Of Course Mormonism Is Christian

Review of Craig L. Blomberg. “Is Mormonism Christian?” In The New Mormon Challenge, 315–32.

Of Course Mormonism Is Christian

Reviewed by Benjamin I. Huff

To be a Christian, in the most important sense, is to repent and
come to Christ. One might also say that one becomes a true disciple of Christ
by being reborn, being converted, or, as Blomberg says, “by sincerely
trusting in the Jesus of the New Testament as personal Lord (God and Master)
and Savior and by demonstrating the sincerity of that commitment by some perceivable
measure of lifelong, biblical belief and behavior” (p. 329).1 I take these
expressions as essentially equivalent when properly understood.2 For an institution,
to be Christian in the most important sense is presumably to bring persons to
become Christians. In this sense, then, is Mormonism Christian? Does the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bring its adherents to repent and come
to Christ? Or, in other words, does Latter-day Saint belief and practice involve
accepting the Jesus of the New Testament as one’s Lord and Savior and
showing one’s commitment to him by some perceivable measure of lifelong,
biblical behavior? Of course it does. Of course Mormonism is Christian.

Each week, by sharing bread in similitude of the last supper, Latter-day Saints
individually reaffirm their commitment to take upon themselves the name of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, and keep his commandments.3 They read, ponder, and endeavor
to live Christ’s teachings together as congregations, as families, and
as individuals. They serve each other, for example, by visiting sick members
or providing for their needs, by helping new arrivals within a congregation
with the heavy work of moving in, and by finding wholesome ways to fellowship.
They serve in their communities by preparing meals for the homeless, by laboring
honestly in the workplace, by serving on school boards, and by lobbying against
the peddling of pornography and other unsavory practices. They cultivate the
virtues of patience, forgiveness, humility, and compassion. They sing hymns
with titles like “I Believe in Christ” and “Jesus, Savior,
Pilot Me.”4 Every active and committed Latter-day Saint accepts Christ
as his or her Lord and Savior and to a significant degree follows Christ’s
biblical teachings in belief and in behavior. That is what being a Latter-day
Saint is all about.5

Why, then, does Blomberg not conclude that Mormonism is Christian? Simply put,
he does not address the question in its most relevant and important sense. He
does not address whether the Church of Jesus Christ normally brings persons
to become Christians. In the section of his essay considering Mormonism as a
system or institution of belief and practice, he discusses various meanings
one might attach to the claim that Mormonism is Christian, but not this one.
In the section asking whether individual Latter-day Saints may be Christians,
he gives the definition of Christian I quote above and questions whether Mormonism
leads persons to be Christians in this sense. He says he cannot answer this
question affirmatively but does not explain why: the brief discussion that follows
wanders off the point. I will first explain how Blomberg fails to address whether
Mormonism is Christian in the most important sense. Then I will consider his
discussion of other, more taxonomical senses of the question.

Just before the end of his essay Blomberg asks, “Can a person who has
had no religious influence on his or her life except the teaching and practice
of the LDS come to true, saving faith within the LDS Church, if he or she is
exposed to the full range of official Mormon doctrine and sincerely believe[s]
all of that teaching?” (p. 330). This is (almost) a careful way of saying,
“Does Mormonism lead its adherents to become Christians?” which
I take to be the most natural construal of “Is Mormonism Christian?”6
Thus Blomberg seems to have raised the important question. Why does he not give
a positive answer?

At first he seems to offer an explanation by stating, “There still remain
major contradictions of fundamental doctrinal issues between historic Christianity
and official LDS teaching that make it impossible to consistently believe all
of the Bible and simultaneously believe all official Mormon doctrine”
(pp. 330–31). This statement is problematic as an explanation for at least
two reasons.7 For one thing, Blomberg seems implicitly to concede that the reading
of the Bible he finds to conflict with official Latter-day Saint teaching is
one that takes historic Christianity for granted—that is, one that makes
extrabiblical assumptions that conflict with Latter-day Saint teaching and hence
begs the question.8 More importantly, believing all of the Bible is hardly involved
in his definition of what it is to be a Christian. I suspect a huge number of
Christians don’t even know all of the Bible, let alone believe it. Nearly
all Christians misunderstand parts of the Bible, even though they have read
them in sincere faith, and Christ at the last day is unlikely to ask those who
visit the widows and the fatherless in their affliction whether they also know
and believe the writings of Habakkuk.

