Not sure if the book addresses the theological roots for why Nicene Christianity rejects the LDS viewpoint as being "Christian". I couldn't tell from the ToC. It took me a long time to understand why a seemingly unrelated point about the Trinity should become such a strong sticking point for terminology and questioning a whole people's testimony of Jesus. I think most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (hereafter LDS) see invocation of the trinity doctrine as a way to sneak in an unjustified exclusion of LDS from the "Jesus club", as though they were the ones with exclusive rights to define who gets to have a testimony of the Savior. This impression of willful exclusion is part of why I think many LDS get worked up about this topic. There's a sense of being unfairly excluded from a group to which we strongly feel we belong, even as we recognize we're a little different in some of our doctrinal points. But then again, who isn't? (Also, there's some incredulity/offense that Christians are denying our testimony of the risen Lord.)
I think both LDS and Nicene Christians could benefit from attempts at mutually understanding one another. However, since there are fewer LDS by far, the onus is on us to reach for understanding a little more. A little charity is warranted here. Understanding requires that we suspend our theological understanding/definitions for a minute so we can understand where our Christian brethren are coming from.
The reason the Nicene creed comes up is because it's literally at the heart of the issue. The Arian Heresy was/is seen as an attempt to redefine God. In an ex nihilo creation, what comes first? If, as Arians claim, it's the Father, and He creates the Son, then the Son isn't really God. He's subordinate to God, with perhaps a role in salvation, but as a created being he is distinct from God, who is uncreated. What do you call someone who thinks Jesus Christ is special, but is not truly God? Muslims teach exactly this doctrine, as do some religions who follow the New Testament tradition, but who do not see Jesus Christ as truly God. Can we all accept that someone who holds such a view should not be defined as a Christian? Is there a good metric we might use, other than engaging in long theological discussions, to tell who believes in the true divinity of Jesus Christ?
Enter the Nicene Creed.
Although the Nicene Creed seems difficult to parse for LDS readers, what's important isn't what it 'means' definitionally so much as what it's trying to state about the nature of Jesus Christ. To the Arians who say the Son must come after the Father, and therefore cannot be truly God, Nicene Christians proclaim that Jesus is not 'demoted' in their eyes. You're not going to pull a semantic trick and redefine Christ as 'lesser' because he's the Son. If the Father is the uncreated first mover, so too is the Son. And anyone who isn't willing to proclaim as much cannot be considered a Christian, because they don't believe that Jesus Christ is truly God.
Now look, there are many places here where an LDS observer will say, "But I don't agree with so many of these premises, to the point where none of this is even an issue for me!" Of course Jesus Christ is truly, fully God. If you don't believe in creation ex nihilo, and if you're read into LDS theology about the eternal nature of what other Christians might call the "soul", much of the subsequent analysis about an uncreated creator doesn't follow.
What's important to understand is that while the LDS tradition ENDS in the same place (with Jesus Christ as our God, Creator, and Savior), these two theologies have divergent starting points. The reason Nicene Christians point to the creed is because most of the New Testament-believing world has the same starting point as them, and if you diverge from this place, it's clear you've left Christianity. Because of this dynamic, it may not be helpful to try and lead a Nicene Christian from their starting point to our ending point, "... and that's why we're obviously Christians."
It may be helpful to employ terminology that helps clarify the distinction. I'm not sure what fits best, without invoking echoes of an Arian tradition that LDS theology totally rejects, but a few options I've heard include: non-Nicene Christians, non-Orthodox Christians, or even heretical Christians. The point is to concede something everyone already agrees on: the LDS tradition is distinct from the rest of Christianity because we follow a very different theology - especially as it relates to the Creation (and a number of assumptions that were introduced by the early Greek philosophical influence that is not found in the Bible). But our theology would as thoroughly reject an Arian assertion that Jesus is not "truly God" as would any Athenasian Christian.
That's a great breakdown of things, much better than I could have done. I like the illustration that there's a different "starting point".
And personally I've always had a lot of sympathy for Catholics, and the frustration they must experience trying to get across, why exactly we're not Christians in the same sense they are.
