality, one size does not fit all, which is why I don't care what religion a political candidate practices, as long as s/he is qualified and capable of doing the job.

Great comments Dale! My thoughts exactly!

great comments Dale! My thoughts exactly!

I seriously doubt that "America" continues to be suspicious of the Mormon religion. I hear far too many positive comments from people outside the church. Its true that the press and a few internet blogs like to increase readership by digging up issues like polygamy, which is the heritage of every Christian who believes in the Old Testament, and hasn't been practiced by Latter Day Saints in over 100 years. Sort of like arguing about the influence on upcoming elections of the president's wooden teeth... Oh..yeah.. no president has had wooden teeth in over 100 years...

As for being "mainstream Christians", I quite agree. Mormons are definitely not mainstream Christans. They did not participate in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials or any of many other atrocities commited in the name of Christ. In fact I am sure Christ himself is not "mainstream" either.

I am sure he would not condone the persecution of any religion claiming to do good and follow his teachings, or trying to make the world a better place. The fact is any person's Christianity is really between himself and Jesus Christ, and how closely he or she is committed to following the teachings of Jesus Christ, one of which is "thou shalt not judge."

Lepidopteryx:

I would respectfully submit that you were never truly a Christian in the true Biblical sense of what it means to be a Christian. Jesus told the Pharisee Nicodemus, a religious man, that no one could enter the kingdom of God unless he (or she) is born again of the Spirit. This is a much different standard than simply professing a belief in the resurrection of Jesus. It means, in a spiritual sense, a laying down of one's old life apart from God and a rebirth into new life in the body of Christ. The only way this can occur is, to use a common expression, to do business with God on the basis of the cross of Jesus. You can be a very religious person and not be born again. Indeed, the religious people of Jesus' times were the very people who crucified Him.

Why do you need to do business with God on the basis of the cross? You mention the idea of karma -- that you get what you deserve. The same idea is true in Christianity. Apart from God's grace, you get what you deserve for your sins. The God of the Bible doesn't grade on a curve. His standard is perfection. To enter God's presence and His kingdom, one must be holy and perfect -- 99.9 percent doesn't get you in. You can be the kindest, most moral person in the world and a single sin will separate you from God's presence for eternity.

The only solution the Bible offers is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. He took upon Himself our sins and in exchange gave us His righteousness and holiness -- his perfection. This divine exchange is at the heat of Christianity.

The Bible acknowledges that this is hard to believe. In fact, Paul wrote: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved it is the power of God."

The question at hand is not whether it is hard to believe or whether it makes sense to our minds. The question at hand is whether it is true or not. I would encourage anyone to explore this question fully before answering. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." Those who seek will find.

Could members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) be more "Christian" than Evangelicals? . . Oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship and portions of the Apocrypha referred to “mysteries”:

Early Christian churches, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:
1) Baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family
2) Lay clergy
3) Anointing with holy oil after baptism
4) Then clothing in white clothing

An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
.
And read Exodus Ch 29 for Aaron and his sons” ordinances. . Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to the time of the Emperor Constantine [see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.) Lecture XXI]. . . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them

A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate, divine beings, united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).

Only members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue these practices of First Century Christians. The Cross became popular in the Fifth Century A.D. But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”:. All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

* * *

And the National Study of Youth and Religion done by UNC-Chapel Hill in 2005 found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LDS Evangelical
Attend Religious Services weekly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% . . . . 55%
Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
extremely important . . . 52. . . . . . 28
Believes in life after death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . 62
Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 5
Has taught religious education classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . 28
Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline . . . . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . 22
Sabbath Observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . 40
Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . 56
Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 19
Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
(very supportive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . 26
Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality . . . 84 . . . . . . 35

Kathy,

Disclosing typical anti-mormon literature without supporting your argument is declaring your ignorance to the religion and revealing your animosity towards it. Much of what you said is utterly false and therefore disqualifies the remainder of your statements.

Did you know: that the word gospel means "Good News". that when Jesus was born the Angels announced to the world that this was Good News for all people and Peace to whom God's favor rests which happens to be two distinct messages think about it. that Jesus asked us to forgive everybody for everything an infinite number of times, do you think that God asked us to be more forgiving than God Himself think about it. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I was raised in Utah, a Morman. Mormans believe they will be gods in the celestial kinghdom and have more than one wife. A married women,the only kind that will reach this highest heavenly kingdom, can only get there if her husband makes it. When they become gods, they will be over a kingdom like earth and you, my heathen friend, will be the subject of their little land. They are told that they should seek public offic to one day transform this land into the kingdom of zion. Please, check the morm,an teachings closely before voting to put a Morman of high standing in office.

Maryland:
If a Christian is a person who believes in the resurrected Jesus, then I am a former Christian. I once believed in the resurrection; I no longer do. I once believed in Santa; I no longer do. I once believed there were monsters under my bed; I no longer do. Beliefs change.
I find much wisdom in your book, as well as much dreck. I find much wisdom and much dreck in the scriptures of other faiths as well. I find much wisdom and much dreck in secular writings. I take wisdom where I find it and incorporate it into my rather eclectic spiritual path. Often the wisdom in different paths overlaps. I leave the dreck behind, no matter what its source.
I find that the passages in which Jesus encourages the sharing of one's bounty with those who have less to be worthwhile. Christianity is hardly the only faith that espouses that. I find ,most of your ten commandments to be practical guidelines for living - respect your elders, set aside time to feed your spirit. The commandments against false witness, theft, murder, adultery, and covetousness could be condsensed into one - If it isn't yours, don't mess with it. But I will not remove my altar to my gods from my living room. I reject the idea that there is only one true path. And don't even get me started on Paul.
I find that Buddhism's eight-fold path - right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right consciousness to be highly practical, with the added benefit of not requiring belief in a deity. Christianity has its "fruits of the spirit" which are similar, but posits that it is impossible to live this way without its god.
I find that the concept of karma in many Eastern faiths also makes sense. What you put out, you get back. Again, your faith also has the idea of 'reaping what you sow."
I find that the respect for the natural world in paganism makes a whole lot of sense. The more we hurt the planet, the more we hurt ourselves. Composting, organic gradening, and conscientious consumption are acts of worship for me. And that overlaps with "dressing and keeping the garden."
These overlapping ideas among many faiths are part of the reason that I believe there are multiple valid paths and that each individual should choose the path that best suits him or her.

The fundamental issue with accepting Mormonism as a "branch" of the modern fundamentalist wing of Christianity or even Christianity as a whole lies with two questions: one, who is it that has the right to determine whether or not such an inclusion is apropos, and two, whether or not the inclusion of Mormonism in Christianity would exert any undue pressure, whether openly or more subversively, on the faith to change to fit basic aspects of the Christian doctrine.

As it stands, Mormonism clearly rejects several basic tenets of fundamentalist Christianity. As a former evangelical, I know that many of the shapers of Christian doctrine in the various branches of Christianity would take tremendous issue with the inclusion of Mormonism in their loose "umbrella" of different faiths.

Aside from my personal view that religion should play no role in the public sphere and that such a distinction between whether or not one is a Christian is wholly-irrelevant to their practice of their own individual faith and their personal relationship with the God that they have constructed (which, by virtue of one's own mind, is at once similar and yet radically different from all other interpretations of certain faiths, let alone different faiths altogether), it is important to acknowledge that the so-called "spirit of Mormonism" might very well erode under the pressures to conform with Christian doctrine if it is included under that aforementioned umbrella.

In reality, this distinction is important to a great many Americans, if not politically. Will Mormonism have its wings clipped by other Christian sects if it is considered a member of the flock? The answer, in my mind, is a resounding yes.

Hi, Danny B - I hope you're still tuning in to this thread.

I was happy to see your mention of St Peter as the first Pope, because I remembered learning that, too, as a kid.

Meanwhile, I since learned that the Catholic Church wasn't even established until after the council of Nicea in 325 - way after Peter's time. And it was Paul, not Jesus, who spread the ideas that eventually became called Christianity. Jesus didn't coin that term. Later followers did.

Pretty interesting, huh?

Every church leader whant his church to grow. They do anything they can to find "a lost sheep" and recruit it to their church. It does not matter if the leader is Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical or any other church. Everyone is looking for people.

Church leaders with theological training are trained for this, and they take classes in mission, evangelism and discipleship training. Who is doing the blame game? Evangelicals are growing, and as I see it there is a competition in finding all "lost sheeps".

Most of the times this so called "lost sheep" is a burned out Christian that have experienced a little bit too much pain from his/her own church. They are looking for another place to worship God.

Does this so called lost sheep have a will of their own? Of course. Evangelicals have very often won the battle before, and the lost sheep (often a Catholic or Orthodox) becomes an Evangelical.

But.. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are also in this competition. They also want to grow (as all the other churches). Evangelicals are shouting out loud warnings, because they want the little lost sheep to come to them.

Is it possible that Evangelical leaders have an agenda of their own in this matter? Personally I think so. Evangelical leaders are paid to recruit lost sheep, and their salary is growing if their church is growing. Money talks, and it seems that it is talking a lot, and loud.

By what criteria are you defining "Christian?" The Christianity that was established by Jesus Christ when he was upon the earth? The one with apostles, prophets, an ardent and committed missionary force, and the law to "love thy neighbor as thyself?" Or a religious philosophy that has evolved and changed over the centuries; that allows itself to be the judge of all other religions--and say what they are and what they are not? Perhaps it is our definitions, and not our daffy notions--that need to be examined and compared.

