It's Not Really another Testament of Jesus
Viewed from the perspective of historic, orthodox Christianity, the answer is an irrefutable yes, it is. But why is it so deemed? Two reasons, primarily:
1- It devalues the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. He is not, for Mormons, THE Unique Son of God- he is merely one of many sons and daughters of God. For orthodox Christians, Jesus is the Son of God in a particular and profound way. And while all those who have faith are the children of God, they are not ‘in the same league’ as Jesus.
And
2- It asserts a secondary revelation, absent from Scripture, claimed to be equal to Scripture (the so called ‘Book of Mormon’). For orthodox Christians Scripture is ‘complete’ and secondary accretions are both unnecessary and unwarranted and therefore illegitimate. Further, numerous claims in the book of Mormon contravene the teaching of Scripture. That fact alone is sufficient reason to disregard its views.
Now, that said, it must also be said that there are certainly adherents of the Mormon faith who are authentic Christians. But how can this be? Simply put, there are Mormons as unfamiliar with the intricacies of Mormon doctrine as there are Baptists and Catholics and Methodists utterly bereft of any comprehension of the doctrinal views of their particular denominations. We are not saved, however, by our doctrine- we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.
So, yes, there are Mormons who are authentic Christians even though their particular faith perspective on the whole fails to measure up to Christian orthodoxy. And there are Baptists and Catholics and even Methodists and Presbyterians and Anglicans and Episcopalians (!) in the fold of Christ as well. Just as there are members of those denominations outside the faith because they don’t truly trust Christ for salvation.
We should all give thanks to God that our purity of doctrinal comprehension isn’t the basis for our salvation. Were that the case, salvation would itself be lost because then it would depend on us (and on our views) and not on Christ, who died for us.
Craig Benno
10/10/2011 at 09:25
Jim..I totally agree with you in this. I once met a JW on a train, he told me his story of persecution in Egypt. There he was whipped and beaten and he told me of his love for Christ and how Christ sustained him in those dark days…
I totally am against the doctrine of the JW’s…but this man’s faith truly humbled me and I believe he was / is truly saved.
somerville61
10/10/2011 at 10:57
I think you are misusing the word, “”cult”, in this specific instance. Not that I care for the LDS beliefs but I would still call them a major religion. Generally speaking, “cult” is used for small groups that show a fanatical adherence to either an individual or very specific tenets of faith.
from Wikipedia:
Jim
10/10/2011 at 10:59
i dont think using wikipedia is a very helpful thing. ‘cult’ in the present context merely means ‘deviation from the norm’ – the norm being orthodox christianity.
somerville61
10/10/2011 at 15:28
Jim wrote
and that is the central problem – the definition of orthodox christianity
’tis true that using Wikipedia can at times be un-helpful but in this instance it was purely for the definition.
Do you deny that “cult” is most often used in a pejorative way in contemporary conversation?
Jim
10/10/2011 at 16:02
cult has a range of meanings from ‘organized worship’ (as used in biblical studies contexts) and ‘raving lunatics assembly’ (as used of fred phelps’ group).