I recently had a comment about the question “Are Mormons Christian?” and how this was the wrong question to ask. I felt it would be quite helpful to see how Robert Millet and Greg Johnson deal with this question. This is a transcript from a portion of the public dialogue hosted by the Christ United Methodist Church, in Utah, on February 19, 2007 (audio available). I’m only providing one segment of the conversation (50:24 – 1:06:40) and I hate to cut it off since during the segment following this the tables are turned and Johnson is asking Millet a difficult question. I would encourage readers to listen to the audio since often a transcript cannot convey the feelings and tenor of the conversation. I’ve also edited the conversation for length and also because audio quality makes some spots hard to hear, but I hope it is faithful to the overall presentation and would encourage listening to the audio. (Note: Some ellipses indicate omitted material but some simply indicate abrupt transitions in speech).
Millet: Knowing how I feel about Jesus. Knowing how many of my dear dear friends feel about Jesus. Knowing that my life has been given to him, do you know how difficult it is for me to have someone say to me, as I did… Stephen Robinson and I were asked to visit with some representatives for the Southern Baptist Convention in Kansas City several years ago. We taught doctrine for about eight hours and at the end of the eight hours, one of the younger men in the group turned to both of us and just said, “Steve, Bob, if you would just accept Jesus as your Savior!” And I remember thinking I don’t even know how to answer that. Since then I thought, you know, the feeling I had was one of, I felt like turning to him and saying, “Well, if I could just convince you to accept that the bible is the word of God!” I know he would have said, “What? I do dummy.” I’ve felt much the same way when people have said to me, yeah but you’re not Christian. On what basis, I’m not talking of you personally, but on what basis might persons who are Evangelical or of other mainline Christian faiths might conclude that Latter-day Saints are not Christian given the way we’ve been talking?
Johnson: That’s a tough one. I actually like to refer to on our website for anybody who might be interested…and we have by permission from the book publisher an article that Dr. Craig Blomberg the co-author of “How Wide the Divide”, was able to insert into a book that was written a couple of years ago called “New Mormon Challenge.” It’s a group of scholars who are engaging in with Mormon theology in a contemporary way…
The title of the chapter is “Is Mormonism Christian?” which is a change in the focus of the question which is often “Are Mormons Christians?” I’ve said to you that I think more and more, there was a time, I think, that the average Evangelical, maybe there are some that would still hold this stronger position, but the average Evangelical would say, Mormons can’t be Christian period, they just believe too many different things about what the bible teaches and who Jesus is and what the teachings of the Christian historic faith are, they can’t be Christians. I would say that in the last five or ten years you would hear more Evangelicals saying, “I’m not saying no Mormon can be a Christian, there may be some that have a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ, but the theology of Mormonism is still so different from traditional biblical Christianity that the doctrines of the Mormon Church themselves cannot be considered Christian although I can’t say that not all Mormons are Christians.” You will hear that transitional attitude.
Millet: So, Greg, from that sense then one of the reasons Mormons are considered to be not Christian is because their theology is either deficient or inappropriate?
Johnson: Yes. That would be the strong position of the Protestant Evangelical community that there are some teachings about who Jesus is, and what the historic Mormon teachings are, that would make this something different than true Christianity. Now, follow my line of thinking here because, one, I think that we do a tremendous disservice to one another, when we use labels and what we call ‘conversation stoppers.’
A great ‘conversation stopper’ is if I walk up to you on the street and say, “Hey do you know that Mormons aren’t Christians and that you’re going to hell?” The average Mormon that I have seen experience that kind of conversation often says right there, “Thank you! Help me to come to know Jesus the way you want me to come to know Jesus.” (Laughter)
Millet: So they don’t say, thank you, I look forward to seeing you there? (Laughter)
Johnson: They don’t. They don’t say that either. Now, there might be some examples, but I would say, generally speaking, human nature does not respond well to that kind of assault. I have felt that we need to engage more in ‘conversation starters.’ If Protestant and Evangelicals takes ought with particular Mormon doctrines, I think we ought to start with, “You know that’s interesting, you are a Latter-day Saint, I am a born again Evangelical Christian, my understanding is that there might be some differences in the way you look at who Jesus is and in the way I look at Jesus. Can we talk about that sometime? I think that would be a fabulous experience to talk with you about what you believe about Jesus and what I believe about Jesus and maybe we might find some similarities but maybe we’ll find some differences and let’s be honest about that too.” I feel like it’s not healthy, I don’t think it’s a biblical place to meet, I would go back to James, I don’t think it is our place to judge any person’s soul. Some people ask me, so is Bob going to come over to our side? Maybe we’re gonna get him. And people think maybe Bob is going to sway me back into the LDS faith. The heart of that question is that unless we can convert each other and persuade each other, to take one label and replace it with another, then we are lost or we’ve been defeated somehow.