From a solider in Iraq-
We daily see the pompous effects of acts committed in the name of belief and religion. For all those here that proclaim the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to not be Christian I hold up the unending acts of kindness and charity that the LDS Church has performed over the last few years. The constant acts of service rendered by the church to persons caught up in natural disasters round the globe alone demonstrate the Christ like intentions of the church. By their acts shall ye know them.
Here in Iraq I have met Figian soldiers serving our country that know of Mormons and many others that have come here to help out from arround the world. The trend is that the Church of Jesus Christ has done more to demonstrate is christian attributes than any other proclaimed christian organization out there.

Why aren`t these posts working? I type my brilliant words for all to see. I push the submit button and my wisdom disappears into the ether. IS the WAPO prejudiced against me or am I just paranoid?

America, like other nations, has always been bigoted against and intolerant of people that it does not like. They disapprove and resent people who say what they do not what to hear or see. It is only the Walt Disney version of the always decent American who can do no wrong that you are talking about. In your dreams. If you do not believe me just ask Joe McCarthy, Black people, Asians, Hispanics, the poor, Japanese internees during WWII. America believes in every man for himself. Fairness is a function of the bottom line not ethics or morality or altruism. Stop romancing with your nicely drawn analysis that has left realities out of the equation.

To Emanuel A Floor:
Those were very insightful and kind comments. I think you might well send a letter to that same effect to President Hinckley, and he would redouble his efforts to try and teach the members to recognize the good in all religious faiths and the importance of showing that in how we treat others daily. Granted, the LDS are very imperfect in this. Your comments need the careful consideration of all LDS who may read this blog. Thanks for the insights from your perspective and that of your wonderful children.

A noble effort to please your editor, Mr. Rodriguez.

Seattle Liberal:

I don't know for sure what your assumption was regarding the New Testament and if one believes additional books (or testimonies of Christ) can be added or not. Might I add something additional to what Henry James has already contributed:

I've come across a number of times the argument that because Revelation 22:18 states "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", many believe that no additional scripture can be added. This argument could not be further from the truth. The books in the New Testament are not all in chronological order. If it were, Revelations would not have been the last book in the New Testament, causing every book written after John's Revelations invalid and blasphemous.

In addition, the Old Testament states the same thing. So should we disregard the New Testament altogether? Of course not. Those statements were written by John the Revelator for his book - not others.

I wish On Faith had a FAQ so people could stop mass-posting the same questions, hoping to stump someone else on another board. For those who try to convince themselves that Mormon doctrine is incorrect on deity, you can follow this link to R. Albert Mohler Jr's blog where someone else posted the same thing. A commenter by the name of "RENE" argued it very well. You can find the link here:

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2007/05/is_mormonism_in_the_mainstream.html

I was born a member of the Greek Orthodox Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. As a teenager I was a friend to many Mormons and attended their Seminary Classes in High School.I reached the point where I thought I might join the Mormon Church. I understood their concepts and I was impressed by the calibre of the members I knew -- but when push came to shove it was my association with the Greek culture and strong association with the Roman Catholic Church that kept me well grounded in the beliefs and teachings that have the basis of my religious life. Eventually I affiliated with the Catholic Church where I have found great peace in the simplicity of the mass. I found that the Mormons have beliefs and opinions that counter mine. I live peacefully among them and at 71 am glad I rejected the Mormon lessons I was taught. Living in Salt Lake City gives me an upfront view of the pressures that are everywhere for Mormon Church members. The Mormons say: :"live in the World but do not become a part of the World." I am glad that I live among the Mormons but am not a part of their religious world. Many Mormons fail to realize that all people want to be and are good parents, live decent lives and love God. Many Mormons tend to believe that they alone have a corner on all of these atributes. When our daughter, then 7, was told by her Mormon friends that because she was not a Mormon she could not have Family Home Evening on Monday Nights -- her response was simply - "at our house we have family home evening every night of the week." When Mormons learn they alone are not the only people that have family values -- and that all people have value in the eyes of God -- they will find more friends. Many are so involved in their daily and weekly programs that they seem to lack a real devotion to God. It has always seemed to me that their connection to records, numbers, units, etc., leaves out the devotions that many of us find so important. Their form of worship is very simple and their meetings are essentialy filled with teachings by their leaders on all of their beliefs. They spend a lot of time reminding themselves what they believe and reinforcing the lessons. It is a form of "worship" far different than anything most people know or desire.

Mormons should not worry about Evangelicals calling them non-Christians, because many of these same people call Catholics (and others) non-Christians. For some samples, try Googling "Are Catholics Christians?" You will get more than 3,000 hits, with some of them pretty negative. Indeed, some Evangelicals deny that anyone who disagrees with their theology is a true Christian. So, Mormons, join the crowd!

Funny...I ask a legitimate question here, and my posting gets deleted.

It just goes to prove my point that "GOD" people are a very scary bunch, and most likely psychologically damaged.

Go ahead and delete that!

God is a joke.

To Jim and any others who questions modern revelation: I do not understand why this belief would be so incomprehensible to you. I do not know any Christian who does not pray. Why would one speak to God and not expect an answer? Personally, if I continued to talk to someone who never said anything back I would not continue to talk to them!

To those who dispute "new" scripture I have the following to say. 1. The Book of Mormon is not "new" in relation to the Bible because it was written the same time as the Bible. It is a record of the people on the American continent during the time of the Bible. The record was kept on gold plates which Joseph Smith translated. 2. If you believe in the Bible you believe in an unchangeable God. Why would God reveal His word to prophets in the Bible and not now? It doesn't make sense.

And to those who say members of our church and/or our church cannot be friends and socialize among people of other faiths without trying to convert them, I challenge you to look at help and aid our church has given to the needy both in this country and all over the world. This includes supplies of all kinds and actual man power to many disasters including Katrina and the tsunami. Our Church never hesitates to step in and help anyone in need, regardless if they believe what we do or if they ever do.

As to the original question of this whole thing, who gets to judge and how are they judging just what exactly is mainstream? If mainstream means we have to be like everyone else, we will never be mainstream. Despite those who ridicule our beliefs, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and its members are one the whole well respected not only among those in this country, but in many countries around the world. This is due in large part to the kindness and compassion we show to everyone, the honesty and integrity we cherish and strive to have and use in all our dealings, and the conviction we have to our faith. Personally, I would rather be respected than labeled mainstream.

These are the Articles of Faiath of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.(para-phrased)

1. We believe in God, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2. We believe men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adams transgressions.

3. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the God's laws

4. We. believe: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; Third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5. We believe that a man must by called of God, by prophecy and the laying on of hands by those in authority to preach the Gospel.

6. We believe in the same organization as in the primitive church.

7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelaation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, etc.

8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God in as far as it is translated correctly. We believe the Book of Morman to be the word of God.

9. We believe all that he has revealed and all that he will reveal.

10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion(the new Jerusalem)will be on this the american continent: that Christ will reign personally upon the earth: and, that the earth will be renewd and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11. WE CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE OF WORSHIPING ALMIGHTY GOD ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF OUR OWN CONCIENCE AND ALLOW ALL MEN THE SAME PRIVILEGE, lET THEM WORSHIP HOW, WHERE, OR WHAT THEY MAY.

12. WE BELIEVE IN BEING SUBJECT TO KINGS, PRESIDENTS, RULERS, AND MAGISTRATES, IN ObEYING HONORING AND SUSTAINING THE LAW.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

I think this makes us good citizens, friends, neighbors and most certainly Christians. I have belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ for over 50 years and have never been taught anything except to follow Christ and be kind to everyone.

If you don't believe me come to chruch and see what you would be taught. You might be suprized.

JIM:
“I may be wrong, but don't (M)ormon's actually believe that their leaders still receive revelations directly from god? If so, that is one scary belief system.”

In Amos 3:7, we read: ‘Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.’ After studying the Bible, it seems very scary to me that anyone would not accept and understand that Our Heavenly Father loves us so much that he will always offer His revealed word to His children. From the book of Revelation, and elsewhere in the Bible, we can readily discern that the last days are fast approaching. I cannot imagine that God would remain silent at such a time as this. He would surely honor His own word to let us know what is going to happen and offer guidance to prepare His children for what is to come. He has very clearly stated that His method for doing so is to reveal His word through His servants, the prophets.

Do I understand correctly that so-called mainstream Christians have decided that God will not be allowed to reveal His word and that there are no post-Biblical prophets? It seems that they are contradicting the wrong diety in that position.

Are we not encouraged to let the Holy Spirit guide us? If we receive such guidance, it must be received through personal revelation. Since Christians report that they believe in such personal revelation, why do they discredit God for promising to reveal His will for all of His children through His chosen servants, the prophets?

The aggression towards mormons from the evangelical born again community is driven purely our of fear.

The basis of this fear comes from the difference in requirements AFTER we accept Christ as our personal Savior.

Evangelical Christians are attempting to be a value system without the requirement of values in their congregations.

If I am saved by confessing Christ as my Savior, what difference does it make if I also try to be obedient to the commandments? Am I less of a Christian if I don't smoke or drink, pay my tithing, get married before I have sex, remain faithful to my wife, serve my fellowmen etc?

