Proud to be Mormon

Are Mormons Christian? Absolutely. There are Christians out there that will argue that Mormons are not, becuase we do not fit into the small box they define as Christian. Since Mormons do not believe in the Trinity, they say we are not Christian. Since we believe in the Book of Mormon, they say we aren't Christian. There are other reasons they list as well, but they all mean nothing. The dictionary defines Christan as: "following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ." Is there a church in all the world that so fully meets this description? I would argue no. I define Christan as any person or religion that loves, worships, honors, and obeys the Lord Jesus Christ. Under this definition, Mormons are indeed Christian.

Joseph Smith once said:

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (TPJS, p. 121).

For more information, check out the talk given by Boyd K. Packer.

Gotta state your authority or it’s just an empty statement…

The first Christmas after I became stake president, our little girls got some dolls and other nice things on Christmas morning, and they immediately dressed and went over to their little friend's home to show her what Santa Claus had brought them. In a few moments they came back, crying. "What in the world is the matter?" we asked. "Donna Mae didn't have any Christmas. Santa Claus didn't come." And then belatedly we realized that the father had been out of work, and there was no money for Christmas. So we brought the little ones of that family in and divided our Christmas with them, but it was too late. We sat down to Christmas dinner with heavy hearts.

I resolved then that before another Christmas came, we would be certain that every family in our stake had the same kind of Christmas and the same kind of Christmas dinner that we would have.

The bishops of our stake, under the direction of the stake presidency, made a survey of the stake membership, and we were startled to discover that 4,800 of our members were either wholly or partially dependent-the heads of families did not have steady employment. There were no government make-work projects in those days. We had only ourselves to whom we could look. We were also told that we couldn't expect much help from the general funds of the Church.

We knew that we had about one thousand children under ten years of age for whom, without someone to help them, there would be no Christmas, so we started to prepare. We found a second floor over an old store on Pierpont Street. We gathered toys, some of which were broken, and for a month or two before Christmas parents came to help us. Many arrived early or stayed late to make something special for their own little ones. That was the spirit of Christmas giving-one had only to step inside the door of that workshop to see and feel it. Our goal was to see that none of the children would be without a Christmas. We would see that there was Christmas dinner in all the homes of the 4,800 who, without help, would otherwise not have Christmas dinner.

At that time I was one of the city commissioners. The night before Christmas Eve, we had had a heavy snowstorm, and I had been out all night with the crews getting the streets cleared, knowing that I would be blamed if any of my men fell down on the job. I had then gone home to change my clothes to go to the office.

As I started back to town, I saw a little boy on the roadside, hitchhiking. He stood in the biting cold with no coat, no gloves, no overshoes. I stopped and asked where he was going.

"I'm going uptown to a free picture show," he said. I told him I was also going uptown and that he could ride with me. "Son," I said, "are you ready for Christmas?"

"Oh, golly, mister," he replied, "we aren't going to have any Christmas at our home. Daddy died three months ago and left Mama and me and a little brother and sister."

Three children, all under twelve! I turned up the heat in my car and said, "Now, son, give me your name and address. Somebody will come to your home, you won't be forgotten. And you have a good time; it's Christmas Eve!"

That night I asked each bishop to go with his delivery men and see that each family was cared for, and to report back to me. While waiting for the last bishop to report, I suddenly, painfully, remembered something. In my haste to see that all my duties at work and my responsibilities in the Church had been taken care of, I had forgotten the little boy and the promise I had made.

When the last bishop reported, I asked, "Bishop, have you enough left to visit one more family?" "Yes, we have," he replied. I told him the story about the little boy and gave him the address. Later he called to say that that family too had received some well- filled baskets. Christmas Eve was over at last, and I went to bed. As I awoke that Christmas morning, I said in my heart, "God grant that I will never let another year pass but that I, as a leader, will truly know my people. I will know their needs. I will be conscious of those who need my leadership most."

My carelessness had meant suffering the first year because I did not know my people, but now I resolved never again to overlook the needs of those around me.

(Ye are the Light of the World, 345-347)

Editor's Note: Michael Otterson, head of Public Affairs for the LDS Church, blogged in the Washington Post about the Mormon view on constitutional rights of religions. You can read a selection of his blog below:

A Constitutional right

The history and practice of American politics and democracy affirm that churches and their leaders have a constitutional right to speak out in public policy debates.

Local, state and national officials regularly consult with religious leaders as a matter of course. During the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, both then-Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain led a number of discussions with religious leaders across America to gather input on challenges facing the nation.

Every individual and group has a stake in the direction of government. When values collide, as they do in every society, a healthy democracy requires active engagement from all who seek its prosperity, including religions. Attempts to deny or suppress participation from religious leaders tread on our nation's constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. A senior leader of my faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, articulated that concern in an address last month:

To read the rest of Otterson's blog, go to washingtonpost.com

Via

NAUVOO, Ill. -- On the bluff above Historic Nauvoo stand two tall steeples. On one is a statue of the Angel Moroni. On the other is a cross. The first, of course, is the steeple of the Mormon temple; the second, just a couple of hundred yards north, is Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church.