If you do that, and read the Introduction, you'll see that I describe myself NOT as a "traditional" or "orthodox" (big or little "O") Christian, but as a Biblical follower of Christ who believes the same things as those who were "first called Christians at Antioch" believed. NOT a Greek philosophers's "triune god", NOT a closed canon of 66 books, NOT a "faith alone" salvation, and NOT a "patristic connection" to a 4th-century "church" that would not have been recognized by Peter, Paul, or my brothers and sisters in Antioch.
In my book I DO "contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints" without (I hope) being contentious. That same Gospel of "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" has been RESTORED in these Latter-days, as part of the "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21) that the author of Acts says MUST happen before the second coming of Christ.
A restoration was required because of the "falling away" or "great apostacy" that we're told in 2 Thess 2:3 MUST occur before the Lord's return. History shows us that the apostasy DID happen. "Mormonism" is not "traditional" or "historical/orthodox" Christianity, but it IS Biblical Christianity.
And to those "kindergarten Christians" who are content with the "milk" of the Gospel, what we have is "graduate level" Christianity. Like the three degrees of glory that Paul likened unto the sun, the moon, and the stars (1. Cor. 15:40), all believers in Jesus are "Christians", but what kind do you want to be?
The FULLNESS of the "good news" (gospel) that Jesus told his apostles to teach to "all the world" is today found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or as I call it - "Latter-day Christianity". Do you want to see how I make my case? Read the book.
(Questions? contact me at: starlingrd -at- msn dot c0m)
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the same Church Jesus Christ established in the 1st Century"
This strikes me as a very odd claim since the church Jesus established, the Church of the Book of Acts, still exists. It's the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy certainly isn't the only way to Christ (I'm Protestant and even the Orthodox don't claim that). But they (and maybe the Catholics) are the only groups that can plausibly make such a claim to Patristic connection. It's not just Mormons, many others try as well -- JWs, Baptists, several Reformed denominations ) and it's just farcical.
Delineating the boundaries of the body is way above my pay grade. Should the Lord grant me admission, I fully expect to meet Mormons in Heaven. I also expect to NOT see some fundamentalist evangelicals and liberal mainliners. That's what the parable of the sheep and the goats means. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and be prepared because no one knows the day or the hour. Trying to prove your church's Christian bona-fides seems like a distraction from that.
As a side-note, other than Nicene-denying denominations like the Unitarians or JWs, is there any other church that goes out its way to "prove it's really Christian". If your religion is really of God, you don't need to hitch yourself to an existing one.
One area where we Latter-Day Saints differ from other faiths is the belief that priesthood authority, the same authority to act in God's name that the Apostles had, and also the prophets of old, was taken away sometime after the deaths of the original 12. I understand other Christians' hestitance with this, given how it goes against thousands of years of tradition, but I'd argue that Christ's contentions with the religious leaders of His own day show that tradition alone isn't always right.
Let me put it this way: What happened to the priesthood, or if you prefer, the ecclesiastical authority after the death of Joseph at the end of the book of Genesis? It appears that Ephraim was meant to be Joseph's heir, but when God needed somebody to lead Israel to the Promised Land, he called a descendant of Levi. As far as I'm aware, there isn't even any apocryphal literature about who was in charge of Israel (besides Pharoah) and what they were up to before Moses came along. When Moses was called to lead the children of Israel to the Promised Land, the sole basis for his calling was the vision of the burning bush. He wasn't picked by a previous leader, he certainly wasn't already a leader of Israel, having grown up in Pharaoh's court. He had to prove himsel to the people not by his lineage, but giving specific signs (turning his staff into a snake, making his arm leprous then whole again). Then, over the course of the Exodus, the Law of Moses is established, because apparently the laws they'd been living under from Abrahama, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Joseph, and to Ephraim were either lost or no longer sufficient for the times. Also, where exactly did the prophet Balaam, of talking donkey fame, come from?
I'll grant that there is no way to "prove" the Great Apostasy as we call it, anymore than there's anyway to prove the reality of Christianity itself to the majority of nonbelievers, but I believe there is precedent in scripture for gaps in ecclesiastical authority, after which God calls a prophet seemingly out of nowhere to set things straight, even though said prophet always traces his authority back to the God of Abraham.