Follow the money and you will find the answer. Paid clergy have a vested interest in making their members very comfortable in thinking that confessing Christ is the single action required for salvation.

Maryland:
“The Gospel of John in no way teaches that man can become divine. You are completely mistaken.”

Please read John 10:34. Therein Jesus reminds his students that, because they are children of God,they are gods (or can become gods). You can also refer to Psalm 82:6 and Isiah 41:23 for the written words that Christ may have been referring to.
LDS members know that any righteous man can become a god and that any righteous woman can become a goddess, and that there must be a righteous partnership between a married man and woman before such a position can be awarded from God. (...neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:1)

Maryland:
“The problem here is that the Mormon testimony about Jesus Christ directly contradicts the written Word of God in the Bible.”
“Mormons are preaching another gospel which indeed is not the Gospel of the Bible. In the view of Christians, Mormons are using the name of Jesus Christ to deceive people into going to hell.”

It is very apparant that you do not know what is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or by its members. Every tenent of the church is based upon correct biblical teachings. The King James translation of the Bible is the main scripture used and studied by church members. The Book of Mormon is 'Another Testimony of Jesus Christ,' and is used to support, sustain, and expound upon the true teachings of and about our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Jim
Yes, you're right,
Mormons consider their President, Gordon Hinckley, to be a living Prophet, Seer and Revelator,

who, when he speaks for the Church, speaks as a Prophet of God.

I, too, find this belief scary.

I grew up as a Mormon, and have been one for 180 years.

Tell me again..........how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

As a "gentile" who has lived in Mormon majority places for thirty years now and has come to know a lot about the Mormon people and their religion, I find a lot of the pompous, "knowing" posts above truly intolerant and disgusting.

I'd rather be in the minority among Mormons than among any other group I know. They may try to convert you for a while, but then they pretty much leave you alone and think of you as a friend if you act like one.

If they think of themselves as Christians, who is anybody else to call them otherwise. Like a lot of religions, they cite prior scriptures as harbingers of their new revelations. Early Christians were probably looked askance on by their religious forbears, too, don't you think? But probably not as much askance as the myriad subgroups of the schismatic organizations known as Christianity look at each other.

I may be wrong, but don't mormon's actually believe that their leaders still receive revelations directly from god? If so, that is one scary belief system.

As I read through the the original article posted by Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, then the many postings that followed . . . I had hoped to read from a scholar who could enlighten me.

Alas, many forgot the point, and many were not well informed. So I will offer several points to those who are interested in this article's original purpose:

#1 I would agree with Rev. Rodgriguez . . .
"Today, Americans are no longer threatened by religious ideas and streams that differ from the traditional and historical faiths. Globalization, the internet, and sectarian violence have succeeded in transforming the pillars of religious orthodoxy from preservation via intolerance to preservation via accommodation." Folks want to be accepted for "trying to be religious and faithful" ! It's their right, and our responsibility as a free nation to honor all those who wish to practice their faith as they wish, in this wonderful society of ours.

#2 The comments about the LDS (Mormon faith) should challenge everyone to read and inquire.
My biggest recommendation is look to scholars who have expertise in their fields. Radio man,
and this or that person . . . do they have degrees and training in their fields? Do they speak and translate ancient Greek, and Ancient Hebrew.
(By the way, Joseph Smith could not read or translate the ancient languages of the Bible.)

#3 Fawn Brodie's book, is well researched and she gives you an insider's view of the Mormon history of Joseph Smith. Many Mormons are aware of this book, but try to attack her and her research. She passed away about 30 years ago, but as a Professor of History her primary sources are excellent! Make up your own mind about her book . . . No Man Knows My History: Life of Joseph Smith.

#4 Also one should read Professor Walter Martin's book, The Kingdom of the Cults. His book is specific detailing the problems associated with the Doctrines of the LDS. Make up your own mind.

#5 Those who think they know the bible, may I recommend to you . . . Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus. An amazing read about those who go to seminary school to learn to read and understand how the Bible was really written and translated. This guy is a top notch scholar. I learned a great deal from this book.

#6 You really do need to read one or two translations of the bible. Cover to cover. Start with the opening cover, and see who were the scholars who did the translations & editing. Some folks are liberal and some literal. You may be shocked to see such a difference in one or two words placed here and there in one passage, and the meaning changes slightly. By the way, for those who do not know . .. in the original languages (Ancient Hebrew & Ancient Greek) the bible did not have punctuation . .. and it's up to the interpretor or translator to figure out the best English meaning. You really are at the mercy of the translators. So don't be so quick to throw around your "one size fits all" meanings . . .
folks.

#7 The best advice I could offer . . . is seek God's wisdom, for as humans we make mistakes . . . but can we be divine and forgive each other, and move forward ?

Maryland: "I don't think it is possible to be a former Christian. If one truly is "born again" into Jesus Christ, one can't be unborn again. There is a spiritual event -- a new birth -- that takes place that cannot be undone. I would suggest that perhaps you were at one time a Christian in the religious sense of belonging to a church or professing a doctrine you were taught."

This plea sounds both goofy and desperate, though typical of religionists who think their version of truth is the default by which non-believers must also see the world. If Lepidopteryx feels like a former Christian, there is a good chance that the "rebirth" does not have the significance you would ascribe to it. We see the same attitude in Muslims who insist that you, who do not believe in Mohammed as a prophet, commit blasphemy when you draw pictures of Mohammed. It can only be blasphemy if you believe in Mohammed, and can only be recognized as a rebirth if you believe in Jesus.

Hello ECLATi-On's.

Dr Schell, I did not know that God and Jesus Christ personally visited Joseph Smith!

Bravo to the great cultural and birthright debate. Citizens today that openly tout a religious allegiance answer the call. From where springs the connection that one has to tout Christianity, Judaism, Ismlam, Buddism and a whole host of other sects? And why are different culture's body pigment colored and languages so diverse? Culture and birth/parents/family are the anchor and alchemy that shape much of our religious/spiritual mannerism and style. When I visit a foreign country initially, sights, sounds,languages, mannerisms and styles are often foreign to those of my tribe or clan.
But when I meet the people - I most often sense -that they as humans are made of the same body and spirit as I and their personal aspirations, hopes and dreams mirror those of most I associate with. Religous and political debates - and even land use debates in my corner of the world - are so colored by the participants culture and birthright. And so upon meeting a Jew, a Catholic or Muslim at a social event - my public response - is not to remark - how bizzare, extreme or absurd their belief system is, but search for some understanding. If I wish for them to accept in part my belief system then I'd best countenance their offering of what their cultural belief system offers too? Mormons are monsters with a devilish past of plundering prophets teaching heretic and anti christian themes? And their slippering past is full discord and doctrinal blunder? A chorus of unrelenting enumeration of Mormon sins - fanatic, fundamentalist and fraud. Oh it's members - some of them are OK - but it's doctrine is contemptuously coersive? Dear, my friends that grew up in Minnesota as Lutherans;
are they to next week wash away their birthright when the cat calls to knock down the Lutheran walls arrive. And all my Muslim Persian friends;
will the rest of the world continually mock - oh you are radical non christians? Chief Panelists and the legion of posting naysayers - isn't it always the ripe thing to do and say, "Let's keep things the way I was taught and the way my clan dictated." We can either abandon, scoff, tolerate or embrace our neighbors. Hopefully more of us become color and culture blind and accept and embrace others - even though they are different - than the way we are. Oh, Mormons are so strange....Dear? Should I just hug a Muslim or a strident Catholic priest and let those "cold worn out missionaries" simply stay out in the cold. Reliqious discourse, Brrr!, its often such a chill. Folk culturally stuck in a spiritual deep freeze? (afraid of further insight?)

The problem for Mitt Romney is that any religeous tolerance that does exist towards Mormons would come from the Democratic Party not the Republicans. The religeous right considers Mormons to be similar to a cult, recent events with the polygamist Mormon sect will only reinforce this view. While I rarely share the views of the religeous right, I have to admit that the Mormon religeon has a real sketchy past and the secret rituals that still exist in the Mormon Church should make alot of people think twice about voting for Mitt Romney.

To Whom It May Concern: Christianity is actually about the Plan of God which is unfolding before our very eyes. God's Plan is for the entire Human Race, we are all His children whether we like it or not. So many people that call themselves Christians like to rip out page 1 of the Bible, "Let Us make man in Our Image", which means all of mankind. Being a Christian is carrying on the work that Jesus started, He did say come follow Me, did He not? Is it any wonder that the Jews are so hated considering that Jesus was a Jew and the Lady that God asked permission of to become a human being was also a Jew. We all have free will and God did not overide Mary's free will. God is a Trinity and is Pure Love. God is also a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. Jesus did tell us that satan was the prince of this world and that he has been defeated but his rule will not end until it ends. Night is coming, Be ready. The seventh day will also come. Whatever you do for Love you do for God no matter what you call yourself. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It is such a shame that we profess to be Christians and we spend so much time arguing about religion. If we are seekers of truth, we would follow the example of Peter and listen to the voice to confirms to us the messianic mission of the Savior of the world. As for those who think that they are so learned in the ways of truth, Christ also warned against the pharisees and saduccees(sp) who "argued the word" rather than followed the spirit of the law. Christ also said, "love one another". He didnt say "love one another except the mormons" or "love one another except for the Baptists". The real truth is that if everyone humbled him or herself enough to sincerely ask God to be led to His truth, we would all begin to understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it truly is. I suppose there would be less arguing and bickering over who is right and who is wrong. "Contention is of the Devil". Let the mormon missionaries preach. They have a right to it! Let the baptist preachers preach. They have a right to it! Let the Presbyterians preach. They have a right to it! Stop getting so riled up because someone says they have the truth. Truth be known, there are a few people around in this world that could use a few lessons on how to treat each other better than they are doing now no matter who it comes from!!!!

