Sometimes people hear about “Mormons” but don’t realize that the actual name of the religion is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.  Jesus Christ is our Savior, Lord and Redeemer. We believe that He was born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem as described in the New Testament. As the Son of God, He came to save all mankind through his suffering in Gethsemane, death on the cross and resurrection on the third day.

Thanks for your question, take some time and look through some other articles on the site to learn more about the importance of Jesus Christ to us individually as well as to the church as a whole.

With accusations of bigotry flying in from all directions, the pastor has stood by his statement and made the clarification that Mormonism is a “theological cult,” which has a different denotation than a “sociological cult” akin to the small, controlling groups led by the likes of David Koresh and Jim Jones. The way that Jeffress describes it, a “theological cult” is a religious group that deviates from traditional Christianity significantly enough that it should be excluded from the realm of Christianity.

Now, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does deviate from traditional Christianity in some ways, so there may be some value in his assessment; it’s a question worth exploring through further research and education. My main objection to the term “cult” is its connotation: it conjures up images of brain-washing, living in barbed-wire compounds, restricting access to the outside world. Rather than opening the question, it closes the door on it. The intent of the word is to tell everyone, “DANGER! Don’t go near these loons!”

So, there’s a problem with the word “cult” itself: it’s pejorative. Rev. Jeffress’ relatively neutral definition is automatically charged by the fierce emotional context surrounding the word, and the message of that emotion is “REJECT MORMONS!” As Mormons, we feel that message unfairly replaces education with anti-Mormon propaganda.

This tactic is relatively commonplace in the public square. The well-known atheist, Christopher Hitchens recently summed up my religion as one led by “a supreme leader, known as the prophet [who can order Mormons] to turn upon and shun any members who show any signs of backsliding [...] Word is that the church can be harder to leave than it was to join. Hefty donations and tithes are apparently appreciated from the membership.”

If you want to understand Mormonism, though, here are the main things a Mormon will focus on when introducing the Church:

Short answer: yes.

Our church has four officially canonized books of scripture, of which the Bible is one. We use and love the Bible because it is a book that contains revealed truth about God and Jesus Christ. No other book in our canon is referred to as a “Bible”, so when you say “the Mormon Bible”, you are really talking about the same Bible used by any other Christian church. In that sense, our Bible has the book of Revelation in it just like any other Bible does.

However, when somebody refers to “the Mormon Bible”, we assume they mean The Book of Mormon, which is another book in our canon of scripture. It is the testimony of Jesus Christ as recorded by a branch of the house of Israel that emigrated from Jerusalem before the Babylonian captivity. It contains many great truths, prophecies and testimonies of Jesus Christ, but it does not have the Revelation of John referred to in the question.

For more information as well as a discussion of our other books of scripture, you can follow the links below:

More Than the Bible?

The Book of Mormon: The Mormons’ Bible?

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ

A. Thank you for your kind words, Ivan. I’m glad you are reading from the Inspired Version. I agree that it’s a tremendous resource for Bible study and worship and I pray you will continue to study it.

For the rest of our readers, let me explain a few things about your question before I get to the answer:

RLDS is an acronym for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, now known as the Community of Christ, an off-shoot religion based on the one Joseph Smith founded in 1830. When the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. was martyred in 1844, there was some confusion among the latter-day saints who should rise to lead them as the next prophet and president of the Church. A majority recognized the prophetic mantle had fallen upon Brigham Young and followed him west to the Utah desert. Some believed that eleven-year-old Joseph Smith III was supposed to succeed his father; this group remained in Illinois and eventually coalesced into the RLDS Church in 1860.

The Inspired Version of the Bible is also known as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). It is an English-language translation of the Holy Bible based upon the King James Version (KJV). More details to follow.

A Three-in-One is a printing of the RLDS scriptures, including the Inspired Version of the Bible (JST), the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. It is similar to an LDS Quad, except we have four books (including the Pearl of Great Price), our Doctrine & Covenants is a bit different, and our Bible is KJV instead of JST. This is what prompted Ivan’s question (why don’t Mormons use JST?)

The Joseph Smith Translation

When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he learned that the Bible was incomplete. An angel taught the Book of Mormon prophet-king Nephi that, “when [the Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, [but corrupt groups] have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away” (1 Nephi 13:24,26). In other words, the Bible lost some of its original teachings over the centuries and it needed to be corrected.

Fortunately, God’s work cannot be thwarted. Jesus taught, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). After Joseph had completed his translation of the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, the Lord instructed him to do a similar work on the Holy Bible, but instead of being a translation from one language to another, it would be a translation from corruption to purity by the gift and power of God. In many instances, the original writings of the ancients were restored. Some of the changes Joseph implemented were meant to give verses a “plainer” meaning (clarifying archaic phrases or harmonizing doctrines), and a majority were simply grammatical improvements.