I grew up in the church, and spent a long time leaving. I'm still on the records, but haven't attended in 3 or 4 years, and don't consider myself to be LDS anymore. I always defended the idea that the LDS church is Christian, but I never really felt like I understood Christ. I never felt like I got a good explanation for exactly what the atonement does, or how one actually uses it in practice. It always felt to me like the atonement was almost like an insurance policy. You do your best to fulfill the requirements of the law, then when you inevitably fall short you follow the prescribed repentance process, and as long as you've maintained your membership, then at the final judgement the atonement will cover your lapses. Certainly something to be grateful for, but not really something that affects your day to day. So when I left the church, I didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Christ. I wasn't trying to connect to him, nor was I especially avoiding him.
I started meditating regularly, and often when I meditated I would experience a sort of dialog with a voice, I would ask questions, and the voice would provide answers and explanation. One day I don't remember what I had asked about, but it was explaining some things, and it started to sound like the atonement. So I asked if that's what it was, and I was told yes, and I had an experience that felt a lot like what Alma the younger experienced. It was really weird, I felt all the pain I had experienced or caused, and it really hurt, but there was no suffering, only acceptance, love and joy. It left me with this deep desire to be better, and to be patient and loving towards other people. I've had similar experiences a couple more times since, and they've really shifted my thinking about Christ. After I left the church, I didn't claim to be a Christian, but now, whatever else I am, I definitely feel that Christ is an important part of my theological beliefs.
It's also shifted my thinking about the church's status as a 'Christian' church. The church certainly talks about Christ a lot, but they really don't seem to know him. I don't begrudge anyone in the church their right to claim to be Christian, but at the same time, I think people outside the church have a fair point. It seems to me there's more to being Christian than holding all the correct propositional beliefs, and I hate to make judgements about other people's experiences, but it feels to me like the average church member doesn't really understand Christ as much more than an important historical figure.
I think the scriptures and the words of our modern leaders make it quite clear that we believe Jesus was more than "an important historical figure" and I find it quite a stretch to say that the average church member thinks otherwise. All my life I've been taught about receiving personal revelation and getting to know Christ Himself, and of course there's more to being Christian than holding the "correct beliefs", but I think they hold an important foundation for establishing that divine relationship. Personally, I feel closest to Christ when I'm actually serving in the Church itself. Giving Priesthood blessings, being active in my calling, partaking of the sacrament every week, and reading my scriptures. I'm not PERFECT in any of this, but I've come to think of it like physical exercise, the more I do it the better I get. I know I will never be "perfect", but I personally don't want to settle on some self-imposed benchmark of "good enough", but I want to be active in the gospel to the very end. The more I've drifted towards "spiritual but not religious", as some people put it, the less satisfied I feel long-term.
Oh, I absolutely agree that the words of the leaders and scriptures indicate that Christ is much more than a historical figure to the members. For whatever reason, it's just been my experience that most of the people I personally know that talk about Christ as if they know him personally, rather than just having read a book about him, aren't members of the church.
By saying "This has been my experience" I don't mean to say that that's how it actually is, or that my experience is the only valid one, or that people who have some other experience are wrong. And as much as it sounds like I'm saying it, I really don't mean to say that members of the LDS church don't believe in Christ, or that their experience of Christ is less valid.
Somehow, it's possible for two people in the same space to have two very different experiences. For some reason things often sounded empty to me, the more I threw myself into church service, the less happy I was, the more that I've drifted towards "spiritual but not religious" the happier I've been, the closer to the divine I've felt, and the more satisfied I've been. It doesn't mean either of us are wrong, we just respond differently to the same thing.
So I didn't mean to say "The LDS church definitely isn't Christian." I shared my story more to offer a perspective on what sort of experiences might lead someone to say that the church isn't Christian.
It's possible too that it's a regional thing. I'm not sure where your experience has been. I grew up in Provo, both of my parents are still very active and believing members of the church. They recently served a mission in Florida, and they came back saying that the church in Provo doesn't talk about Christ enough. So they noticed a difference in culture between Provo and Florida. It could even have just been west Provo, or my specific ward. Who knows?
I've believed for a while that there have been periods in the history of the LDS church in which the leadership has emphasized that Mormonism is not the same thing as Christianity, at least as the rest of the world practices it. Reading this made me realize that maybe I'm entirely wrong about this! Ross (or anyone else knowledgable here), could you set me straight?
"not the same thing as Christianity" could go a lot of different ways.