It is a wonder that Christ loved the children so much. They are the purest of all. If you call yourself Christian, then take to heart the words of Christ who said we should be as the little children who were meek and lowly of heart. He commanded us to love one another.

"...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

He challenged his apostle, Peter before He left with a question. He said, "Lovest thou these (fish) more than me?" Peter said, "Yea Lord thou knowest". Then the Savior said, "feed my sheep". Peter did. He gave is life in the service of God and what did he get in return? Death. Why. Because people didn't want him to preach.

He said, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the Children of God"...if we are too busy contending...it has the opposite effect of peacemaking.

He also said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest no the beam that is in thine own eye?"

"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".

Just remember the Lord when he stopped to help the Samaritan, the next time you judge and are critical of others no matter what religion you are from.

If you claim to be a Cristian, then you claim to be a follower of Christ. If you claim to be a follower of Christ, you claim to serve one another. To love those who stand in need of love, comfort those who stand in need of comfort.

And so I extend my hand out to my brothers. I have received a witness by the Holy Spirit of God that Jesus in my Savior. I do not pass judgement on any except I pray to be a servant in His almighty hands.

If you profess the belief, then live it. Be honest. Be true.

With sincere love,
A servant of the almighty and your brother

MARYLAND stated:

"Mormons are preaching another gospel which indeed is not the Gospel of the Bible. In the view of Christians, Mormons are using the name of Jesus Christ to deceive people into going to hell."

Spoken like a true Christian! "Stay away from those scary Mormons because they're not preaching the Bible (as I interpret it). You'll go to hell if you do."

LDS members follow what they feel within themselves is right. It is a matter of personal faith and testimony. I find it incredulous that you claim that by following our conscience to strive to follow Christian principles we will be condemned by God. It sounds like you are taking it upon yourself to be the Judge, a role which your Bible (if it is the same as mine) clearly states is for God alone.

If I'm going to Hell, I'd rather be there with a bunch of Mormon 'heretics'. They are good people. They are my friends. They are honest and they are truly Christian. No, I'll rephrase that: 'Christ-like'.

I was not priveleged to view the PBS production, "The Mormons", that initiated this great cavalcade of opinion about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I don't know if this issue was covered in the show, but it hasn't come up in the comments that I have read in this forum.

The Church of Jesus Christ utilizes what is known today as a "lay" clergy, meaning that all worthy men ages 12-18 are eligible to receive the priesthood of Aaron or the preparatory priesthood, and all worthy men over 18 years of age are eligible to receive the higher priesthood, the priesthood of Melchizedek, named after the great priest of [Jeru]Salem who received tithes from Abraham. These priesthhood leaders receive no remuneration and each [studies or] works for a living in addition to fulfilling eclesiastical duties in the Church.

The Aaronic priesthood holds the 'keys' of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, meaning that these young men can minister to their brothers and sisters upon the earth as 'angels' might, can preach repentance to all and at the age of 16 are authorized to baptize worthy individuals in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

The Melchizedek priesthood "administers the gospel, holds the 'keys of the mysteries of the kingdom,even the key fo the knowledge of God."

How can this religion fit into the "mainstream" of the American Christian experience, when so many churches pay their eclesiastical leaders, who do not labor outside of their church duties for remuneration? This is also far apart from celibate eclesiastic leadership, which is even farther afield from the Church of Jesus Christ.

What you call Christian orthodoxy is just another version of pagan Hellenism grafted on to the Jewish Bible. No form of Christianity is valid.

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, when pray tell has tolerance become associated with religion?

Today Christians are fighting Muslims, yet one hears nothing but silence from the Christian religious luminaries regarding any opposition to the war in Iraq and the related devastation.

Fancy statements regarding tolerance are hypocritical when actions do not support same.

Lepi:

I don't think it is possible to be a former Christian. If one truly is "born again" into Jesus Christ, one can't be unborn again. There is a spiritual event -- a new birth -- that takes place that cannot be undone. I would suggest that perhaps you were at one time a Christian in the religious sense of belonging to a church or professing a doctrine you were taught. In the spiritual sense, which is the only sense that counts, I would encourage you to seek the Person of Jesus who is revealed in the Bible. Only then will you know if He is truly who He said He was, the Messiah -- or whether he was a nutcase or a charlatan who managed to get himself tortured to death by the Romans.

Maryland:
Your first paragraph - I agree 100%.

And I agree with you that all heroes, being human, are flawed. I was not suggesting that Shrub or any other Christian had to be perfect. It just galls me, as a former Christian who still finds much to admire about your prophet, that Shrub uses his religion as an excuse for his bad behavior, and people let him get away with it.

And you may be right about the spelling - I'll look it up. Thanks.

Lepi:

The election of George Bush was a mistake. No question. Invading Iraq was a strategic blunder. No question. Refusing to admit the mistake is a personality flaw. No question. But my sense is George Bush would have made these same mistakes whether he were a Christian or not. There is a serious question as to what course we should take now that we have gotten into such a mess.

However, the "heroes" of the Bible were almost all flawed people who made terrible mistakes. Christianity is not about becoming a perfect person who does not make mistakes. It is about the grace of God to fallen mankind -- about hope and redemption to sinners, about being born again as children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

BTW, I believe the Aramaic name of Jesus is Yeshua, not leshua.

Indirectly the tax code supports all non-profit organizations, including the ACLU, which some think is the most godless organization in America. Also, the indifferent tax code exempts Islamic non-profits operating in the USA. Imagine that happening to a Christian organization in Iran. Any non-profit is FREE to pursue their particular goals as the government is not directing the funding to achieve ideological, political goals. It is a good point that the US tax code does subsidize churches but that does not favor Christianity or any other religion, including the secularism that is worshiped at the ACLU. Those who want abortion get a tax break and those who push homosexuality also get a tax break. There s a tax break for just about anything you want to meet about and that is something to love about America. Ironically, the only place you can not give money and get a tax break is to a politician. How in the world did that ever happen? Can you believe that?

Maryland,
Putting too much pepper in the stew is a mistake. Putting your shoes on the wrong feet is a mistake. Invading Iraq was much more than a mistake. And refusing to admit that it was wrong and bring our troops home is criminal.
Shrub may believe that Ieshua rose from the dead - he says he does, and I'll take his word for it. But your prophet also said "By their fruits you will know them," and the fruit produced by this shrub is deadly.

EQP:

The problem here is that the Mormon testimony about Jesus Christ directly contradicts the written Word of God in the Bible. For Christians, this is a serious issue. As Paul wrote about the false teachers who were trying to lead the Galatian truth into legalistic heresy, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

Mormons are preaching another gospel which indeed is not the Gospel of the Bible. In the view of Christians, Mormons are using the name of Jesus Christ to deceive people into going to hell.

Lepidopteryx:

The heart of Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, as Redeemer and His finished work of offering Himself as a perfect sacrifice for our sins on the cross. It is not about morality (although those who follow Christ are called to be moral) and certainly not about public policy viewpoints or actions.

I believe George Bush made a terrible mistake by invading Iraq, but I would not attribute this mistake to his faith or say that his faith is any less real because he made a mistake.

The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are about building faith in and a testimony of Christ, about serving our fellow man (of all faiths), about strengthing the family, about helping each other to improve and be more Christ like and about returning one day as a family to our Father in Heaven to continue to progress. Different; Yeah, but totally awesome! We know where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. If that is being a Non-Mainstream, Non Christian Heratic, then I guess I am!

Seattle Liberal

I actually do not believe in God, so I clearly do not believe the New Testament is the word of a non-existent entity.

Anyone who does a little reading knows that the New Testament was cobbled together by a group of men, who made choices to include this book or Gospel and not to include that one. And many books are copies of copies of copies.

But additionally, none of the books of the New Testament address the question of whether any new authorized scripture is possible.

If one believes (against all evidence) that a God still exists who can affect what happens in the world, one has to believe, logically, that such a God could decide to send some new scripture down to us humans. Or maybe an Email.

You of course are free to believe She never would do either.

But there is NO doctrinal basis for your believing that, or for me believing the opposite.

The scriptures are silent on the issue.

Maryland:
I should have sourced my statement, which was 1 John 3:1-2 (not the Gospel of John). Sorry. Also, what if Satan used a half-truth (as he often does) to deceive Eve, appealing to her sense of adventure--"be like God, knowing good and evil" ( Eve then thinks, I wonder what that would be like.)? (She did have the power to think and reason, as you know, but was living in innocence without good and evil to choose from.) I still suggest you read C.S.Lewis, when you have the opportunity.