One of the most significant changes was made to Genesis. Instead of starting with “In the beginning…”, the JST opens with an encounter Moses had with God on Mount Sinai. Moses asks the Lord about the earth and why it was created. The Lord shows Moses a vision of the seven days of creation, and of Adam and Eve, etc. At this point, it jumps into the familiar KJV story, and it also includes more details on various other things, including the mysterious character named Enoch, who “walked with God” (Genesis 5:24). This section of the JST is included in the Pearl of Great Price and is known as the Book of Moses. You can (and should!) read the Book of Moses. It gives wonderful insights into the fall of Adam and Eve, knowledge of the plan of redemption in ancient times, the purpose of life and much more.

There are many other JST changes throughout the length of the Bible. Most of the doctrinally-relevant ones can be found in the LDS edition of the Bible (in the footnotes, or in an appendix for lengthier passages). The full text is also available online at this link.

How Do Mormons Use the JST?

The Joseph Smith translation is not the official Bible of the LDS Church; the King James Version is. Among the reasons for this are the following:

• It was never formally published by Joseph Smith. Although he clearly worked his way through the entire Bible by 1833, he was still making minor edits at the time he was killed in 1844, and it is unclear in some cases whether the notes he left in his margins and on his manuscripts were private thoughts or revealed truths.
• At Joseph’s death, the manuscripts for the JST were in the possession of his widow, Emma. As Brigham Young was preparing to move the latter-day saints west, he requested that she provide them to him but he was denied (Emma had some animosity toward Brigham that led her to stay in Illinois; she became part of the RLDS Church when it was formed).
• When the RLDS Church began publishing the Inspired Version, LDS Church leaders in Utah were suspicious that the RLDS publishers may have made some illegitimate changes. Decades later, they finally allowed the Utah Mormons to examine the original manuscripts and their fears were allayed.
• For many years the RLDS Church maintained the copyright.

Even though the KJV is the LDS official Bible, the Book of Moses and the JST of Matthew 24 are officially canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. And, like I mentioned above, we have footnotes (I highlighted all of mine with green colored pencil) and an appendix full of JST notes as valuable resources to study. So, Ivan, we do believe in and study the Inspired Version.

The JST is a tremendous blessing for anyone seeking a better understanding of Bible teachings; I encourage you to use it often in your Bible study.

We try to practice the teaching of Christ when he said “hold up your light that it may shine unto the world… I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me.” Most faithful members of our church are more than willing to share their beliefs with any soul who shows even a little interest. Try letting your friend know that you really are curious, and ask specific questions. Hopefully he’ll open up.

We certainly have no secrecy code. That being said, if an experience is very sacred (e.g. temple worship), it “must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit” (D&C 63:64).

Members can be removed from the church in one of two ways. They can request that their names be removed, or they can be ex-communicated. The latter is usually due to willful disobedience of major commandments.

See also: 2 Nephi 26:27-28, Moroni 6:7-8

We recently got a nice comment from a woman who used to be a member of our Church, but has since becoming involved in another, more mainstream Christian Church.  She wrote about her “new eyes and strong desire to help others come unto Christ [the same way that she has].”  It was really nice to read, actually. And I’m grateful that she commented because it gave me a chance to think about what she is advocating.  As a member of a church that proclaims to be the “only true and living church on the face of the earth” (D&C 1:30) it is sometimes hard to wrap my head around the fact that someone could leave this “fully true” church for a “partly true” church.  (Don’t get all offended, I’ll explain my labels).

There are at least two parts to our church:  the human part and the inspired part.  The human part is honestly just like any other Christian Church.  There are fellowship meetings, get-togethers, sermons by people who have some pet virtue they want to beat into the parishioners heads.  Sometimes the church is amazing in this realm.  Sometimes people reach out to new people and bring them into their warm circle of friends and fellowship.  Sometimes seven different people come up to you during the first 14 minutes of church when you are visiting just to introduce themselves (thank you, Abilene Texas 3rd ward!  You guys were awesome!).  Sometimes there are incredible choral programs for Christmas and Easter.  Sometimes someone’s sermon changes your life for good.  Sometimes you find your closest friends through the Home or Visiting Teaching programs.