To his credit, Blomberg himself seems unsatisfied with this explanation. He
acknowledges that consistency in belief is not of paramount importance and that
it is debatable whether or not official Latter-day Saint teaching is consistent
with the Bible. He then spends several lines expressing his desire that every
professing Christian be joined to the fold of true Christianity, including Latter-day
Saints. One might expect that what would come next would be another attempt
at explaining why he does not believe that Mormonism leads its adherents to
become Christians. Yet instead of an explanation he simply offers what appears
to be a restatement of the conclusion: “I cannot, as of this writing,
therefore, affirm with integrity that either Mormonism as a whole or any individual,
based solely on his or her affirmation of the totality of LDS doctrine, deserves
the label ‘Christian’ in any standard or helpful sense of the word.
But my fervent prayer is that, through whatever developments God may wish to
use, I will not always have to come to that conclusion” (p. 331). With
this he ends the section and the main body of the essay. In the remaining half
page he simply addresses whether it is uncharitable to claim that Mormonism
is not Christian.

Thus Blomberg does not explain why he does not consider Mormonism Christian
in the sense that matters most. The only reason he offers is one that he himself
recognizes is inadequate and that a clear-headed reader will recognize is beside
the point. One might attempt to read his restatement as something of an explanation,
but it is no more relevant than the explanation he himself sets aside. Since
being a Christian involves behavior as well as belief, no affirmation of doctrine
is enough for a person to deserve the label Christian, whether the doctrine
be Latter-day Saint, evangelical, Catholic, or whatever. Blomberg’s concluding
restatement focuses on beliefs solely, as though there were any sort of belief
that could suffice to make a Christian.

Thus he raises but does not address the pertinent question. Still, for any reader
who takes the initiative to consider the question, Blomberg’s essay includes
all the ingredients for the correct answer. Two pages prior to stating what
it takes to be a Christian in the sense of being converted to Christ, he lists
what he acknowledges to be good features of Latter-day Saint belief and practice:

a strong commitment to win people to Christ; a biblical emphasis on numerous
fundamental moral values, including putting family relationships as a central
priority in life; generous financial giving; a good blend of self-reliance and
helping others who genuinely cannot care for themselves; all the strengths of
classic Arminianism with its emphasis on human free will and responsibility;
mechanisms for spiritual growth and accountability for every church member;
. . . genuine community and warm interpersonal relationships; a desire to restore
original Christianity and remove corrupting influences from it; social and political
agendas often similar to evangelical counterparts; and so on. (p. 327)

These features are more than enough for Mormonism to lead its earnest adherents
to become Christians, by Blomberg’s stated criteria: “sincerely
trusting in the Jesus of the New Testament as personal Lord (God and Master)
and Savior and . . . demonstrating the sincerity of that commitment by some
perceivable measure of lifelong, biblical belief and behavior” (p. 329).
Indeed, the first two points of Blomberg’s acknowledgment alone would
suffice to make Mormonism Christian. Of course it is.

Since his essay includes more than adequate grounds for concluding that Mormonism
is Christian in the sense of leading its adherents to Christ, and no wholehearted
explanation for why it would not be, one may wonder whether Blomberg has quite
thought the question through. That said, it is clear that he has many objections
to Mormonism, and some of these may make him reluctant to acknowledge it as
Christian even if they do not precisely bear on the question. After all, for
someone who believes that following Christ is the key to righteousness and eternal
happiness, the term Christian does not easily take a strictly taxonomical meaning.
It inevitably implies some level of approval, and there is much about Mormonism
of which Blomberg does not approve. Yet if Blomberg wishes to use the word Christian
in a “meaningful” way, as he claims (p. 331), he should be prepared
to distinguish between calling someone or something Christian and giving it
unqualified approval. As it is, I am unsure what meaning to attach to Blomberg’s
unwillingness to call Mormonism Christian.9 Further, key aspects of his disapproval
reflect misunderstandings of Mormonism, as I will explain.