Maryland: "You, of course are allowed to vote on whatever basis you choose. You should allow others the same freedom."
I'm not stopping you. You will vote on whatever your criteria are, whether or not I validte them, which is your prerogative. But your implication was that Romney would not be fit to govern because of his religion. That was what I took exception to. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

"The spiritual world view of a candidate is irrelevant to you. To others, the spiritual world view speaks a great deal about who the candidate is and how he/she will govern. This is why an avowed athiest could not get elected president."
One thing I've learned over the years is to never say never. People didn't think JFK stood a chance until he actually won. You might be surprised one day to find an atheist (or a Wiccan, or a Muslim) in the Oval Office.

"Many people in the electorate belief strongly in God and would choose to vote for someone who shares their understanding rather than someone who denies it."
I fail to see where Shrub's actions reflect the teachings of the rabbi he claims to follow.

For centuries, following the death of the original twelve, people have struggled with the concepts upon which traditional Christianity is based. They have ultimately resolved conflicts by appealing to councils made up of religious philosophers, most of whom decry the concept of present day revelation. Member of those councils rely upon philosophy, sophistry, a little politics, and a little prayer (we hope) to define the nature of God & man and the principles of salvation. A still, even Evangelicals cannot agree among themselves about thise fundamental issues.

It is the height of arrongance to annoint onseself the deteminer of the definition of Christian. Perhaps we should leave that determination up to him whose name we invoke when we talk about Christianity.

I invite Mr. Rodriguez to examine the roots of his own faith to determine its validity. For me, I would much rather rely upon the work of present-day prophets the the numerous councils on religious philosophy that are the foundation of "traditional" Christianity. I fear that those who cast their lot with the ancient and modern philosphers risk becoming part of the group whom the Lord says he never knew.

Mr. James,

I stand by my statement. If you believe there are new addendum's to the New Testament, then you believe that the Book of Mormom is valid.

You are allowed to believe what is within your heart.

I don't believe there is a valid addendum to the New Testament called The Book of Mormom.

I am allowed to believe that which is in my heart.

And, they do teach great logic in Seattle and just look at all the powerful software firms based here as proof.

Have a groovy day!

Lepidoteryx:

You, of course are allowed to vote on whatever basis you choose. You should allow others the same freedom. The spiritual world view of a candidate is irrelevant to you. To others, the spiritual world view speaks a great deal about who the candidate is and how he/she will govern. This is why an avowed athiest could not get elected president. Many people in the electorate belief strongly in God and would choose to vote for someone who shares their understanding rather than someone who denies it.

Mamonism, not Mormonism or "orthodoxy" is the true official faith. We believe in salvation through wealth and possessions. The stuff in the Gospel about the "eye of the camel" or giving up worldly possessions was figurative, surely. Works, not faith, are the key. As most Americans "know," every page of the Good Book says "The Lord helps those that help themselves." Of course it does. Why even bother to look? The rich cruise to heaven in luxury class, get their own "club lounge" in the sky, and need not mix with the knuckleheads who bet on lottery tickets. Preposterous, you say? Fine, so you paint your pie in the sky, however you want it. Meanwhile, just don't mess with the money machine in this world of sin. Let every corporate exec rake in just as much as he can. Cast aside all sectarian quibbling and join the one true creed: praise to moolah.

Maryland: "So if I believe that an alien spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet is going to sweep me away to heaven (if I commit suicide that is)it is not a relevant issue to whether I am suited to be president?"
If you're suicidal, then you're mentally ill to a degree that would impede your ability to govern. What you beleive would happento you after you died is irrelevant.

"Of course, what we believe about the world and our place in it is relevant. That includes our religious beliefs. What Mitt Romney believes about himself and about the world is absolutely important."
To him, yes. But as long as it does not impede his ability to uphold the Constitution, it is not relevant to government. That's one of the problems with GW Shrub - he wants to use his religion as the basis for law, and is willing to change the Constitution to make it so.

"I suspect that if a devout Christian runs for president, you are unlikely to vote for him/her because you believe that person foolishly believes a lie."
I couldn't care less if a candidate worhips JHWH, Ieshua, Mithra, Zeus, Allah, Gaia, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ET, the Force, or his/her own left nipple. What I care about is how effectively they will uphold the Constitution.

D Parker:

Satan tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit by promising her that she would be "like God." So if that is what the Mormon church teaches, whose teaching is it?

The Gospel of John in no way teaches that man can become divine. You are completely mistaken.

and thus this section "On Faith" shows it flaws, I knew no good could possibly come from it, while in theory it would seem if written without bias it might have some poteintail to promote religious tolerance, but.... it is inherently written with auhtor's bias and the general reader's reactions will be defensively biased. Please scrap this colomn for the love of humanity... or take a differnt approach, something.

So the mormon doctrine and pratices arn't perfect, is yours? "Indeed, first row tickets on sale now... line up to cast the first stone!"

I myself do not believe in any God, just that love and kindness are better served than spite and fear. Does that make me not worthy of respect?

Folks:
You might read and reflect on the writings of C.S.Lewis, who talked about mankind's divine potential and the need to treat everyone with decency and respect because of this.

The LDS belief in divine potential (which is not becoming the same as God, but "like him" just as the Apostle John taught) applies to all races, both sexes, children who die young, the mentally impaired, the homeless, the fatherless, those who have suffered the ravages of war or the ravages of catastrophy--all people everywhere. It means we treat all people with the respect they deserve, if we're living our religion.

Seattle Liberal

Do they teach logic in Seattle?

The Bible explicitly says that after it is finished, no other scripture can be revealed by God, is that what you are saying? You're kidding, right?

Lepidopteryx:

So if I believe that an alien spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet is going to sweep me away to heaven (if I commit suicide that is)it is not a relevant issue to whether I am suited to be president?

Of course, what we believe about the world and our place in it is relevant. That includes our religious beliefs. What Mitt Romney believes about himself and about the world is absolutely important.

I suspect that if a devout Christian runs for president, you are unlikely to vote for him/her because you believe that person foolishly believes a lie.

The real question for Christians: Is the Book of Mormon an addendum to the New Testament?

If yes, then Mormons are indeed Christians.

If no, then Mormons are committing Blasphemy.

Mormons are citizens and have every right to run for President. But if a person believes, as Mormons do, that he can become a god, that is relevant to the political process. If he believes that women cannot become god or (until recently) people of color cannot become god, that is relevant.

The fact that Mormons believe that white males can become gods is proof enough that Mormonism is not a Christian denomination.

"The fact that Mormons believe that white males can become gods..."

We already are.

Maryland: "But if a person believes, as Mormons do, that he can become a god, that is relevant to the political process. If he believes that women cannot become god or (until recently) people of color cannot become god, that is relevant."

How so? What does a person's belief about what happens to him after he dies have to do with governing? So what if he believes that only white males can become gods? The dolt in the White House now believes that people who believe a dead Jewish radical came back to life get to live with said radical after they die. Not that his religion is why he's a dolt - he's a dolt on general principle. but how is his belief any more strange that the belief that men can become gods? And how is it relvant to upholding the Constitution? I don't recall it haveing anyhting to do with the afterlife.

Mormons are citizens and have every right to run for President. But if a person believes, as Mormons do, that he can become a god, that is relevant to the political process. If he believes that women cannot become god or (until recently) people of color cannot become god, that is relevant.

The fact that Mormons believe that white males can become gods is proof enough that Mormonism is not a Christian denomination.

"The 21st century American religious narrative contextualizes the embedded tenants..."

Such lovely prose!

Mormons are citizens and have every right to run for President. But if a person believes, as Mormons do, that he can become a god, that is relevant to the political process. If he believes that women cannot become god or (until recently) people of color cannot become god, that is relevant.

The fact that Mormons believe that white males can become gods is proof enough that Mormonism is not a Christian denomination.

If we had more religions that took a little bit of Star Wars, a whole lot of revisionist history, and a dash of gullibility, the religious world might be more fun to dabble in. But instead we have psychos who like to behead infidels and blow up abortion clinics. Hooray for religion!

I equate Mormonism with Scientology - both created by men with nimble minds and a desire for glory and power by creating their own religion that they could control.

Having said that, he actions of Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard are being copied by the likes of Jerry Fallwel, Pat Robertson, T D Jakes, Jim Jones, David Koresh and a host of other so called men of faith who twist and manipluate the Bible, it's message and their flock to serve their own best interests.

It's rarely about faith, it's always about power, fame and wealth to these people.

Interesting (partial)quote above (talking about Mormons):

>>....Hank Hanegraaff, head of the "Christian Research Institute" and host of "The Bible Answer Man" radio show. He says: "They take our language but they pour their meanings into the words...

Hanegraaff is a perpetrator of error. Why doesnt he comment about the meanings poured into the words of scripture by the illustrious Nicene Council? Religion slipped into much more error at that time than any other.

Hank Hannegraaff is no one to be taken seriously.

Any modern day Christian, whatever the denomination...who believes they follow scripture, yet observe, for instance, the various holiday observances, steeped in error, are among those who are deceived, mentioned in Revelation 12:9...It's not just the 'lost ones', my friends. (Who really are not lost (another man-made error), but will have the opportunity to know God at a point in the future..read of the three resurrections in scripture and how no man has ascended to heaven but, at this time, sleep in the grave until the return of Jesus Christ) The adversary has had a major role in deceiving the whole world, thru dividing views of God since Eden. Translations (such as KJV) have introduced error into sacred scripture. It is interesting, even within this thread, that some refer to the Holy Spirit as the 'Holy Ghost', which is nothing but mistranslation into early english by those who thought they were doing a good thing using 'ghost' for 'spirit'. Man made the choices that are now error. There is one God. There can only be one way to worship God. All else is confusion.