Millet: Or that there is no benefit to doing this if we can’t convert one other to our faiths.
Johnson: So I would call upon Protestant Christianity to not use labels. I like Salt Lake Theological Seminary that looks at Mormonism as a culture and encourages through video project they have called Bridges, they encourage people to say you know Mormonism, the term cult is so filled with pejorative baggage…does it really help us to use that kind of label? I don’t think it does. I don’t refer to Mormon people as members of cults. I don’t think that’s healthy. I understand Mormonism is a distinct culture, with a very unique understanding of theological questions, a culture of family a tradition of history that goes back in 177 years from the days of upper-state New York into Kirtland, Ohio and into Nauvoo, Illinois and out West and we have to appreciate that there is all of that, and understand that in a typical Mormon person’s life there is much about what whole experience that is appealing to them and very significant and I just don’t think it helps for to me to come in and say, well you know you’re not a Christian. That was told me to me as a Latter-day Saint and I wasn’t very appreciative of it frankly. So, that is one question, ‘conversation stoppers’ and ‘conversation starters.’
Now let’s take it to the next level. Do I as an Evangelical think Mormonism is a Christian faith? I don’t, and I don’t for a couple of reasons. One, it has never called itself or described itself in the larger historic Christian church as either Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox Christian. If one understands the historical Christian claims of the Church of the Christian faith you do know those are the three main segments of Christendom. Mormonism started in 1820 and 1830 officially by saying we are not part of that tradition and we are distinct from that. We go back to the very first days of Christianity within the first one hundred years and we are restoring that which is lost. So, I think that…I don’t see Mormonism in light of historic tradition by its own statement, by its own definition.
Millet: Let me pose this to you Greg and I think some of you can identify with this. Can you see that that explanation to me is very helpful? And I would not consider Mormonism to be a part of the traditional Christian world per se. On the other hand, I know you understand why and I’m fine with that, and many of our friends [understand why]. What worries me is not you and the theologian, what worries me is the man or woman in the pew, or even worse the man or woman on the street who hears, “Well, Mormons aren’t Christian.” I mean, the question is what immediately comes to mind if you don’t know anything about them? Does that mean: Oh they must not accept the New Testament. They must not believe in the divinity of Jesus. They must not believe he rose from the dead, and they certainly must not believe he offered a substitutionary offering on our behalf through the Atonement. See what I’m saying?
Johnson: You know well that I was interviewed on a Canadian Christian radio program here in the states and I was on the phone and I had made some of the cases for better relationships between the Evangelical and Mormon communities and an irate woman called in and said, “You know I just think this is ridiculous, you’re so chummy with the Mormons you can hardly tell that you even believe they’re different, and you know they don’t even believe Jesus died on the cross!”
And so I paused and I said, “Madam, where do you think, that they think he died? (Laughter) And she had no answer! And she said, “Well, I’m not saying that they don’t say he died on the cross, but they don’t believe the same things we do about what he did when he died for us.” And I said, “Fair enough! Okay question, the second one, the first one was terrible. Because what you did is you incited something that’s not true. They do have a view of the historical figure named Jesus Christ that walked this planet 2000 years ago. They have a sense of that person. They don’t believe their Jesus is a guy named Jesus who was born in Chicago a hundred years ago. They would think that the person they’re believing in when they say they believe in Jesus, they would think of the guy in the New Testament. That’s the person they say they would believe in. So why do we insist that they don’t believe in that historical figure?”
