The Thing About Christians and Mormons

Okay, let’s face it, Mormons are pretty different. But how different are they?

If we’re comparing Christians and Mormons, the thing is that they’re really different, but really not so different. On the one hand, we’re all coming from totally different viewpoints, sometimes making simple interfaith dialogue look like a lion and a zebra arguing over what’s for dinner. On the other hand, there are concepts and principles so similar that they are distinguishable only by the slightest nuance of a minute detail. The issue is that the fundamental differences between the two are grounded in their underlying assumptions, and this has ripple effects in every belief.

So why are Christians and Mormons so similar, but yet so different? Before we answer that, there’s one age-old question we need to examine first: “Are Mormons Christian?”

Well, the answer is simple, as long as we know what definition we’re using.

The traditional definition of “Christian” is one who adheres to historical Christianity. This includes belief in the Trinity and a complete Bible, and generally necessitates a historical lineage back to the Christianity of the apostles. So are Mormons Christian? No, not in the traditional sense.

But the traditional definition has one major flaw—that is, it’s not the definition used in the Bible. These criteria for defining a Christian were not used until hundreds of years after the Bible was written.^[i] So what other definition could we use?

The Bible actually uses the term “Christian” three times,^[ii] but without ever offering an explicit definition. However, if we look carefully enough, we can know in what way the earliest believers considered themselves Christian. Acts 11:26 says that “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” Who are the Christians? They are disciples! While “disciple” is a broad term, the preceding verses seem to indicate that disciples are those who “believed [and] turned to the Lord” and who “remain true to the Lord” (Acts 11:21 and 23).

Based on the biblical definition of “Christian” then, are Mormons Christian? Yes! Devout Mormons profess belief and turn to the Lord prior to and at baptism, and they then strive to remain true to the Lord throughout their lives.

So when asking the question, “Are Mormons Christian?” what we are really meaning is either, “Are Mormons traditional Christians?” or, “Are Mormons biblical Christians?” Our choice of meaning then depends on what we value more—tradition or the Bible. If we regard the Bible higher than tradition, then to be consistent in our own beliefs, we must affirm that Mormons are indeed Christians.

Now, that being said, things would start to get very confusing if we started referring to everyone as Christians without any distinction. Therefore, to refer to the Mormon faith, we will call it Mormon Christianity, and Mormon people, Mormon Christians. To refer to the historical, non-Mormon Christian faiths, we will say Classical Christianity, and call these non-Mormon Christians, Classical Christians. Kind of classy, right?

“Classical” in this context just means that this form of Christianity is considered of primary traditional or historical significance. Classical Christianity then includes all the groups considered Christian using the traditional definition of Christianity. So if you belong to a Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox church, or a non-denominational church with roots in any of these, then you are a Classical Christian.

Framework

We can now use the proper terminology to ask our original question: “Why are Classical Christians and Mormons Christians so similar, but yet so different?” Well, if I were to sum it up in just one word, it would be this: framework.

What we’re talking about here is a little different from the wooden beams of a house or the steel frame of a high-rise, but it makes for a good analogy. Instead of the structure of a building, the framework we’re talking about here is the structure underlying a system of thought.

Framework is our collective underlying assumptions. It’s a mindset. It’s a model for how we view the world and beyond. It’s a construct for filtering ideas, letting us know what information to discard and what to keep. It's not often articulated, but left unspoken. It pervades the realm of our inner consciousness. It's in the air we breathe.

So what use does framework have for us? Well for starters, we can learn a lot about why we believe what we believe from our unspoken assumptions. As the saying goes, when you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other. Once we see framework, we can begin to predict doctrines based on a set of assumptions, or even uncover unstated assumptions based on doctrines.

Another use for understanding framework is to help avoid error. You see, we often let our framework dictate our theology. This is the framework first approach, and it is the default method we all use unless we consciously try to avoid it. In this approach, when we encounter a tough scripture or puzzling practice, our framework gently nudges us toward only one way of interpreting it, while unconsciously blinding us to others.

Instead, we should let theology dictate our framework—the theology first approach. The revelations of God should help us interpret our assumptions, and not the other way around. When we uncover the assumptions of our framework, it is only then that we can step outside of them. Then, avoiding theological tunnel vision, we have the ability to see all possible interpretations of God’s revelation—including the correct one.

But if we hardly ever see or talk about framework, then is it really that important? Actually it matters a lot. If framework is our collective underlying assumptions, then it affects our beliefs. Our beliefs affect our actions, and our actions affect who we become. Framework has a very practical influence on what we do and how we act. It affects who we are. If it were different, we would not do the same things and we would not be the same person. It is framework that makes all the difference.