Mr Lofton:

You need to re-read each post on this blog. This has already been argued. For any Christian to say "they take our language but they pour their meanings into the words" is just shooting themselves in the knees. For who created the definition? Are you forgetting the changes that occurred by man shortly after the death of the apostles? How many Christians interpret the same verse of scripture differently? Yet we call ourselves Christian because we believe in Christ as our Savior and Redeemer.

The definition of Christian is:

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
3. of or pertaining to Christians
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike

By definition Mormons are just as Christian as any other follower of Christ. Period.

Mr. Rodriguez,

Your artical is entitled "Americans but not Christians". Please allow me to respond to that.

I'm British. I live in Canada. I have great relationships with many Canadians. There is a rich culture here in Canada of people of many origins.

I know many Americans.

I was an LDS Missionary in Australia. As well as Americans, I met Australians, Canadians, Tongans, Samoans, New Zealanders and a German.

Those of whom I speak are all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Being closely associated with them, I witness that they do their best to live their lives centred on the living Christ. They firmly believe He is real and that they have a personal relationship with Him and the Holy Spirit whom he has sent.

They are just trying to be the best they can be. A good friend. A good parent. A good citizen. A good Christian.

Christianity is about community. It is about sharing. It is about tolerance. It is about integrity and honesty. It is about service and compassion. It is about agency. And I believe it is about truth.

It cannot be debated that Christ encouraged his followers to go into all the world to share the message. We do that. We recognize that people have their own brains (and spirits) and are able to choose for themselves.
Many people choose to follow. Many more do not. I think Christ predicted that would happen too.

He also stated that at some future point many will profess to know him, and he will reject them. And that by their fruits you would know them. Be warned and fore-warned.

It is my observation that only about half of so-called 'Mormons' are Americans. Living among them, and having met many from all around the world, I believe that well over 90% of active 'Mormons' are Christians, and that among their core values is a strong determination to follow Him and to get to know Him through personal meditation, study, prayer, and revelation.

No wonder we get a little upset when we are labeled as 'Mormons' when we have each consciously and decisively taken upon us the name of Christ through baptism, and that the name of our Church indicates that very fact, that we are unashamedly members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". Regardless of what country, race, creed, religion or flag we were born under.

How can you say someone is not a Christian if he/she professes themselves to be? Can I tell someone he/she is not a Democrat, if he/she decides to label him/herself that way?

If being a Christian is not judging others, where does one get the right to tell others what they are? If being a Christian means accepting Christ into his heart, who are you to "know" someone else's heart?

I am not Christian, or LDS, but can the Christians not see their own hypocrisy?

We all experience life through the understanding of our own mind. No one can say what someone else thinks; the only true freedom one has is in the privacy of his own head. Give people the right to their privacy, stop trying to judge others "lest ye be judged."

Who the Heck Are Evangelicals
To Call Mormons (or Anyone Else) Heretical

It is laughably absurd for anyone who knows anything about religion to take this Evangelical position seriously.

'Bible Answer Man' Says Mormons Not Christian; Use Same Words But with Different Meanings
Contact: John Lofton, Editor, The American View, 410-760-8885, JLof@aol.com

MEDIA ADVISORY, May 8 /Christian Newswire/ -- Mormons are not Christians, according to Hank Hanegraaff, head of the "Christian Research Institute" and host of "The Bible Answer Man" radio show. He says: "They take our language but they pour their meanings into the words...Mormons do not believe that the Bible is the infallible repository for redemptive revelation. They believe that the book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth and it's the keystone to their religion and we therefore have a sharp difference in terms of what our authority is....

"There are more and more Christians who are saying that the gap between Christianity and Mormonism can easily be bridged with rhetoric. [They say] the divide, well it's not wide at all in their view. And I don't think that they're taking seriously what Mormonism teaches. Now we'd all be very happy if Mormonism recanted their heresy particularly with respect the nature of God and the person and work of Jesus Christ. But they haven't done that. What they're trying to do is bridge the gap with rhetoric and it is a gap that is so wide and deep it can never be papered over with rhetoric."

Mr. Hanegraaff made these remarks in an early May 2007 interview with John Lofton, Editor of TheAmericanView.com and a Recovering Republican. This entire interview may be heard by going to TheAmericanView.com and clicking on Program 104. Mr. Lofton can be reached at JLof@aol.com; phone 410-760-8885.

GLEN: "Imagine the US government using government money to build a Christian church in America much less using government money to build a Christian church in Mecca."

The US Government does give money (indirectly thorugh taxes and other means) to help Christianity and Judaism all the time. Church based inititaives is an euphemism for letting these religions control money that went to all the poor before Clinton, YES Clinton th "liberal" (c'ommom give me a break, he did the dirty work for conservatives) broke all the programs for the poor and gave the money to the churches and synagogues to tho as they pleased.

I find it both interesting and perplexing that people such as Mr. Rodriguez and his fellow evangelicals have the audacity to "still consider the Mormon faith to be a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy." I have read the New Testament (Authorized King James Version) from cover to cover 76 times over the past 30+ years. Nobody knows what I believe as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints better than I do. Mr. Rodriguez and his evangelical associates may presume to know what I believe, but they don't truly know what I believe. Every time I read the New Testament, I become more confirmed in my faith and more convinced that what I believe is unequivocally compatible with the Christianity prescribed by the New Testament, regardless of the presumptuous assertions of the evangelical world.

Att: G L E N et al;

All have the "spirit" [OUR unique photon frequencies assigned by Source-one a Nonjealous & fearless Almighty like your Finiteself) of LOVE and peace.....

Vote using your Head. Not Religion, not heart, not party; but use your HEURISTICs!

We should not be picking apart another's walk with Him when the real threat is a false prophet. We might not agree with the doctrine but the belief is there and the fruit is fact. The Mother Mary in Catholicism bothers me but that church has preserved the faith throughout the centuries, continues to be blessed, and they are some of the best people around. All have the spirit of love and peace. Our differences in doctrine are minor compared with the command that you believe in Him and abide in Him.

I never here much from Evangelicals(of which I am) about the falling away from the faith in the so-called mainline Christion denominations.A lot of time is spent disecting Mormons.Practicing Mormons know a lot about the Bible because they study it on a daily basis. I see a lukewarm attitude toward it in the mainline Churches of this day. Mormons are without a doubt committed Christians. Scripture tells us that we will know them by thier fruits.I am going to live my life serving God.If Latter-Day Saints want to attend Temples,have weekly family devotions,send out Missionaries, etc.So be it! Ask them why they do these things before you think it is not Christian. I am more concerned about Islam attacking Christianity than about my LDS brothers & sisters damaging it.Also,I am a lot more concerned about following my Savior than to pick apart another's walk with Him as well.

since mormans dont have a bible that demands that they hate, kidnapp, torture, murder, rape, or convert by force, i dont care what they do.

Religious capitalism works when you have a free marketplace protected by the rule of law. The double standard in the world today is that in Western nations you have a free marketplace for religion but not so in Islamic countries. As a result you have Islam taking root in every Western nation in the world and you actually have Mosques being built with Saudi government money right here in the USA. Imagine the US government using government money to build a Christian church in America much less using government money to build a Christian church in Mecca. Islamic governments are free to come here and sell their ideas without interference but we are banned from doing the same on their sacred Islamic soil. This is taking advantage of our hospitality and laws but with no reciprocation. This double standard allows them to convert in our country while making sure we do not spread the true gospel of love and peace in their countries. It is naive to talk about the marketplace for religious ideas without any mention of the issues of freedom of religion and separation of church and state that allow for that marketplace to exists in the first place.

It's really interesting to me that, in the discussion interpreting the scriptures about virgins and wives, no one has addressed the idea that these women are "given" to men. I don't know much about The Church of Jesus Christ, but it seems to me that an organization that can uphold such un-Christ-like attitudes about _any_ humans, whether subdivided by gender or race or any other characteristic, is going to have a hard time with claims of "following Jesus".

I am Catholic and therefore have beliefs that sharply contrast with those of Mormons. So what? My beliefs also differ greatly from those of Evangelicals and from the beliefs of Jews.

I appreciate that the U.S. elected a Catholic in 1960. Let's give Mormons the same acceptance.

Roy and Henry James are correct. By standard definitions of heresy, i.e., preachings contrary to Christian doctrine, most evangelicals I have encountered would be considered heretics. I'm not saying they're sinners; I'm saying that they preach anti-Christian values. When I was in Christian schools they taught us that to be a Christian meant to do our best to be like Christ. Jesus taught us to 1) treat people with dignity, 2) help the poor, and 3) take care of the sick. Simple. But the majority of evangelicals support the use of torture, discrimination against one group or another, taking from the poor and the sick to give to the rich, etc. Worse, they exhort their flocks to vote for politicians whose policies are precisely the opposite of what Jesus preached.

I am pleased that Mormons are NOT seen as part of "orthodox Christianity." The very reason why God and Jesus Christ visited Joseph Smith in 1820 was to bring about a restoration of His truths that have been badly distorted by man made religion: man's philosophies mingled with scripture.