Blomberg brings up a number of his objections in the course of considering three
other senses for the claim that Mormonism is Christian, reflecting various ways
of fitting Mormonism into the broader Christian picture. This taxonomy is important,
though far less important than the question of whether someone is a disciple
of Christ. Blomberg discusses the hypotheses that the Church of Jesus Christ
(1) belongs to one of the three largest branches of the Christian tradition
(Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), (2) is the “restoration of the original
Christianity of Jesus and the apostles,” and (3) is simply a new denomination
(or a new branch) within the Christian tradition (pp. 317-18, 322). Blomberg
finds each of these hypotheses untenable. He is right to quickly reject the
first hypothesis, although his discussion of it is highly problematic. Only
the second captures the Latter-day Saint self-understanding. Still, a charitable
observer who is not a Latter-day Saint should carefully consider the third.
Blomberg says a number of sensible things along the way to rejecting points
2 and 3, but his reasoning leaves substantial gaps. His discussion leaves ample
room for the reader to conclude that Mormonism is Christian in a taxonomical

Taxonomy: Is Mormonism Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant?

The section discussing the first hypothesis is confusing because Blomberg means
to be employing a “definition” of Christian, but it is not clear
what his definition is. On one reading, his definition is “a member of
an Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant church” (p. 317). According to this
definition, clearly Mormonism would not be Christian, but it is an untenable
definition, like defining an American as “a person from the East Coast,
West Coast, or Great Lakes regions of the U.S.” The fact that these definitions
cover the numerical majority of Christians or Americans does not make them plausible.
They simply do not capture the common English meanings of the terms. Blomberg
also quotes the World Book Encyclopedia, which does capture the common English
meaning of Christianity—”the religion based on the life and teachings
of Jesus Christ” (p. 317)—and indicates that not all (rather, “most”)
Christians are Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. A different locution might
preserve Blomberg’s legitimate point, though. Since Orthodox, Catholics,
and Protestants are Christians, he might reasonably ask, “If we were to
say that Mormonism is Christian, would we mean that it is Protestant, Catholic,
or Orthodox?” Or he might ask, “Is Mormonism Christian in the sense
of being Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox?”

Of course, Latter-day Saints have never represented themselves as Catholic,
Orthodox, or Protestant, and this fact might be enough to justify dismissing
the first hypothesis. Seemingly to illustrate, though, Blomberg goes on to present
an inflammatory view of Latter-day Saint teaching about these three major branches
of the Christian tradition. Regrettably, some Saints take roughly this view,
but it is not an official teaching, nor is it the teaching of Latter-day Saint
scripture. Blomberg reads the Book of Mormon as teaching that “all of
Christendom after the apostolic age prior to 1830″ is a church founded
by the devil (p. 317). This interpretation fits poorly with the context of the
passages to which he refers. According to that discussion, “there are
save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other
is the church of the devil” (1 Nephi 14:10).10 Since there are just two,
these churches clearly do not correspond to any ordinary denominational divisions.
Thus it is implausible to take Book of Mormon references to the “church
of the devil” as references to traditional Christianity. My own view is
that the church of the Lamb of God includes the humble righteous of all nations
and denominations.11 For a church that teaches that many who die without knowing
the fulness of the gospel will be saved at the last day, it would be rather
odd to teach that every Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant believer for a millennium
and a half belonged to the church of the devil. Blomberg’s other paraphrases
are also disputable.12 In the spirit of such Book of Mormon teachings as 2 Nephi
29:7-11 and Alma 29:8, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism gives a more standard
view: that non–Latter-day Saint forms of Christianity throughout history
do “much good under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,” though they
are “incomplete.”13

Since the reading of Blomberg’s “definition” I consider above
is so plainly untenable and clashes with the World Book definition he quotes,
I consider another reading. This reading better explains why Blomberg brings
up the Book of Mormon reference to the “church of the devil.” Perhaps
Blomberg draws from World Book the idea that Christianity is a religion of which
most members are Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. Then his reasoning might
go: But Mormons believe the religion of which most members are Protestant, Orthodox,
or Catholic to be the church of the devil. Hence Mormons are not Christians.
This reasoning uses a more sensible characterization of Christianity than the
untenable one I criticize above, though it still does not reflect the primary
World Book definition. Mormonism is based on the life and teachings of Jesus
Christ and so manifestly satisfies the World Book definition. Yet if Mormonism
called his religion the church of the devil, Blomberg’s reluctance to
call Mormonism Christian would be at least psychologically understandable. Fortunately,
on this point he just gets Mormonism wrong. This misunderstanding comes up again
later in his essay, again seeming to block what might otherwise be the most
obvious way for Blomberg to classify Mormonism as Christian.

