The answer to that question is easy and straightforward: “no.”
Mohler goes on to explain that the answer does require considerable explanation.
Richard Albert Mohler Jr.: Ninth president, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard to define what is and is not Christianity.We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not discussing Christianity as a mood or a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine or sectarian Christianity that defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historical, traditional Christian orthodoxy.
…that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.
In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations will not hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon, and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.
There is no question that Latter Day Saints borrow considerable terminology and religious themes from Christianity but from its beginning, they have categorically rejected foundational orthodox doctrines that are “rooted directly within the Bible and rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time.”
Do Mormons Believe in the Same Jesus as Christians?
The LDS church does believe in Jesus. It’s right there in BIG LETTERS on the sign outside every one of their churches.
Like most Christians, Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Creator of the World. However, Mormons hold the unique belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct beings. Mormons believe that God and Jesus Christ are wholly united in their perfect love for us, but that each is a distinct personage with His own perfect, glorified body (see D&C 130:22).
Mormons believe that all men and women ever to be born, including Jesus Christ, lived with God as His spirit children before this life.
I would like to note … “They lost me at the word, HOWEVER.”
This is confirmed elsewhere throughout LDS doctrinal statements. This excerptis taken from an address to the Harvard Divinity School in March 2001 by Robert L. Millet, former dean of religious education at Brigham Young University.
Latter-day Saints believe that the simplest reading of the New Testament text produces the simplest conclusion — that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, that They are one in purpose. We feel that the sheer preponderance of references in the Bible would lead an uninformed reader to the understanding that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate beings.
If one were to read the complete statement by Mr. Millet, it would be understood why there is a considerable divide between the beliefs of LDS and traditional orthodox Christians. It would also confirm why it is relatively unproductive to attempt to engage young LDS missionaries about theology when they arrive at your doorstep. If you want the inside track on how sensitive this issue is to most LDS members, peruse the responses on Quora to the question, “Why do Mormons not believe Jesus is God?” One might be tempted to think that “Highly Sensitive Personality” syndrome is wired into Mormon DNA … but I digress.
Gordon Bitner Hinckley (June 23, 1910 – January 27, 2008) 15th President of The LDS Church.
In a Sept. 2 letter, Patterson, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, referred to comments Hinckley made during a June 6 speaking engagement in Geneva, Switzerland, responding to those outside the Mormon church who say Mormons do not believe in the traditional Christ.
“The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak,” Hinckley was quoted on page seven in the June 20 issue of the Church News, a Mormon publication. “For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with his Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.”
Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, N.C., described Hinckley’s acknowledgment that Mormons and traditional Christians do not share beliefs in the same Jesus as refreshingly candid considering many Mormon missionaries and church spokesmen “in recent years have sought to minimize that distinction.”
An interesting puzzle related to whether Latter-day Saints are truly “Christian” relates to their view of all other Christian faiths. This is explained in a post by Solveig Nilson at the University of Regina – Luther College:
Mormon missionaries sharing the Gospel with “latter-day Gentile.”
An interesting question that arises when studying the question of whether Mormonism is Christian is whether Mormons view other Christian groups as Christian. Until the early 20th century, LDS referred to non-members as “gentiles,” a great affront to other Christians. In order to reduce the animosity, they changed LDS rhetoric to call non-members “non-Mormons” and the term now used is “friend of another faith,” a more inclusive term. However, other Christian groups often feel offended by the unkind, exclusionary and “un-Christian” view of superiority of the LDS. Because the LDS believe that their church is the “One True Church,” the most steady and solid institution on earth that is closest to the primitive Christian church, it is impossible for them not to think they are superior. However, Millet asserts that this does not mean other churches are false but simply that Mormonism is “more good.” In accord with the views of Millet, eighty-five percent of LDS polled in a recent survey stated that the teachings of their church were more correct and true than those of any other church. The fact that the LDS rebaptise new Christian converts suggests that they do not recognise other churches as truly Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints feel that they are superior to other Christians, why do they wish to lower their standards with a label of simply “Christian?”
So are Mormons Christians, or close enough that it doesn’t make a difference? Not according to Mormonism’s first prophet and founder, Joseph Smith, whose own testimony says that he prayed and inquired of God to reveal which church was the true church. He describes his first vision of the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and their answer to his inquiry:
The First Vision Joseph Smith experienced in the early 1820s, in a wooded area in Manchester, New York, called the Sacred Grove.
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join…“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’” Joseph Smith—History, 1:18–19 in the Pearl of Great Price.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) views itself as distinct from traditional Christianity. Early church leader Joseph Smith claimed God revealed a complete departure from true Christianity, calling established churches “corrupt”and “an abomination.” The Book of Mormon reinforces this view, labeling Christianity as a “great and abominable church” founded by Satan (1 Nephi 13:5-6, 22:13).
Well, that’s more than just a little rude!
This perspective positions the LDS Church as the sole restoration of true Christianity. LDS scriptures, like the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History, 1:1–75) and Doctrine & Covenants (1:30), claim a divinely restored gospel through Joseph Smith. Consequently, the LDS Church views itself as the “only true and living church”(Doctrine & Covenants 1:30), implying other Christian denominations are false.
Joel Osteen: Senior Pastor of America’s largest church, Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas.