Orthodox Christianity has NO concept of who God really is, who we are, where we came from, the true purpose of mortality, and what we will be doing in the eternities.

Let orthodox Christians call us non-Christians. Given the amount of their apostacy from truth, that is a high honor.

Evangelical Movement is Outre

From the point of view of a Classically trained Philosopher and theologian,

who now resides at one of the more esteemed schools of Divinity in the Athens of America,

I must clearly state that Evangelical beliefs and theology deserves little serious consideration either morally or theologically.

To have this writer condemn Mormonism as heretical is laughable. Derisable. Pots and Kettles.

Back to the River.

Rodriguez reflects the smug self-rightousness of evangelicals when he says "The vast majority of evangelicals still consider the Mormon faith to be a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy."

In face, Rev. Rodriguez the vast majority of evangelicals still consider anyone who disagrees with them to be a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy. This is why evangelicals cause so much hate and hurt in the world. Shame on you for your judgement and condemnation of others in Jesus name.

Evangelicals Are Often NOT Real Christians

My dictionary gives 5 definitions of Christian.

Pat Robertson *might* fit one of them.

Mormons are as much Christians as Jerry Falwell is. More.

And this from an Anti-Mormon.

Joe Campbell,

That sure is easy to say, or type. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd guess that you've never read through any one of those books with the honest desire to know if they were true. Of course, a whole lot of people haven't.

From my personal experience, the Book of Mormon is not only true but powerful and enriching. I haven't yet read all of the Bible (to all Christians: please forgive my procrastination here), but what I have read is good, and though there is an issue with compilation and translation, the prophets of the Book of Mormon (which I know to be true) testify of the writings of the Bible. Whoever started calling it the "Good Book" was right on target.

John Sanders,
ou wrote, "Mormons are Americans but not Christians." Shouldn't you leave that up to Jesus to decide?

The Book of Mormon, The Bible, The Koran/Quran, The Torah, are all at best an unintentional yet harmful falsehood, at worst an intentional and harmful falsehood.

You know, it also sounds like dollars have come a long way...the contemporary ones are capable of notation.

Concerned the Christian wrote:

Unfortunately the Words were attibuted to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions.

Huh?

Use the preview button before you post this crap all over the place, it doesn't even make sense.

I presume you mean "attRibuted", but what are "embellished men"? Men with earrings, and feathered hats...men with carved legs and mahogany inlay?

BTW...are you Cliff Claven? The joy you get from repeating your dubious knowledge all over and repeatedly leads me to think so.

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity, Judaism and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Word was articulated by the ancients using reasoning and common sense. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attibuted to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

Lincoln,

The problem is taking the verses piecemeal. Consider the verse immediately before verse 62. Verse 61 states the law by which a man takes wives after the first. It explicitly states that this law requires the consent of his first wife. In addition, the Lord speaks of adultery in words similar to those found in Matthew 5 and 19 and Luke 16, also stating that through obedience to the law the additional wives "are given unto him."

Then comes the next verse, in the form of a condition and a promise or reassurance. "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law [condition], he cannot commit adultery[promise], for they belong to him, and they are given unto him[explanation]; therefore he is justified."
In a few words, if a man practices polygamy under the law of God, he is not considered to have committed adultery and is justified. As mentioned in the beginning of Section 132, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob obeyed this law. By contrast, if a man practices polygamy not according to God's law, to which Official Declaration 1 applies, he is considered to have committed adultery.

"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law," is clearly a condition for being justified before God.

Jay,

You said that I misunderstood mormonism and have spoken falsehoods. I disagree.

Here is what you said about me:
You said, "The Doctrine and Covenants are binding scripture in Mormonism, and Section 132 authorizes the practice of plural marriage, promising 10 virgins to righteous Mormon men."

This is at best an unintentional yet harmful falsehood. It is at worst an intentional and harmful falsehood. Please be cautious and careful if you intend to tell other people what their beliefs are and broadcast it to a public forum."

I am constantly amazed at the number of Mormons who do not understand their religion. There are three verses in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, that make my point. I will let you be the judge.

D&C 132:53 says: For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things..."

This establishes the practice in Mormonism that because Joseph Smith was faithful over a few things, the Lord made him ruler over many things.

Then it says in D&C 132:62-64, "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him..." So, in Mormonism the Lord can reward a man for being faithful, by making him a ruler over many things. The wives belong to him because they are given to him.

My statement was "The Doctrine and Covenants are binding scripture in Mormonism, and Section 132 authorizes the practice of plural marriage, promising 10 virgins to righteous Mormon men." How is this incorrect based on D&C 132: 53, 62-64? I will let you be the judge. Have I erred?

We've gone from burning heretics at the stake to politely commenting that their beliefs are heretical. This is real progress. No, I'm not being sarcastic at all. Really. When I first got to college, the only dormmates that really condemned me for my religious beliefs were Christian evangelicals, well, and maybe one over-zealous Catholic guy. They couldn't simply disagree, they seemed really disturbed, even disgusted in at least one case. It's not like I advocated sacrificing children to Moloch or anything. But young people with strong beliefs often act like this, you know. The beliefs don't even have to be religious; young political zealots are just as bad. Ah, the intolerance of youth. Now this guy says, quite politely, that the beliefs of Mormons are considered heretical by evangelicals. No problem. Most Christians don't agree with evangelical orthodoxy either, though we don't use the term "heresy" anymore except as a joke.

Jay,

ON ATTEMPTING TO CONVERT SOMEONE TO A RELIGION:

You wrote:

"When I am enlightened and strengthened by reading the words of God's prophets in the Book of Mormon, why would I not hope for those around me to receive the same blessings? When I am enriched, sustained, and instructed in the Church I believe is God's true church, why would I not hope for others to experience the same? When I have hope of living such that I may receive not only salvation but exaltation also, through the fulness of Christ's gospel, why would I not hope for others to do so also?

"Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel not only blessed to have access to the restored Gospel but a responsibility to share these blessings with others. It is sometimes a challenge to do so while not being overbearing. Please, when you encounter someone who makes a mistake, exercise love and forgiveness, and try to appreciate their good intentions."

Attempted conversions remind me of successful fathers who try to get their sons to follow the same career that gratified them.

[See http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_palmer131006 for an amusing speech about all the famous composers whose fathers tried to turn them into lawyers. What a loss it would have been for humanity if the fathers had succeeded!]

So, ADVICE TO FATHERS AND THOSE SEEKING TO CONVERT OTHERS: Tell your son or object of conversion, ONCE ONLY, that the legal profession or Mormonism exist, and then get out of the way and let the person follow his own course. God and Nature will approve.

Regards.

Mr. Rodriguez,

I'm always disappointed and dismayed to find that other Christians take it upon themselves to judge who else is Christian, or Christian enough.

I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have accepted the title of "Mormons" even though there is no such thing as a "Mormon" church. "Mormon" is short for "Mormonite", which was a term of derision normally used against early missionaries of the Church, implying that we were followers of Mormon because we believe in the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture. Rather than constantly correct people and rail in offense at the term, we took it as our own. The Church has requested numerous times that authors use the full name of the Church, or refer to it as The Church of Jesus Christ when writing of the Church. Please extend this courtesy in future writings.

I believe that I am a Christian, just as I believe that you are. The fact that our doctrine differs in details doesn't make you any the less a follower of Christ in my eyes. Why do you find it so hard to afford me the same distinction?

Our first Article of Faith says it all:

"We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

Not Christian enough for you? I wonder if the Savior would be so harsh in His judgement?

Danny B,

I hear you. I know we can't be experts on every religion. At least I can't, I'm too busy. I really shouldn't even be spending time here!

I used to rely mostly on heresay to to interpret Mormonism. In other words, I didn't know jack. Finally one day, for a variety of reasons, I decided to educate myself by reading the Book of Mormon and researching the religion using a variety of pro, con and (hopefully) neutral sources. It was interesting.

I could point you in the direction of some research stuff sometime if you want and you can decide for yourself.

Ghostbuster,

Thanks for the input. I don't really mean to equate the faiths as much as point out that the Mormons, as far as I always knew, are another Christian denomination like the others. Like Islam, I don't intend to defend or condemn the faith.

I will look into this more, and was sorry to have missed the PBS program. I have seen your other recent posts and intend to look at some of the sites mentioned in the conversations you were having.

Lincoln,

I didn't address an important point earlier.

You said, "The Doctrine and Covenants are binding scripture in Mormonism, and Section 132 authorizes the practice of plural marriage, promising 10 virgins to righteous Mormon men."

This is at best an unintentional yet harmful falsehood. It is at worst an intentional and harmful falsehood. Please be cautious and careful if you intend to tell other people what their beliefs are and broadcast it to a public forum.

Should anyone want to read the Doctrine and Covenants, it is available on the Church's web site at www.lds.org.

Danny B,

I've always found you to be a pretty reasonable contributor. I admire your research of Islam and your attempts to dig beyond the rhetoric in search of answers.

You may want to invest some time looking into Mormon history and theology before equating it with your own religious beliefs in the name of tolerence. It's up to you. I did and found it all rather enlightening.

I think we should respect everyone and their right to worship and believe as they wish, but that doesn't mean that every theology can be equated.

regards

Lincoln,

I can't say that I'm a proponent of "Mormonism"; I just don't know what that means. I am all for the Gospel of Christ.