Some may see irony in this juxtaposition, but in Nauvoo the closeness has become symbolic of a fine friendship between people who love Jesus Christ and seek to follow his teachings. The friendship also extends to members of Christ Lutheran Church, a block to the south, and to the congregation that attends the First Presbyterian Church a few blocks to the east. It extends across town to the United Methodist Church and certainly to the members of the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

On Oct. 22, pastors of these churches met in the LDS Historic Nauvoo Visitors' Center and compared beliefs. The subject of the community meeting was, "Popes, Prophets, Priests, Pastors and People: Where Does the Church Get Its Earthly Authority and Why Does It Matter?" President Robert Ludwig of the Illinois Nauvoo Mission represented the LDS point of view and explained the concept of a restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Father Thomas Szydlik presented the Catholic claim to authority, and Pastor Gayle Pope spoke of Bible-based authority from a Lutheran point of view. Lay Pastor Mark Anderson articulated the Methodist understanding, and Lee Ourth spoke for the Community of Christ. One pastor, Lyren Haney, was unable to attend.

See the full story on ldschurchnews.com.

My question to all is, why can't we have more of this harmony between faiths? We have differences to be sure, but all Christian faiths have one thing in common, Christ. In a time when Christan virtues are so threatened, we need to present a unified front, not a fractured community, easily broken. Ultimately, we need to take a Christ-like perspective towards other Christian faiths, and not accuse, belittle, demean, slander, oppress, or otherwise do harm to each other. Can you imagine Christ acting in such a way?

Mormon Times:

PROVO, Utah ­ -- Dinesh D'Souza loves to debate the big names in the new atheism such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Usually he loves to do this on the home turf of the opposition.

Then he came to BYU.

D'Souza, a popular author of political and social commentary, was at Brigham Young University on Oct. 16 for the Wheatley Institute's "Symposium on Responding to the New Atheism." He wasn't in enemy territory, but his trademark take-no-prisoners rhetoric was still sharp as he laid out what he thought was new about the new atheism.

The old atheism focused on separation of church and state and wasn't all that appealing to the masses, D'Souza said. The new atheism is different.

"It's not content with policing the bounds of church and state, it wants to attack belief in God and wants to attack religion in the private sphere also," D'Souza said.

"It wants to make the believer feel like a total idiot for believing in God. So it's more ambitious, it's more aggressive in its agenda."

The new atheists are also a "suave bunch" that strikes a "rebel stance" appealing to young people, D'Souza said.

And young people are the target. The new atheists' goal is to "let the religious parents breed 'em" and then win them over later with their arguments, he said.

D'Souza took on what he called the three strongest arguments of the new atheists.

The first argument against religion is that God is not needed to be good. Hitchens challenged D'Souza in a debate once to name any single virtue that could not be practiced by a non-believer.

D'Souza turned this argument around by listing the most prized virtues of atheists: science, the individual, the right to dissent and to criticize, the equal dignity of women, compassion and the abolition of slavery. "All these virtues came into the West, and arguably into the world, because of Christianity."

Other cultures, such as ancient Greece and Rome, did not have these ideas. "Even the secular values of our culture ... are historically rooted in the soil of Christianity," D'Souza said.The second new atheist argument is that religion stands in the way of science. D'Souza said the new atheists point to such stories as how religion insisted the earth was flat.

But D'Souza said the flat earth idea is a legend and that educated people knew it was spherical even in Christ's time and in ancient Greece. "All you need to do is go observe an eclipse," D'Souza said. "You can see the shadow of the earth on the moon. Hey guys! It's round!"

D'Souza finds it curious that the new atheists hearken back to old controversies in science, but seem to ignore recent discoveries that may support a divine creator -- such as the way the laws of the universe are so precisely tuned as to allow the development of life.

The third argument is that religion isn't just wrong, it is pernicious and dangerous. To prove this, the new atheists point to the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Salem witch trials.

It is a matter of degree, however to D'Souza. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, lasted about 375 years and killed about 2,000 people -- about five a year. The Salem witch trials killed 19 people. He said this was 2,019 too many, but these crimes are pretty much unrepeatable today.

The atheist death toll is not only larger, it is more recent and is ongoing, according to D'Souza. He said that in seven decades the atheist regimes of Stalin, Mao and the Nazis killed 100 million people.

"Atheism has amassed a massive body count. A mountain of bodies. An ocean of blood," D'Souza said. "Atheism, and not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history."

Even most of the modern religious conflicts have at their heart not religion, but other issues such as land or the right to self-rule, D'Souza said.

But the ultimate motive for the current antagonism against religion, according to D'Souza, isn't science or lack of evidence. "I don't believe in unicorns, but you'll notice I haven't written any books called 'The Unicorn Delusion' ... or 'Unicorns are not Great.'"

"The belligerence of the new atheism is an important clue that something deeper is going on here," D'Souza said. It has to do with divine ultimate justice.

"How do you get out from out of the shadow of unceasing accountability, of unremitting moral judgement?" D'Souza said. "Well, abolish the judge. If you can somehow get rid of God, then all his preachments and commandments become optional."

To those who don't want religion to become marginalized, D'Souza recommends that people of faith become prepared and learn about their religion above the "crayon level" of a child. They need to learn of ways to speak that communicate their ideas without religious-based language. Different faith traditions also need to work together."(The new atheists have) taken these issues," D'Souza said, "and put them into the public square, creating an opportunity for the believers to reenter the public square and engage them there."

Even on their home turf.