Osteen sees Mormons as fellow Christians.“When I hear Mitt Romney say that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that he’s the Christ, raised from the dead, that he’s his savior – that’s good enough for me,” Osteen said in an interview that aired on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”
While Osteen said Mormonism is “not traditional Christianity,” he believes Mormons fall under the Christian tent.
“Mormonism is a little different, but I still see them as brothers in Christ,” the pastor argued. That goes a big step further than many other Christian leaders, who have not gone so far to say that Romney is unquestionably Christian.
Osteen is the object of much legitimate criticism in orthodox Christian circles. His ministry can be summed up in the following paragraphs, thus diminishing any opinion he may have on biblical doctrines, theology, and religion in general…
Osteen’s message is sweet, attractive, and pretty. It comes with the million-dollar smile, a heaping helping of the feel-goods, and all of the motivation of the best self-help gurus. That message is also hollow, weak, and devoid of any real value. The most important parts of the gospel are left out, supposedly to broaden his ministry’s appeal. Anyone depending on that message, without recognizing what’s missing, is going to find himself spiritually hungry, frustrated, and in dire straits when a real disaster strikes.
What Joel Osteen pushes is a shell of legitimate biblical Christianity, at best, and a dangerous counterfeit at worst. When all you have to offer is materialism and emotion, you’re not an evangelist. You’re a motivational speaker who borrows religious terminology.
There have been millions of words written about the chasm that separates orthodox Christianity and LDS doctrine. The issue that trips up adherents on both sides is the fact that Christians and Mormons use the same words such as grace, faith, God and sin, but they mean very different things to each opposing camps.
There is another fact that provides suspicious hints that Mormonism isn’t all it’s cracked up to be … the Book of Mormon’s emphasis on faith over physical evidence stands in contrast to approaches taken with some biblical texts. Unlike Jerusalem or Bethlehem, locations mentioned in the Book of Mormon, such as Zarahemla, haven’t been definitively identified archaeologically. This lack of confirmed physical sites hinders traditional historical verification methods. The Book of Mormon itself may then be seen as emphasizing a faith-based approach, where personal spiritual experiences hold greater weight than external evidence. This focus on faith differs from perspectives found in some biblical passages, like John 20:30-31, which emphasizes the role of witnessing physical evidence.
While members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement believe the Book of Mormon describes ancient historical events in the Americas, the available historical and archaeological facts point to the book being an anachronistic invention of Joseph Smith. Since the book’s publication in 1830, Mormon archaeologists have been trying to use archaeological evidence to confirm the veracity of the narratives, but this has proved unsuccessful.
There is a broad consensus among archaeologists that the archaeological record does not substantiate the Book of Mormon account, and in most ways directly contradicts it.
The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History for a number of years distributed a written statement denying The Book of Mormon is a valid guide for archaeological exploration. All evidence contradicts The Book of Mormon‘s accounts about the origin of American Indians; the earliest explorations of the New World; plant and animal life in the Americas; use of metal, steel, and silk by ancient Americans; and other supposed similarities between pre-Columbian Indian cultures and those of the Old World.
So far, DNA research lends no support to the traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Instead, genetic data have confirmed that migrations from Asia are the primary source of American Indian origins. This research has substantiated already-existing archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological evidence (“Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics,” by anthropologist Thomas Murphy, 2002, p. 48).
Non-Mormon linguists, archaeologists, and historians do not regard the Book of Mormon to be of ancient origin. In 1834, a publication by Eber D. Howe claimed that Smith had plagiarized an unpublished manuscript written by Solomon Spalding. Scholars today conclude that Smith composed the book himself, possibly with the help of Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon, drawing from information and publications available in his time, including the King James Bible, The Wonders of Nature, and View of the Hebrews.
To close out this session of the ongoing debate, I present a particularly fascinating piece written by an apparent “believer” who admits he’s not your “everyday Mormon.” His closing segment is profound … the entire article is highly recommended:
Empty evidence bag.
THE 1st RULE OF BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCE… THERE IS NO EVIDENCE…
With all this having been said, it can’t be understated that todays defense model for the Book of Mormon is to throw out a statement or proclamation and hope it holds up under scrutiny. The problem with the defense of the book is there is no defense, there is no physical evidence, there is no plausible location, former cities, bodies to verify the historicity that this book is not that of fiction. The problem is it comes from a man who while admirable, had a history of both stretching the truth and at times blatantly lying.
Again, having said all this, the Book of Mormon may not be a work of fact or even history, it may not be a supporting document endorsing the validity of our religion, but do I still enjoy it? Well yes, I enjoy reading about Abinadi sticking up for what he believed in despite the whole world being against him, and Alma furthering his cause, I enjoy visualizing Samuel untouchable on the wall like a superhero promoting change, I value the message of an entire nation putting down their weapons and choosing not to fight, and of Nephi setting the example his older brothers can not. The Book of Mormon may be fiction in many ways, but that’s not to say its message should be discarded entirely. It doesn’t have to be a literal history to enjoy it, but lets stop pretending it’s real history.
Even President Nelson has go so far as to state “There some things that the Book of Mormon is not. It is not a text of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.” The Book of Mormon may not be what it claims to be, and that’s ok with me, life moves on.
Latter-day Saints believe that the simplest reading of the New Testament text produces the simplest conclusion — that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, that They are one in purpose. We feel that the sheer preponderance of references in the Bible would lead an uninformed reader to the understanding that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate beings.