Personally, I do make friends with basically everyone I meet, and I try to be a good neighbor by knowing and helping the people near me. While I feel that it would be deceptive (and thus wrong) to "befriend" someone just in order to try to change the way they think, that doesn't mean that I should neglect my neighbors and friends either.

When I am enlightened and strengthened by reading the words of God's prophets in the Book of Mormon, why would I not hope for those around me to receive the same blessings? When I am enriched, sustained, and instructed in the Church I believe is God's true church, why would I not hope for others to experience the same? When I have hope of living such that I may receive not only salvation but exaltation also, through the fulness of Christ's gospel, why would I not hope for others to do so also?

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel not only blessed to have access to the restored Gospel but a responsibility to share these blessings with others. It is sometimes a challenge to do so while not being overbearing. Please, when you encounter someone who makes a mistake, exercise love and forgiveness, and try to appreciate their good intentions.

I've never understood why some people equate Christianity with "biblical orthodoxy". The Christians of Christ's time had no Bible, just various writings of prophets.

As has been put forth by others, it's strange to say that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians. As a member of Christ's Church, how could I not be Christian?

When speaking of "traditional Christianity", what does "traditional" mean? Is it referring to the many denominations that broke away during the Reformation? Is it referring to the time when Catholicism dominated the Christian world? Or should the term be applied to the faith that existed when Christ himself lived mortally on earth and when His apostles taught Christianity? If the latter (and that's what makes sense to me), then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, being Christ's church as it has been restored in our time, is exactly "traditional Christianity".

Granted, members of other churches won't believe that the Church is not Christ's restored church because they're of other faiths. That's natural.

I've never heard one good reason why Latter-day Saints should not be called Christians. Personally, I don't care if we are considered "mainstream". It is nice, though, to be treated well. When I know that Christ is my savior and that life would be meaningless without his sacrifice, when I sincerely try despite my faults to truly be one of His disciples, I know that I can be rightly called "Christian".

Like Norrrie above, this statement jumped out at me:

"The vast majority of evangelicals still consider the Mormon faith to be a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy."

While I respect all faiths, this is one thing about Evangelicals that disappoints me. The harsh assesments of those who do not believe as they do, and the denial that they are sitting in judgement when taken to task on it.

As a Catholic, couldn't I say the same of them, or any other Chrisitan denomination from Martin Luther onward? From my standpoint, why are they not "a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy"?

Of course, I don't think that of them, nor do I think it of Mormons.

John Sanders states in his post:

"Sure, we should respect Mormons as another religion, but we need to be honest in not including this religion within the traditional Christian faith."

To me this seems condescending and judgemental. While the Mormon faith is not mine, neither are the other Christian denominations and based on the two statements I cite above, I would have a basis for saying the same of any of them.

My understanding of "Christianity" is following Christ. How that is done is clearly open to broad interpretaion, as is shown by the diversity of demoninations.

It is a distinctly Catholic belief that Jesus made Peter the first Pope, and thus made Catholicism the one church founded by Christ himself. To put it another way; "the traditional Christian faith". If I applied the attitudes described above to all Christians who are not Catholic, I would be unfairly treating many, many people who are good and faithful Christian individuals in their own right.

I just can't do that. I don't believe that Christ would want me to do that either.

I have many friends who are not mormon, that I do not plan to convert, but this gospel is so delicious to the taste, that I want to share it. I do not try to force anyone to join the church. I just want to share the same joy, and they should choose for themselves. it is like a some icecream i have in the fridge, I will offer it to my best friend, and maybe try to tell him how good it is if he refuses, but if continues to refuse it is his choice and i will not force him to eat it.

Connor: "I might ask whom is the authority for asserting such validations?"

Of course you could always then ask who is the authority for determining the authority for asserting such validations. And who is the authority for determining the authority for determing... and on ad infinitum.

The Mormon church should be regarded with as much respect as any other church in the United States. In theory this is a true statement, yet on occasion, Mormon church leaders have encouraged the membership to disobey federal laws, such as the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds and the Edmunds/Tucker Act. Other religious leaders have not instructed their membership to directly disobey federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions. That is why many U.S. citizens would be concerned that Mormon Church President Hinckley could instruct the church membership to disobey federal laws again. Brigham Young and John Taylor were notorious for advocating disobedience to the "laws of men." This historic friction between the United States and a Mormon hierarchy with theocratic tendencies, has been an issue from the beginnings of Mormonism. I do not have any evidence that other religions have waged war against the United States in word and in deed, as the Mormon church has done in the past. Theoretically, President Hinckley could receive a new revelation to disobey the rule of law, and encourage the practice of polygamy again. This is a possibility under the current theological beliefs in Mormonism, especially with Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 remaining in full force. The Doctrine and Covenants are binding scripture in Mormonism, and Section 132 authorizes the practice of plural marriage, promising 10 virgins to righteous Mormon men. Given the doctrine of modern revelation, a distinct possibility exists that Mormon directives could take precedent over Federal law, as occurred in the past. What assurance does the U.S. public have that the Mormon church will not disobey laws in the future? A primary concern regarding Mormonism, is whether Mormons will choose to obey the Prophet or the laws of the United States should a conflict occur. This is a troubling issue, which has not been fully resolved.

Are Mormons afforded the same rights and privileges under the Constitution as other religions? Legally, of course they are. But on an individual basis, it is unclear whether Mormons respect other people‘s right of religious freedom. This is an interpersonal issue that is influenced by the institutional directives of the Mormon church. It rests on the ability of the church membership to make genuine friendships with people of other faiths, without the ulterior motive of converting them to Mormonism. Is it possible for a Mormon to make friends with a member of another religion, without the ulterior motive of someday converting that person to Mormonism? Yes, of course. But after watching the antics of Mormon missionaries on the PBS special, it is logical to conclude that many Mormons feel it is their duty to convert everyone to Mormonism. This concept is inherently offensive to many people who simply want to be considered genuine friends, without being viewed as a potential "convert baptism" in the future. Many creeds believe that they have the exclusive truth, not just Mormons. Many others are atheist or agnostic. Many other religions have developed a true tolerance for all humanity and do not feel the overbearing necessity of converting them to their own faith. Will Mormons ever be able to be genuine friends with non-Mormons without having the ulterior motive of conversion? This is a fair question, given the obvious harrassment of average citizens that was demonstrated by Mormon missionaries during the missionary segment of the PBS Frontline documentary. Maybe the reason Mormonism has not truly entered the mainstream yet, is that many people conclude, fairly or unfairly, that mormons are only interested in outside contact to the extent that they are fulfilling their duty as missionaries. This would be extremely shallow, superficial, and limiting, and would define Mormons as nothing more than scripted automatons. Mormons need to learn to have genuine friendships with people from outside their religion, on a wider scale. It is insulting to members of other faiths and non-believers, that Mormons believe they possess the exclusive truths of nature, when there is ample evidence in the history of the Mormon church, that it has just as many flaws (if not more) as any of the other faiths. Will the leadership ever encourage teaching true Mormon church history instead of a whitewashed version through its correlated lesson materials? Many Mormon's missionary zeal would diminish to proper levels if they fully understood the truly tenuous nature of Mormonism’s truth claims, from a historic perspective.

Before Mormonism is treated with the full faith and respect that other religions receive, it must demonstrate that it is deserving of such respect. The first step toward that respect would be a shift in emphasis away from converting every human being on the planet to Mormonism, toward loving every human being on the planet with the true Christian love, the love that Mormonism already professes to have. This shift will need to be generated from the upper levels of the Mormon church leadership structure. Until that happens on a broad scale, many will continue to view Mormonism collectively as a second-class religion.

Rev. Mr. Rodriguez,

You wrote:

"The vast majority of evangelicals still consider the Mormon faith to be a heretic deviation from biblical orthodoxy."

I consider Christian Fundamentalism and Evangelism to be heretical deviations from the truths of God and Nature.

Right on, Marysville. Mormons don't need to feel like they need to defend their faith all of the time. I should make no difference what people what to label you. You know what you are and that is enough.

Most Mormons, like myself, are far more concerned with reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ than by affirmation from other Christians. How Jesus Christ judges my Christianity is infinitely more important than how other Christians judge it.

"Traditional" is the key word in all previous discussions on this subject. The traditional mystical definition of God, triune, trinity, everywhere yet nowhere, and such are not found in the Bible. Godhead,Right hand of God, God's hand, God's feet are in the Bible. Firming up the 325 CE consensus was done at the council of Nicea by a non Christian mother murdering emperor who wanted unity rather than truth. Consensus even today is not always correct. Subjects at the council were hotly debated and undecided for many months before the emperor grabbed the reigns.

"The presidential candidacy of Governor Mitt Romney does not validate the Mormon religion."

A single individual, much less a politician, will not "validate" a religion. The tenets of the religion speak for itself. If it is to be validated (and I might ask whom is the authority for asserting such validations?), it will be based upon its doctrines, practices, and fruits.

"At the end of the day, the answer is that the Mormon religion has not entered mainstream America, but rather, mainstream America has infiltrated the Mormon religion."

Umm, then what of half of the LDS Church that exists outside of the USA? Are you claiming that America has infiltrated their lives and beliefs?

Rodriguez is correct. Sure, we should respect Mormons as another religion, but we need to be honest in not including this religion within the traditional Christian faith. Mormons are Americans but not Christians.