1- We definitely emphasize differences in doctrine especially when we thing our doctrinally understanding is better, or if we think people will find our doctrine more attractive. You have things like eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, the lack of Hell.
2- Difference as a topic for it's own sake feels rarer (to me) but traditionally we have taken pride in considering ourselves a "peculiar people", and of course there's the whole discourse about being "the only true church" and the "restored church" while the rest of Christianity is part of the "great apostasy". But that has always read to me as "Christianity, but better and more accurate". Certainly you could accuse us of arrogance on this front, and even separation, but I think the goal was always to draw closer to Christianity, to purify it, not draw away.
3- Emphasis on the fact that our Christianity is not Nicene Christianity is not something I've seen very often, certainly not at the level of the average member, and not in official pronouncements either.
4- I would categorically deny any _emphasis_ on "Not the same thing as Christianity" in it's strongest form. I admit that the further caveat "at least as the rest of the world practices it" is doing a lot of lifting there, but my initial reaction to your statement was, "What?"
Perhaps if you could point to an example of the kind of thing you're talking about that would help clarify the matter.
I can't cite anything, which makes me suspect that this is a fiction I somehow cobbled together from other memories — thank you for setting me straight!
On the theme of the (potential) tensions coming from calling one's denomination "the one true church", I was floored to see this recent UsefulCharts video put Mormonism in the same category as Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Stone-Campbell movement: https://youtu.be/HH7JJxcjzcg
Highly recommended for any other church history geeks.
The problem I think most of us have about other churches saying we're not Christian, is that the purpose seems to be to paint us as wholly pagan and not worth dealing with at all. We have enough in common with "mainstream" Christianity that we can and should be allies in humanitarian endevours, advancing nuclear family values, championing religious freedom, etc. While this certainly doesn't apply to all Christians, a consistent problem with Christianity (and one could argue even some Mormons have this attitude), is the overly hostile, tribal rejeciton of any person who holds beliefs that don't match a very specific set. We see this from the inquisitions, to the 80s Satanic Panic, to the Christian Harry Potter haters.
Not sure if the book addresses the theological roots for why Nicene Christianity rejects the LDS viewpoint as being "Christian". I couldn't tell from the ToC. It took me a long time to understand why a seemingly unrelated point about the Trinity should become such a strong sticking point for terminology and questioning a whole people's testimony of Jesus. I think most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (hereafter LDS) see invocation of the trinity doctrine as a way to sneak in an unjustified exclusion of LDS from the "Jesus club", as though they were the ones with exclusive rights to define who gets to have a testimony of the Savior. This impression of willful exclusion is part of why I think many LDS get worked up about this topic. There's a sense of being unfairly excluded from a group to which we strongly feel we belong, even as we recognize we're a little different in some of our doctrinal points. But then again, who isn't? (Also, there's some incredulity/offense that Christians are denying our testimony of the risen Lord.)
I think both LDS and Nicene Christians could benefit from attempts at mutually understanding one another. However, since there are fewer LDS by far, the onus is on us to reach for understanding a little more. A little charity is warranted here. Understanding requires that we suspend our theological understanding/definitions for a minute so we can understand where our Christian brethren are coming from.
The reason the Nicene creed comes up is because it's literally at the heart of the issue. The Arian Heresy was/is seen as an attempt to redefine God. In an ex nihilo creation, what comes first? If, as Arians claim, it's the Father, and He creates the Son, then the Son isn't really God. He's subordinate to God, with perhaps a role in salvation, but as a created being he is distinct from God, who is uncreated. What do you call someone who thinks Jesus Christ is special, but is not truly God? Muslims teach exactly this doctrine, as do some religions who follow the New Testament tradition, but who do not see Jesus Christ as truly God. Can we all accept that someone who holds such a view should not be defined as a Christian? Is there a good metric we might use, other than engaging in long theological discussions, to tell who believes in the true divinity of Jesus Christ?
Enter the Nicene Creed.
Although the Nicene Creed seems difficult to parse for LDS readers, what's important isn't what it 'means' definitionally so much as what it's trying to state about the nature of Jesus Christ. To the Arians who say the Son must come after the Father, and therefore cannot be truly God, Nicene Christians proclaim that Jesus is not 'demoted' in their eyes. You're not going to pull a semantic trick and redefine Christ as 'lesser' because he's the Son. If the Father is the uncreated first mover, so too is the Son. And anyone who isn't willing to proclaim as much cannot be considered a Christian, because they don't believe that Jesus Christ is truly God.