Millet: That’s an important point Greg, and while you hit a good point, that is there are theological differences as to how we might view Jesus, I think when a person says to me you believe in a different Jesus, my tendency is to ask, “Well, do you mean that I believe in a different historic Jesus?” And the answer has to be well, no. My Jesus, the Jesus of the Latter-day Saints was born in Bethlehem under Caesar and grew up in Tiberius’ time and died under the direction of Pontius Pilate. So, historically we are talking about the same person. What we are really talking about difference-wise are the differences in theology between what we believe and what the later Christian church put together in the church councils.
Johnson: Well, that and more. It’s totally fair to talk about who we believe Jesus to be. Was he born of a virgin or not? What was his pre-existent state? Does he have a beginning or is he eternal? What is his relationship with us or with this creation? What’s the association between the Creator God and the creature? Those are things we have to talk about, and if you are offended when an Evangelical comes to you, as a Latter-day Saint, and says, “Well, I just think that your idea of Jesus being the literal Son of God the Father is just not biblical to me.” If you just say, “Well, you are just judging me and that’s not fair.” I think that it’s fair for them to ask that question. That’s a historical theological distinction that Mormonism has with the larger Christian world. So have the conversation, be polite by all means and get it right…
We’ve just had a great conversation with grace and works and certainly we would want to follow it up with who Jesus is and we are talking about this whole label of Christianity. But I really feel that it does us no good as human beings to simply; You can go to a class, you can watch a video, read a little tract, get a little book, and it can kind of teach about how bad somebody else’s religion is, and you feel very vindicated that these people aren’t even Christian. Now, I know tracts have their place; they’re brief communications and maybe a starting place for some. But I think the very way that we approach one another and the way we teach one another to label one another is very harmful. And in this community, in Salt Lake City, we need to rise up together as Mormons and Evangelicals and say we are not going to be lazy any more, we are going to do better, we’re going to afford each other the respect, courtesy and dignity, the right to believe differently as we so choose to believe, and we’re going to do it with grace, and kindness and civility and biblical love, because that will make Salt Lake City a different kind of Community, and its not by…Bob and I talk about how we feel we offer something a little unique, because in ecumenism which is a word I think Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints are a little nervous of, if it means trading to the lowest common denominator in theology.
Millet: Yeah, [for example] if you give away, if you get rid of the trinity I will get rid of baptism for the dead.
Johnson: Can we go for another doctrine? I’d be willing to trade something but not that. (Laughter). But, I think really aren’t we saying to the extent that we work harder at this and not take if you will just a basic liberal attitude and say, let’s just all get along and we’ll sing cumbaya and if you want to believe the rock is God fine, and I want to believe the grass is divine. We can all have beliefs like this, this is America, but I think we’re actually saying is that we can even be a better community even acknowledging our differences by the way we treat one another.
Millet: And another thing too. Like you say the former is that simple, just to pronounce I love everybody I accept everything. It is hard work is to say, no I have different beliefs but I want to know where you are coming from, help me understand.
The reason it’s the wrong question to ask, I believe, is because it’s addressing the wrong issue. Mormons believe what they believe, about the Godhead, the virgin birth, the priesthood, Christian symbolism, doctrines of salvation, three degrees of glory, etc, in short, all that differs from historic Christianity, because they believe that they have received a witness from God that he appeared to Joseph, and gave him commandments, and power to translate the Book of Mormon.
Clearly, it is unfortunate that those who consider themselves Christians should have genuine differences over these issues. Nevertheless, the fact is that they must hold these honest convictions, without exhibiting a spirit of animosity and anger towards those who differ with them, if they are to qualify as true Christians, and not as those who only “draw near unto me with their mouths and with their lips do honor me, but their hearts are removed far from me.”
That this can be done in a true spirit of Christian love has been amply demonstrated by Johnson and Millet. My point is, however, once that is established, it should be recognized that the only relevant question to be addressed is the one that asks, “Did God call Joseph?”
The reason I say this is easy to understand, if we consider that, even if all the differences between Mormon and Evangelical doctrines over the Trinity, the virgin birth, the pre-existence, etc, were to be eliminated, most Evangelicals would still not be inclined to submit to the authority of the Priesthood, which Mormons claim to have received from God.
This is the true difference between Mormons and other Christians. Those Gentiles, who believe God called Joseph, are baptized, just as those Jews, who believed God called John, were baptized.
Therefore, the discussion should be centered on this question, remembering that faith, hope, and charity, leads us to Christ – the fountain of all righteousness.