Taxonomy: Is Mormonism a Restoration of Original Christianity?

The Latter-day Saints themselves claim that their church is a restoration of
the original church Christ established in the time of the apostles. Blomberg
offers historical arguments against this claim, and he questions the cogency
of various LDS scholars’ historical arguments for it. He raises points
that a careful assessment of the history should address. Still, his arguments
are less than compelling.

That Christ would need to restore his church in 1830 presupposes that the Christian
tradition had gone astray. Blomberg objects to this presupposition: “the
amount and suddenness of transformation [in the early Christian world] required
to defend the Mormon view of apostasy simply cannot be elicited from the ancient
sources available to us” (p. 318). He acknowledges that substantial change
occurred in the first several centuries of Christian history but emphasizes
that this change was too gradual to fit the Latter-day Saint view.

I see three main problems with Blomberg’s contention. First, the Latter-day
Saint view of apostasy does not require sudden change. It only requires that
enough had changed by 1830 to make a restoration necessary. Second, certain
early and crucial changes are consistent with the historical evidence. For example,
if crucial authority was lost because the original apostles were not properly
replaced as they died, that fact could make necessary a subsequent restoration,
even if doctrinal error crept in very slowly thereafter. The nature and location
of authority in the early church is thoroughly disputed, but the Latter-day
Saint view that the apostles held crucial authority is consistent with the very
incomplete historical evidence we now possess, and it finds support in the New
Testament. Third and most important, Blomberg’s contention that a distinct
entry into apostasy “cannot be elicited from the ancient sources”
is simply not to the point. The fact is that the ancient sources we now have
available leave in doubt a great many important questions about the early church.
While historical evidence for a Latter-day Saint view is interesting and welcome,
the legitimacy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its claims,
including its claim to be Christian, does not depend on the existence of some
unambiguous historical demonstration of them, any more than Christ’s authority
depended on scriptural exegesis showing that he was uniquely the Messiah foretold
by the prophets. Where evidence either for or against is incomplete and subject
to dispute, a lack of strong historical evidence for Latter-day Saint claims
is not evidence against those claims.

Blomberg goes on to criticize in broad strokes various historical observations
Latter-day Saint scholars have offered in corroboration of the claim that their
church is a restoration of the original church. He is surely right that some
Latter-day Saint citations of ancient authors involve misunderstandings that
could be corrected by more careful study. However, his arguments are not developed
enough to support his sweeping conclusions. He presupposes an extremely narrow
view of what members of the Church of Jesus Christ would have to show in order
to legitimately claim that Mormonism is Christian in the sense of being a restoration
of the original church. He writes as though they must “demonstrate”
(p. 320) on the basis of ancient sources that teachings and practices parallel
with Mormonism were not only present but formed a “coherent doctrinal
system” defined by Jesus and the apostles (p. 320), free of any Hellenistic
influence (p. 319), and joined with a “monarchical episcopacy” (p.
321), and then were lost suddenly (p. 318), declining in “straight-line”
fashion from orthodoxy to heresy (p. 319).

In fact, the Latter-day Saint claim is consistent with many other scenarios.
For example, surely the real story involves heterodoxy present, ebbing and flowing,
from the earliest days of the church. Surely the complex Hellenistic culture
was not a uniformly bad influence. What is crucial to the LDS claim is that
correct teachings and authority to lead the church were present together in
the time of the original apostles, whereas by 1830 this authority was no longer
present and the teachings had changed enough to warrant a restoration. Moreover,
whether or not Mormonism is Christian does not depend on anyone’s demonstrating
even this much from ancient sources.