Now look, there are many places here where an LDS observer will say, "But I don't agree with so many of these premises, to the point where none of this is even an issue for me!" Of course Jesus Christ is truly, fully God. If you don't believe in creation ex nihilo, and if you're read into LDS theology about the eternal nature of what other Christians might call the "soul", much of the subsequent analysis about an uncreated creator doesn't follow.
What's important to understand is that while the LDS tradition ENDS in the same place (with Jesus Christ as our God, Creator, and Savior), these two theologies have divergent starting points. The reason Nicene Christians point to the creed is because most of the New Testament-believing world has the same starting point as them, and if you diverge from this place, it's clear you've left Christianity. Because of this dynamic, it may not be helpful to try and lead a Nicene Christian from their starting point to our ending point, "... and that's why we're obviously Christians."
It may be helpful to employ terminology that helps clarify the distinction. I'm not sure what fits best, without invoking echoes of an Arian tradition that LDS theology totally rejects, but a few options I've heard include: non-Nicene Christians, non-Orthodox Christians, or even heretical Christians. The point is to concede something everyone already agrees on: the LDS tradition is distinct from the rest of Christianity because we follow a very different theology - especially as it relates to the Creation (and a number of assumptions that were introduced by the early Greek philosophical influence that is not found in the Bible). But our theology would as thoroughly reject an Arian assertion that Jesus is not "truly God" as would any Athenasian Christian.
That's a great breakdown of things, much better than I could have done. I like the illustration that there's a different "starting point".
And personally I've always had a lot of sympathy for Catholics, and the frustration they must experience trying to get across, why exactly we're not Christians in the same sense they are.
Hi, This is Robert. Thanks for thinking about my book. Anyone who would like to actually READ it can download a FREE pdf of the whole thing here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mddqWAbrtnJ7dtNUJagCJ-yULu61WS29/view?usp=sharing
If you do that, and read the Introduction, you'll see that I describe myself NOT as a "traditional" or "orthodox" (big or little "O") Christian, but as a Biblical follower of Christ who believes the same things as those who were "first called Christians at Antioch" believed. NOT a Greek philosophers's "triune god", NOT a closed canon of 66 books, NOT a "faith alone" salvation, and NOT a "patristic connection" to a 4th-century "church" that would not have been recognized by Peter, Paul, or my brothers and sisters in Antioch.
In my book I DO "contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints" without (I hope) being contentious. That same Gospel of "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" has been RESTORED in these Latter-days, as part of the "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21) that the author of Acts says MUST happen before the second coming of Christ.
A restoration was required because of the "falling away" or "great apostacy" that we're told in 2 Thess 2:3 MUST occur before the Lord's return. History shows us that the apostasy DID happen. "Mormonism" is not "traditional" or "historical/orthodox" Christianity, but it IS Biblical Christianity.
And to those "kindergarten Christians" who are content with the "milk" of the Gospel, what we have is "graduate level" Christianity. Like the three degrees of glory that Paul likened unto the sun, the moon, and the stars (1. Cor. 15:40), all believers in Jesus are "Christians", but what kind do you want to be?
The FULLNESS of the "good news" (gospel) that Jesus told his apostles to teach to "all the world" is today found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or as I call it - "Latter-day Christianity". Do you want to see how I make my case? Read the book.
(Questions? contact me at: starlingrd -at- msn dot c0m)
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the same Church Jesus Christ established in the 1st Century"
This strikes me as a very odd claim since the church Jesus established, the Church of the Book of Acts, still exists. It's the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy certainly isn't the only way to Christ (I'm Protestant and even the Orthodox don't claim that). But they (and maybe the Catholics) are the only groups that can plausibly make such a claim to Patristic connection. It's not just Mormons, many others try as well -- JWs, Baptists, several Reformed denominations ) and it's just farcical.
Delineating the boundaries of the body is way above my pay grade. Should the Lord grant me admission, I fully expect to meet Mormons in Heaven. I also expect to NOT see some fundamentalist evangelicals and liberal mainliners. That's what the parable of the sheep and the goats means. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and be prepared because no one knows the day or the hour. Trying to prove your church's Christian bona-fides seems like a distraction from that.