You have a very interesting blog, truly seems to be seeking understanding.
I disagree with Doug in that although he makes an important point, he is off the mark. All non-Mormon sects answer the question of whether God called Joseph negatively. I think it makes no sense to expect them to institutionally change that point of view. The greater body of Christian sects will not become Mormon, they will reject Joseph even after they learn about him, his revelations and his ministry. Therefore I think although the question of whether God called Joseph to be important in evaluating Mormonism, it is essentially irrelevant in the context of inter-faith dialogue where the assumption is that those of different faiths will ultimately remain part of those faiths after the discussion is ended.
The context of this ‘Are Mormons Christian?” in the post above is at a crossroads. I understand that debate itself was launched by Evangelicals and others as a reaction to Mormonism growing prevalence and popularity. The “debate” comes to a head now that a Mormon, Mitt Romney has a legitimate shot at becoming President. The Millet and Johnson discussion seems to be among the first attempts to defuse the animus inherent in the argument.
It seems that Johnson has recognized the aggressive and alienating nature of the debate and is trying to soften this nature without abandoning the question. Millet in a friendly, almost Socratic way, seems to be trying to put holes in the way the debate is framed. I agree with Millet’s rhetorical approach under the circumstances but I think that approach fails to specifically point out the flaws in the debate itself.
Here is what I can add…
The “Are Mormon’s Christians” debate seems to be simply a polemic invented to:
1) dissuade people from considering Mormonism,
2) keep Mormons out of a particular community
3) To monopolize the prestige of the “Christian” moniker to a particular sect or group within Christianity.
Clearly all Mormons are disciples of Jesus of Nazereth and “take upon the name” of Christ at baptism and in every church service, and always pray in his name. By any fair general definition of “Christian” it would seem they would be included. Of course you can define Christian in a way to include or exclude any group you want. (Mormons could easily do the same thing by excluding everybody else as real “Christians”). I think part of the motivation for the debate is that non-Mormons are generally threatened by Mormonism while Mormons are generally not threatened at all by Protestant theology. Mormons actually don’t generally use theology to convert, but rather the Book of Mormon, i.e. if it is from God then so is Mormonism.
Not including Mormons in a definition of Christian would be like not including Motorcycle Racing in the definition of “Sports” I.e. those who are playing football are likely to point out that motorcycle racing is so far removed from historical “sports” as to fall outside the definition. Indeed motorcycle racing is completely different than football, but clearly there the “family resemblances” between football, ski jumping, bobsledding, tennis etc. extend also to motorcycle racing and it should properly be considered a sport. To exclude it would be to give “sport” some special definition that does not fit with the general usage of the word.
To make a stronger point, and to borrow more closely from Wittgenstein’s classic example, no matter how different they are in principle and practice, it is strange and incorrect to claim that football and bridge are not both “games”.
Similarly I think the classification of Mormonism outside of Christianity is generally inconsistent by those who consider unorthodox but brilliant thinkers like Paul Tillich as being Christian. It would be, I think, strange to say that Tillich, considered by some to be one of the greatest Protestant theologians of the twentieth century, was not a “Protestant” because his theology differs radically from that of Baptists. Clearly his writings seem to be as different from the Apostles creed as many of the canons of Mormonism.
I think a more accurate, and consistent label that Protestants could place on Mormonism is “heretical”.
However, the continued attempt to classify Mormonism outside of Christianity seems to be a propagandist tactic and a form of doublespeak, attempting to co-opt the meaning of a term for political gain. It is specifically designed to alienate. Because of this, I think the “Are Mormons Christian?” question rightly falls outside of honest and open interfaith dialogue. The fact that the argument is so popular means that it takes more courage and intellectual honesty to recognize it for what it is and then abandon it. Mormonism can certainly be denounced in uncertain terms as heretical without resorting to propaganda. As a Mormon I can readily accept the title of “heretic” and even embrace it without feeling alienated by the person or group labeling me as such. This opens up the discussion to how Mormons are heretical which leads to interesting discussion that does not have the smack of exclusion and manipulation of the term “Christian” in common usage.