Another Christian Framework?

It’s probably not a shock to anyone, but Classical and Mormon Christians operate within very distinct frameworks. And since they’re both Christian, we must conclude that there are at least two different Christian frameworks—the Classical Christian Framework and the Mormon Christian Framework.

But since Mormon Christianity is outside the Classical Framework, is it still Christian? Well, if a framework claims to be Christian, but is outside the Classical Framework, then it is not necessarily non-Christian, but rather non-Classical. Each framework, including the Classical Framework, must be examined to determine whether it can be considered a sound Christian framework.

For nearly two millennia, the system of belief that has proven the most resilient has been the Classical Framework (hence the name “Classical”). It’s the only one that has endured through the thousands of years of Christian history—the only one that has survived for so long. That should make any Classical Christian feel pretty good!

The Mormon Framework has also survived, albeit for only a small fraction of the time of the Classical Framework. Though still young, it has so far held up to intellectual and theological scrutiny and has flourished far and wide. But the fact that the Mormon Framework is still surviving does not necessarily lead us to making a valid judgment on it. We still don't know if it's a legitimate Christian framework. And the same is true for the Classical Framework. The fact that it has survived longer than any other framework does not necessitate that it is a sound Christian framework, but only the most historical.

Hold on, the Classical Framework is “The Christian Framework,” so of course it’s the genuine Christian framework, right? Well, it’s true that many people today consider the Classical Framework “The Christian Framework,” but that hasn’t always been the case.

In the century after Jesus lived, many of his followers were what we now call Gnostics, and their version of Christianity was full of mystical spiritual experiences and secret knowledge, vastly different from the Classical Framework. Fast forward to the 4^th century and we find a wildly successful priest named Arius with thousands upon thousands of followers, teaching that Jesus is of a lesser nature than the Father. If we lived then, we very well could have expected that his version of Christianity would be the victor to quash all other Christian varieties.^[iii] What we now call Classical Christianity was at times the underdog in history, but as fate would have it, turned out to be the framework that won the day.

Each Christian framework is as a drop under the broad umbrella of Christianity. Today, Classical Christianity is by far the largest, with Mormon Christianity making up a small minority of the world's Christians. In the 4th century, the Classical version of Christianity competed with other frameworks like Pelagianism and Arianism, the latter becoming for a time the most widespread version of Christianity. 

It’s only our modern bias that makes it seem to us now that Classical Christianity is all there is and all there ever was within Christianity, and it looks this way only because it’s the version that has survived through so many centuries. From an objective viewpoint though, the Classical Framework is not the only Christian framework, nor is it “The Christian Framework.”

But can we have a framework that is both different from Classical Christianity and still a sound Christian framework? To find out the answer to that question, we’ll have to roll up our sleeves and do some theology!

Well, what are we waiting for? Let’s get started!

Ladies and gentlemen…the Mormon Christian Framework! [round of applause please]

---

[i] How can we know that belief in the Trinity and a complete Bible were not criteria used by the earliest Christians to determine who’s Christian? The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, but is first known in the writings of Tertullian, an early church leader born over a century after Jesus’ resurrection. The Trinity was not fully defined until the 4th century. Additionally, although individual books of the Bible were used by the earliest Christians, the first known Bible (meaning “the books”) was not compiled until the 4th century. Changes have been made to the list of books included in the Bible for centuries, and in some Christian faith traditions even to the present day.

[ii] The three instances of the word “Christian” in the Bible are Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16.

[iii] Arius’ doctrine, today commonly known as Arianism, flourished throughout the Christian world in the 4th century. When Emperor Constantius II rose to power in 350, the party that upheld Classical Christianity was all but defeated. Arianism it appeared was the victor among Christian frameworks. After Constantius' death, Arian Emperor Valens ruled the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, exercising considerable influence over theology in the East. Though Church Fathers may contend with theological arguments, the emperors had the greatest influence over which framework wins or loses. Fortunately for Classical Christianity, tides began to change with successive emperors who were in favor of the Classical viewpoint, and Arianism began a gradual decline. Finally, Emperor Theodosius I called an ecumenical council in 381 to settle the dispute once and for all. The Council of Constantinople, the second great ecumenical council after Nicaea in 325, produced the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly known today as the Nicene Creed, which upheld the Classical viewpoint and continues to do so to this day. See https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism for more details.