As a side-note, other than Nicene-denying denominations like the Unitarians or JWs, is there any other church that goes out its way to "prove it's really Christian". If your religion is really of God, you don't need to hitch yourself to an existing one.
One area where we Latter-Day Saints differ from other faiths is the belief that priesthood authority, the same authority to act in God's name that the Apostles had, and also the prophets of old, was taken away sometime after the deaths of the original 12. I understand other Christians' hestitance with this, given how it goes against thousands of years of tradition, but I'd argue that Christ's contentions with the religious leaders of His own day show that tradition alone isn't always right.
Let me put it this way: What happened to the priesthood, or if you prefer, the ecclesiastical authority after the death of Joseph at the end of the book of Genesis? It appears that Ephraim was meant to be Joseph's heir, but when God needed somebody to lead Israel to the Promised Land, he called a descendant of Levi. As far as I'm aware, there isn't even any apocryphal literature about who was in charge of Israel (besides Pharoah) and what they were up to before Moses came along. When Moses was called to lead the children of Israel to the Promised Land, the sole basis for his calling was the vision of the burning bush. He wasn't picked by a previous leader, he certainly wasn't already a leader of Israel, having grown up in Pharaoh's court. He had to prove himsel to the people not by his lineage, but giving specific signs (turning his staff into a snake, making his arm leprous then whole again). Then, over the course of the Exodus, the Law of Moses is established, because apparently the laws they'd been living under from Abrahama, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Joseph, and to Ephraim were either lost or no longer sufficient for the times. Also, where exactly did the prophet Balaam, of talking donkey fame, come from?
I'll grant that there is no way to "prove" the Great Apostasy as we call it, anymore than there's anyway to prove the reality of Christianity itself to the majority of nonbelievers, but I believe there is precedent in scripture for gaps in ecclesiastical authority, after which God calls a prophet seemingly out of nowhere to set things straight, even though said prophet always traces his authority back to the God of Abraham.
I grew up in the church, and spent a long time leaving. I'm still on the records, but haven't attended in 3 or 4 years, and don't consider myself to be LDS anymore. I always defended the idea that the LDS church is Christian, but I never really felt like I understood Christ. I never felt like I got a good explanation for exactly what the atonement does, or how one actually uses it in practice. It always felt to me like the atonement was almost like an insurance policy. You do your best to fulfill the requirements of the law, then when you inevitably fall short you follow the prescribed repentance process, and as long as you've maintained your membership, then at the final judgement the atonement will cover your lapses. Certainly something to be grateful for, but not really something that affects your day to day. So when I left the church, I didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Christ. I wasn't trying to connect to him, nor was I especially avoiding him.
I started meditating regularly, and often when I meditated I would experience a sort of dialog with a voice, I would ask questions, and the voice would provide answers and explanation. One day I don't remember what I had asked about, but it was explaining some things, and it started to sound like the atonement. So I asked if that's what it was, and I was told yes, and I had an experience that felt a lot like what Alma the younger experienced. It was really weird, I felt all the pain I had experienced or caused, and it really hurt, but there was no suffering, only acceptance, love and joy. It left me with this deep desire to be better, and to be patient and loving towards other people. I've had similar experiences a couple more times since, and they've really shifted my thinking about Christ. After I left the church, I didn't claim to be a Christian, but now, whatever else I am, I definitely feel that Christ is an important part of my theological beliefs.
It's also shifted my thinking about the church's status as a 'Christian' church. The church certainly talks about Christ a lot, but they really don't seem to know him. I don't begrudge anyone in the church their right to claim to be Christian, but at the same time, I think people outside the church have a fair point. It seems to me there's more to being Christian than holding all the correct propositional beliefs, and I hate to make judgements about other people's experiences, but it feels to me like the average church member doesn't really understand Christ as much more than an important historical figure.