I will linger a bit on one of Blomberg’s oversimplifications. The Book
of Mormon teaches that many “plain and precious parts of the gospel”
were lost from the Christian community over time after the deaths of the apostles
(1 Nephi 13:26-35). Such loss of truth is a key part of the LDS view that
a restoration was necessary. Blomberg claims this must mean either that the
texts forming today’s New Testament were substantially miscopied or that
other texts containing key truths were lost or discarded. He then casts doubt
on both these scenarios. Despite Blomberg’s doubts, both may have occurred.
Textual criticism is hardly an infallible way to detect changes; there is no
doubt that countless interesting early Christian documents have been lost; and
there is no telling how much oral discourse was never fully captured in writing.
Moreover, I urge a third scenario for the loss of truth. The Book of Mormon
teaching may refer just as easily to how the texts are read and understood as
to how they are worded. Books carry meaning by virtue of their being understood
by people as language, and if the readers cease to recognize the same meaning
in the words, then the meaning is in a real sense lost from the book.

An important example of this instability of meaning is the case of spirit, as
appearing in John 4:24, “God is a Spirit.” In the time of Origen,
the fact that God was described as a spirit suggested that he is corporeal,
having location and a sort of texture, like air, breath, or wind.14 Yet today
many cite this passage to argue that God is incorporeal. The meaning of the
word has changed, whether in Greek or in English, and so people see in the same
text a very different meaning. In some cases careful philology may recover the
original meaning. In other cases it may not. Such words as faith and truth have
evolved substantially through history. Phrases like laying on of hands, or Christ’s
claims that he and his Father are one, may have had a specific meaning that
was not properly passed on. The significance of symbolic texts or teachings
is especially vulnerable to loss via disruption of the tradition of readers.15

The New Testament itself attests to the importance not only of reading a correct
book, but of having proper advice in its interpretation, as when Christ expounded
the prophecies concerning himself (Luke 24:25-27) or when the eunuch appealed
to Philip to explain Isaiah (Acts 8:26-35). Second Peter 3:16 warns that
the unlearned may misunderstand Paul’s letters, or indeed any scriptures,
and the errors of the scribes and Pharisees who did not recognize Christ show
that one can fail to understand despite much study. Indeed, precisely this problem
of a text’s being “plain” to a person with a certain preparation
and not to others is the subject of a small discourse by the same author who
records the vision of the book from which plain and precious things were taken
away (2 Nephi 25:1-8).16 Thus a loss of truth from the Bible could occur
at least as easily through a failure in the tradition of readers and interpreters
as through a failure of a copyist or librarian.

Blomberg himself suggests that the most plain and precious truth of all is lacking
from many nominally Christian denominations:

Sadly, in many liberal protestant congregations and in even larger numbers of
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, it is possible to attend and be involved
for years without ever hearing the message that one must personally accept Jesus
as Lord and Savior and allow him to transform every area of one’s life.
It often requires some experience outside such congregations to lead to an individual’s
salvation. (pp. 328-29)

He does not suggest that they have removed passages from their versions of the
Bible. Rather, he suggests that they fail to discuss the message and fail to
see it in the scriptures. I myself suspect that Blomberg’s impression
is inaccurate, that these churches frequently express the same idea but in ways
Blomberg does not recognize. In any church, a person may attend for years without
truly hearing what is being taught. Still, my view of how plain and precious
truths were lost from the tradition has interesting affinities with some of
Blomberg’s own views.

As in his discussion of the claim that plain and precious truths were lost,
Blomberg’s remarks in other cases are not well enough developed to constitute
a refutation of the Latter-day Saint claim that their church is a restoration
of the original church. They are better read as a survey of his reasons for
doubt. Of course, the Latter-day Saint case based on historical records is not
exactly airtight. In the end Saints have always relied on the witness of the
Holy Spirit—an eminently ancient source, but hardly a public commodity.
Hence, Blomberg’s choice not to endorse this Latter-day Saint claim is
reasonable and shows no disrespect or lack of charity on his part. But where
does that leave the question of whether Mormonism is Christian? Since Blomberg
has not refuted the claim of the restoration, he has not refuted the claim that
Mormonism is Christian in the sense of being a restoration. On the other hand,
he (like others in his position) is not under a rational obligation to assent
that Mormonism is Christian in this sense. So, declining assent here, he proceeds
to consider another sense.