I think one problem with the Mormon reaction to the “Are Mormons Christian” debate comes from Mormonism’s defensiveness of the heretical nature of its doctrine in light of Protestant theology. Mormons ultimately want Protestants to convert so they often tactically defer from recognizing strong theological differences in public forums for political reasons. This of course gives those who deny the Christianity of Mormons fodder to feed their claims of Mormon dishonesty and the paranoia that Mormons are now trying to infiltrate the ranks of Christianity by hiding their true face. I think the best answer is the honest one, Mormons have believes that are heretical to traditional Christianity, that said, they still unequivocally fall within the meaning of the term Christian now in common currency.
Of course the danger of abandoning the debate on the Evangelical side is that by their special definition of Christianity, all Christians go to heaven and heretics don’t and its difficult to acknowledge that in this belief they are using the term “Christian” in special theological context rather than how it is commonly used outside of theological contexts. Perhaps the problem is that the complexity of theology is so far from the interest and relevance of the average person, even the average believer, and our society is so open to differing views and open discussion that calling someone a “heretic” just doesn’t have the bite that it used to and therefore propaganda is necessary.
I think Mormons have a lot to learn from other Christian religions and their practice and vice versa, without the necessity of converting either side to their particular Christology or cosmology. As a Mormon, I find many Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox perspectives on what it is to lead a Christian life refreshing and insightful and they enrich my religious and spiritual life. I think that dishonest alienating tactics on both sides of the Mormon fence impoverish the discussion and prevent us from communion that could enrich Christianity.
Hi Jared,
You wrote:
If that’s the assumption, then what’s the point of the dialogue? Today, the Christian world considers “the Church” irrevelant. Even though they refer to the “body of Christ,” and often address the congregation as “Beloved,” the experience of revelation and salvation through grace are strictly interpreted on a personal level, never an institutional one, which makes them all one church, in effect.
Therefore, the message that the Mormons bear, as a messenger of the nations, is addressed to all the people in all the denominations collectively. To all the nations of the Jews and the Gentiles, to those who have been surnamed “Christian,” by the God of Israel:
So, it’s not a matter of addressing institutions, but individuals who seek to follow Christ,
This is not the voice of Mormonism. This is the voice of Christ, speaking to all the world. It is not a voice of condemnation, but a voice of warning
If the Latter-day Saints are sent to voice a warning, then I suspect that’s what they should do. The Lord said to Ezekiel:
The word of the Lord is that the sword is laid at the root of the tree, and the warning must go forth:
The question is not whether LDS doctrine is Christian doctrine, or not, but rather which Christians will heed the warning, and which will not. The duty of the Latter-day Saints is to deliver the message and help the Christian Church understand that it is from Jehovah, that he has set his hand the second time to gather his ancient covenant people, that just as the casting away of his people was a blessing of unestimable worth to the Gentiles, the receiving of them again is even more so. It is as Paul said, “life from the dead.”
Ok, but non-mormons don’t believe this description of the Mormon Message, and many will pray sincerely and never get an answer that leads them to believe that Joseph was a prophet.
Your questions are really only relevant to people who believe in Joseph Smith.
The “point” of the dialogue is that I believe Mormons have a lot to learn from other Christians. Mormonism suffers from a conceit that often leads its members to thinking they know more and are more righteous than the rest. Mormons, if they are sincere in their own belief in opening their hearts and minds to all truth can and should open their minds to the truth from God that is being delivered to devout Christians across the world.
We may be delivering the message you are talking about incorrectly or inefficiently because we have not understood other Christians well enough.
There are all kinds of reasons dialogue and understanding can improve our ability to live our religion, bring us closer to Christ, open our minds and hearts so we can be the “elect” we should be rather than just another group that thinks they are of Christ but don’t walk the walk.
I think this is one of the best sites to share thoughts and the authors Robert Millet and Greg Johnson dealt with this question “Is Mormonism Christian?” very well, and I got a very good clarification on this.
I suppose the question might involve how two parties can learn to disagree. I must admit the rigidity sanctioned under the rubric of religion would not be acceptable in other domains. Perhaps this means there is a larger problem.
Free Spirit, thanks for your comment although I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I don’t think disagreeing needs to be learned by most people since it comes rather naturally, don’t you think? Perhaps you mean learning to disagree without being disagreeable and in that case, I do think Millet and Johnson illustrate a very good model in how to discuss religious differences. Perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by “rigidity” and what larger problem you see.