I think the scriptures and the words of our modern leaders make it quite clear that we believe Jesus was more than "an important historical figure" and I find it quite a stretch to say that the average church member thinks otherwise. All my life I've been taught about receiving personal revelation and getting to know Christ Himself, and of course there's more to being Christian than holding the "correct beliefs", but I think they hold an important foundation for establishing that divine relationship. Personally, I feel closest to Christ when I'm actually serving in the Church itself. Giving Priesthood blessings, being active in my calling, partaking of the sacrament every week, and reading my scriptures. I'm not PERFECT in any of this, but I've come to think of it like physical exercise, the more I do it the better I get. I know I will never be "perfect", but I personally don't want to settle on some self-imposed benchmark of "good enough", but I want to be active in the gospel to the very end. The more I've drifted towards "spiritual but not religious", as some people put it, the less satisfied I feel long-term.
Oh, I absolutely agree that the words of the leaders and scriptures indicate that Christ is much more than a historical figure to the members. For whatever reason, it's just been my experience that most of the people I personally know that talk about Christ as if they know him personally, rather than just having read a book about him, aren't members of the church.
By saying "This has been my experience" I don't mean to say that that's how it actually is, or that my experience is the only valid one, or that people who have some other experience are wrong. And as much as it sounds like I'm saying it, I really don't mean to say that members of the LDS church don't believe in Christ, or that their experience of Christ is less valid.
Somehow, it's possible for two people in the same space to have two very different experiences. For some reason things often sounded empty to me, the more I threw myself into church service, the less happy I was, the more that I've drifted towards "spiritual but not religious" the happier I've been, the closer to the divine I've felt, and the more satisfied I've been. It doesn't mean either of us are wrong, we just respond differently to the same thing.
So I didn't mean to say "The LDS church definitely isn't Christian." I shared my story more to offer a perspective on what sort of experiences might lead someone to say that the church isn't Christian.
It's possible too that it's a regional thing. I'm not sure where your experience has been. I grew up in Provo, both of my parents are still very active and believing members of the church. They recently served a mission in Florida, and they came back saying that the church in Provo doesn't talk about Christ enough. So they noticed a difference in culture between Provo and Florida. It could even have just been west Provo, or my specific ward. Who knows?
I've believed for a while that there have been periods in the history of the LDS church in which the leadership has emphasized that Mormonism is not the same thing as Christianity, at least as the rest of the world practices it. Reading this made me realize that maybe I'm entirely wrong about this! Ross (or anyone else knowledgable here), could you set me straight?
"not the same thing as Christianity" could go a lot of different ways.
1- We definitely emphasize differences in doctrine especially when we thing our doctrinally understanding is better, or if we think people will find our doctrine more attractive. You have things like eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, the lack of Hell.
2- Difference as a topic for it's own sake feels rarer (to me) but traditionally we have taken pride in considering ourselves a "peculiar people", and of course there's the whole discourse about being "the only true church" and the "restored church" while the rest of Christianity is part of the "great apostasy". But that has always read to me as "Christianity, but better and more accurate". Certainly you could accuse us of arrogance on this front, and even separation, but I think the goal was always to draw closer to Christianity, to purify it, not draw away.
3- Emphasis on the fact that our Christianity is not Nicene Christianity is not something I've seen very often, certainly not at the level of the average member, and not in official pronouncements either.
4- I would categorically deny any _emphasis_ on "Not the same thing as Christianity" in it's strongest form. I admit that the further caveat "at least as the rest of the world practices it" is doing a lot of lifting there, but my initial reaction to your statement was, "What?"
Perhaps if you could point to an example of the kind of thing you're talking about that would help clarify the matter.
I can't cite anything, which makes me suspect that this is a fiction I somehow cobbled together from other memories — thank you for setting me straight!
On the theme of the (potential) tensions coming from calling one's denomination "the one true church", I was floored to see this recent UsefulCharts video put Mormonism in the same category as Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Stone-Campbell movement: https://youtu.be/HH7JJxcjzcg
Highly recommended for any other church history geeks.
The problem I think most of us have about other churches saying we're not Christian, is that the purpose seems to be to paint us as wholly pagan and not worth dealing with at all. We have enough in common with "mainstream" Christianity that we can and should be allies in humanitarian endevours, advancing nuclear family values, championing religious freedom, etc. While this certainly doesn't apply to all Christians, a consistent problem with Christianity (and one could argue even some Mormons have this attitude), is the overly hostile, tribal rejeciton of any person who holds beliefs that don't match a very specific set. We see this from the inquisitions, to the 80s Satanic Panic, to the Christian Harry Potter haters.