Taxonomy: Is Mormonism Simply a New Christian Denomination?

One would think that since Mormonism fits the World Book definition and standard
dictionary definitions but is distinct from other present denominations, this
hypothesis would be the default. Blomberg’s reasons for rejecting it are
a bit confusing. First he enumerates numerous parallels between Latter-day Saint
doctrines and practices and those taught by Alexander Campbell, who had strong
ties with Sidney Rigdon. He also lists a set of potential nineteenth-century
sources for differences from Campbell. His point is clearly to argue that Joseph
Smith’s ideas were not very new or unusual after all. Yet then he claims,
“Mormonism appears to relate to historic Christianity much as Christianity
came to relate to Judaism: it changes enough elements to be classified better
as a completely new religion” (p. 324). One doubts he can have it both

At first Blomberg’s point in listing similarities with other movements
of Joseph Smith’s time seems to be to support the hypothesis that Mormonism
might be a new nineteenth-century denomination within the restorationist tradition
to which Campbell belongs. More often, though, his point seems to be to undermine
the claim that the source in Joseph Smith’s teachings was revelation.17
Evidently Blomberg’s aims are not merely taxonomic.

The affinities of Joseph’s views with other nineteenth-century views are
interesting, but they hardly imply that there was no restoration. Many of the
parallels Blomberg cites are not surprising, given that Smith and Campbell both
read the Bible. Strong similarity with many Christian denominations is only
to be expected of a restoration of Christianity and evidences a shared source
in revelation rather than lack of revelation. Further, the Latter-day Saint
view that God works by the Holy Spirit among all people fits well with the view
that many teachings relatively distinctive to the restoration might have been
brewing for some time before they came together in the restored church. Nephi
reports that God often teaches his people incrementally, “line upon line”
(2 Nephi 28:30), and Joseph Smith may have had inspired forerunners, as Christ
had in John the Baptist. The parallels Blomberg cites with sources other than
Campbell are again interesting but do little to undermine the claim that Mormonism
is a restoration of the original church. Mormonism is quite distinctive on the
whole, as Blomberg quickly admits.

Blomberg’s allegation that Mormonism is so different from other Christian
denominations that it should count as an entirely new religion is more interesting
than his attempt to assimilate it to other nineteenth-century phenomena, but
it relies on a dubious notion of what distinguishes one religion from another.
It is true that in many ways Mormonism is to traditional Christianity as Christianity
is to Judaism. Christianity involved different ideas, different ritual practices,
and additional scriptures compared with Judaism, as does Mormonism compared
with traditional Christianity. Yet Blomberg may be too quick to assume that
this analogy implies that Latter-day Saint belief and practice constitute a
different religion from traditional Christianity. There are difficulties with
the idea that Christianity is a different religion from Judaism, however often
we may talk as though it is. The distinction is nowhere near as tidy as the
distinction between, say, Christianity and Buddhism.

Christ did not offer the Jews the comforting idea that he was starting a new
religion irrelevant to their own. He claimed that if they did not accept his
message, they were not truly following the authorities they already accepted:
Moses “wrote of me” (John 5:45&ndash47); “If ye were Abraham’s
children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39); “it is
my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have
not known him; but I know him” (John 8:54-55). While he called for
deep changes to existing Jewish practice, he persistently referred to the Jews’
own scriptures to support his teachings. As we see from the Sermon on the Mount
(“I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”; Matthew 5:17), Christ
did not come to replace the Jews’ religion, but to correct and fulfill

Thus if Christ is to be believed, following their own religion required the
Jews to follow Christ. Paul specifically calls the Mosaic law a “schoolmaster
to bring us unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24). Designed to bring its followers
to Christ and delivered by prophets who knew and wrote of him, Judaism as originally
delivered was evidently a form of Christianity, although an incomplete form.

Of course, in everyday discourse it is convenient to speak of contemporary Christianity
and contemporary Judaism as two different religions. They do have substantial
differences in both belief and practice, and on most occasions it is not appropriate
for Christians to press their view of the situation on Jews who do not recognize
Christ as their Messiah. Still, from the Christian perspective, Judaism can
only be regarded as independent from Christianity insofar as it is a human tradition,
out of touch with its origin in revelation. Christ recognized this aspect of
Judaism, calling it “the tradition of men” in contrast with “the
commandment of God” (Mark 7:8). His comment on this tradition was the
same as his comment on the Christianity of Joseph Smith’s day. In both
cases he quoted Isaiah: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth,
and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain
do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew
15:8-9, paralleling Mark 7:6-7 and quoting Isaiah 29:13; compare
Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

Thus Blomberg’s analogy holds rather closely, perhaps more closely than
he realized. Mormonism relates to traditional Christianity much as Christ’s
teaching related to traditional Judaism. In both pairs, the first member claims
to restore the original from which the second has strayed. Of course, Christ
also presented much more than had been present in the original Mosaic teaching.
Indeed, Christ himself was the greatest revelation.18

Mormonism differs from the traditional branches of Christianity, but not in
the way Buddhism differs from Islam and Zoroastrianism. Rather, it differs in
being a rival view of the same original teaching and the same original teacher,
Jesus of Nazareth. These differences are reflected aptly by distinguishing Latter-day
Saints from Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, all as branches of Christianity.
Blomberg understandably declines to call Mormonism a restoration of original
Christianity. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have no interest in calling
themselves a new, nineteenth-century denomination of Christianity. Yet both
they and Blomberg should agree that the Church of Jesus Christ is either one
or the other: if it is not a restoration, then it is a new, nineteenth-century
denomination—and either way, it is Christian.

Mormonism has important differences from the traditional branches of Christianity—on
the nature of God as our Father and creator; on the nature of his unity with
his Son, Jesus Christ; on the nature of the authority required to lead his church
and administer saving ordinances such as baptism; and on the nature and terms
of salvation, including the kind of unity we may hope to attain with the Father,
the Son, and each other. While such differences as our additional scriptures,
our modern prophets, our temple ceremonies, and our belief in eternal marriage
are more conspicuous, we also have a unique perspective on the nature of the
conversion Blomberg emphasizes as the key to true Christian discipleship. Indeed,
perhaps the choicest feature of the Book of Mormon is its moving account of
the change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit on those who humble themselves
and wish to be freed from sin—the process of being (re)born of God (Mosiah
5:1-7; Alma 22:15; 36:5-26; 3 Nephi 9:16-21). Yet Catholics,
Orthodox, Protestants, and Latter-day Saints all look to Jesus of Nazareth as
the author of our salvation. We all believe that he was the Son of God, that
he died and rose again the third day, that he prepared the way for us to receive
eternal life through faith in him; and we all seek to show that faith by obedience
to his teachings. We all accept Christ as our Lord and Savior and strive to
show our commitment to him by walking in newness of life. We are all Christians.


  1. Blomberg picks out this sense as the one evangelicals normally have in mind
    when they ask whether a person is Christian (p. 328). It is also the one Christ
    picks out as defining membership in his church in Doctrine and Covenants 10:67.
  2. I also take them to be equivalent to Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks’s
    “commitment to Jesus Christ,” in Offenders for a Word (Provo, Utah:
    FARMS, 1998), 27. Blomberg suggests that Peterson and Ricks do not account for
    the possibility of insincere commitment. He misunderstands, though. When they
    say, “If anyone claims to see in Jesus of Nazareth a personage of unique
    and preeminent authority, that individual should be considered Christian”
    (ibid., 185), they are not changing their definition. Commitment involves reform
    in behavior as well as verbal profession of Christ. Their point is that it is
    rarely appropriate for us mortals to accuse someone of insincerity in that very
    important claim. Peterson and Ricks’s criterion may differ from Blomberg’s
    by not requiring the belief that Jesus Christ is God (though the Latter-day
    Saint scriptures clearly teach that he is). On this point I sympathize with
    Peterson and Ricks. I do not hold these characterizations of what it takes to
    be a Christian as equivalent to Blomberg’s “saved.” I believe
    salvation presupposes some degree of what evangelicals call sanctification,
    and I believe I agree with most Latter-day Saints on this point, although Stephen
    Robinson might disagree. Leaving it to God to say who is or will be saved, I
    do not attach any comment on salvation as such to my use of the word Christian.
  3. The prayer offered weekly over the bread, in front of the congregation, reads,
    “O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus
    Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake
    of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness
    unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them
    the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which
    he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them.”
    This prayer appears in the Book of Mormon (Moroni 4:3) and in Doctrine and Covenants
  4. Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nos. 134 and 104.
  5. There are also more mundane senses of the term Christian, such as those in
    my copy of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
    Language, Unabridged
    (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam, 1976). In reference to a
    person: “one who believes or professes or is assumed to believe in Jesus
    Christ and the truth as taught by him” and an array of similar alternate
    senses. In reference to an institution: “professing or belonging to Christianity,”
    among others, where Christianity is “the religion stemming from the life,
    teachings, and death of Jesus Christ,” which is certainly the focus of
    Latter-day Saint teaching and practice. Any moderately committed Latter-day
    Saint fits a whole battery of Webster’s definitions of Christian, and
    so does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Blomberg does not consider
    any of these, nor does he say why he does not.
  6. Actually, beginning the question with “Can” rather than “Does”
    makes a difference. Blomberg has already closed his discussion of whether Mormonism
    as an institution is Christian with a negative conclusion. Hence at this point
    he presupposes that it would be exceptional for a Latter-day Saint to become
    a Christian without the influence of some other Christian system of belief and
    practice. Still, his “Can” question is close to the important question,
    and as close as he gets, so in what follows I will overlook the difference.
  7. As a third problem, one could dispute Blomberg’s five-point summary
    of Latter-day Saint doctrines he finds “objectionable,” delivered
    in a footnote to this passage (p. 489 n. 69). I would particularly dispute points
    three and five. Still, as Blomberg acknowledges, it is not clear whether these
    teachings conflict with the Bible, and so a dispute over what Latter-day Saints
    officially or commonly believe on these points should wait for another occasion.
  8. In a similar vein, on the preceding three pages, Blomberg answers several
    questions about how being a Latter-day Saint relates to being Christian simply
    by appealing to what “most evangelicals” (p. 329) would say, without
    offering any objective basis.
  9. As far as I can tell, in this essay Blomberg also refrains from denying that
    Mormonism is Christian.
  10. It may be interesting to compare Book of Mormon references to this “abominable”
    church with biblical references to “the mother of harlots and abominations”
    (Revelation 17:5).
  11. My view on this point is similar to Stephen Robinson’s. Blomberg acknowledges
    Robinson’s reading in a footnote but does not explain why he rejects it.
    In addition, his quotation of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on this point makes
    his inflammatory reading of 1 Nephi even more inexplicable.
  12. For example, Joseph Smith—History 1:19 does not use Blomberg’s
    phrase “hypocritical pretense” to describe Christian worship in
    Joseph Smith’s youth. I suggest a different gloss: they employ my words,
    but they misunderstand me.
  13. This point appears in the passage Blomberg himself quotes from Roger R.
    Keller, “Christians and Christianity,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
  14. Origen, De Principiis, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts
    and James Donaldson (1885; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 4:242.
  15. Consider praying or acting in Christ’s name (John 14:13), eating his
    flesh (John 6:53), or sitting in his throne (Revelation 3:21).
  16. This vision prominently features a book that “proceeded forth from
    the mouth of a Jew,” but references to “plain and precious things”
    being taken away “from the gospel of the Lamb” appear roughly as
    often as, and apparently interchangeably with, references to such things being
    taken away from the book (see 1 Nephi 13:24-29). Indeed, the book seems
    to be a representation of the whole gospel message as traced from the apostles,
    not merely of gospel writings.
  17. He says, “One might be forgiven for thinking” that these elements
    were revealed to Joseph Smith, but this hypothesis “overlooks all of these
    clearly documented influences on his early life and thought” (pp. 323-24).
    Blomberg for his part overlooks the stunningly fresh and systematic unity of
    the gospel message restored through Joseph Smith—hardly the hodgepodge
    Blomberg suggests it is.
  18. Blomberg also offers a more colorful analogy, this time comparing the Latter-day
    Saints with an imaginary group claiming to represent a restoration of Islam.
    While it makes an amusing caricature, this imaginary group fails to be analogous
    to the Saints in key respects (pp. 324-25).