And sometimes, honestly, the human parts stink.  People are flawed.  And they bring those flaws to the church–especially in the LDS Church where everything is run by the members–a lay clergy, volunteers in every single role from the tiniest nursery tots all the way to the High Priests Group nodding off in the back row.  So that means that every person’s flaws and weaknesses are somehow incorporated into the functioning Church body (as well as their good qualities, but that observation belongs in the paragraph above).  And so, for people like the woman I mentioned above, visiting a warm and welcoming  congregation, perhaps with a social following the service and all sorts of ancillary programs to sign up for, may seem like a shocking difference (especially if her LDS ward was the opposite of the Abilene Texas 3rd Ward).  And it might seem like that church is more true.  More full and lively.  And it probably is more full and lively.  As far as fellowship and sociality goes, the Mormons don’t claim to have a monopoly.  Other churches are simply outstanding at uplifting and professional sermons, providing like-minded friends, urging people to lead honest and moral lives.   I don’t think any Mormon would argue otherwise; and if the human part of our church were the only part, then the answer to my post title is Yes.  It is just another Christian Church.

But there is another part to the church: the inspired part.  And this is the part that separates it from the “partly true churches” that have great human components.  God the Father and Jesus Christ really did restore the Church of Jesus Christ back to the earth through Prophets.  The Prophet really does speak to deity.  That’s an important distinction.  The organization of the church below them with Apostles, Seventies, Elders and so on is truly inspired.  It works on a small scale and it works globally.  I don’t think that Joseph Smith could have come up with that one on his own. The temples are also inspired.  Probably the most important element of the inspired part–that which makes it the true church–is the performance of saving ordinances:  Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, the Sacrament, Temple Endowment, Temple Sealing.  These things are HUGE.  It’s hard to explain to someone who hasn’t been to an LDS temple why they are so important, but it’s like having the map back to heaven, printed in your own language.  The temple is the point of having the Church back on the earth at all.  This is what makes the LDS Church the “only true and living church on the face of the earth.”

However, sometimes even members of the LDS Church miss this.  They see only the human parts and if they aren’t comparable to the other Christian Churches around their neighborhood  then it only makes sense to switch.  Being a member of the LDS church matters if those saving ordinances like baptism and temple ordinances are important to you.  They are important to me.  They give me security and increase my faith in Christ.  I know that He will do what He has promised to do because I’ve covenanted with Him to follow Him and He is always true to His covenants.  Those ordinances mean that I have a constant companion all the time: the Holy Ghost.  He leads me, comforts me and corrects me.  My temple marriage means the world to me because my little family means the world to me: if my road cycling husband were killed in an accident, I have God’s promise that we will be together again in the next life.  And I trust that.  I won’t even start to imagine losing one of my cherubic children because its too painful to contemplate, but we will be together for eternity too.  And when I die, because of what I have learned in the temple and covenanted to do, I have full confidence that I’ll be privileged to meet my Savior.  That is so important to me.

Way more important than how successful the ward party was and if today’s sermon wasn’t given as tactfully as I would have liked it. But that is my preference.  Everyone is entitled to their own priorities and I won’t condemn you for yours if you don’t condemn me for mine.

Simply put, Mormons seek to know, understand and believe anything that is true. We are encouraged to seek truth from all good sources. By-and-large, the origin of disease is not something specifically addressed by doctrine revealed through the priesthood. That leaves it up to individual members to decide what they believe personally, with the injunction to “seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118)

Mormons tend to accept well-established scientific truths, including truths about pathogens, genetics, nutrient deficiencies and other well-established causes of disease. Throughout recorded history, a common belief has been that disease is a punishment for sin. This idea isn’t entirely refuted by revealed doctrine, but it isn’t completely accepted either. Because many of the natural consequences of sin lead to poor health or disease, it can be said that disease is a punishment for certain sins. For example, illegitimate sex is against the the teachings of Jesus Christ and His servants. Such behavior can lead to sexually transmitted diseases that one would avoid by righteous living. In this sense you can say somebody is “punished” for illicit sexual behavior when they contract genital herpes. However, most Mormons would simply say that the disease was a natural consequence of sin, and not that the sin “caused” the disease.

Q: Do Mormons hunt?

Yes, but there is nothing in Mormon belief that says a person has to hunt, or should not hunt.

My dad’s side of the family hunted to sustain themselves and if they got a nice buck deer that was a bonus.  And I think that philosophy is in line with what has been taught by God.  Speaking to Noah, He said “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things” (Genesis 9:3).  Personally, I don’t see any difference between hunting and killing a deer to feed my family and buying hamburger at the store.  Animals died either way and to me there is something a little more noble about a deer giving its life to sustain me.

However, I think that there is something wrong with hunting simply to kill.  God taught this concept to Joseph Smith when he said, “wo be unto man that sheddeth blood of that wasteth flesh and hath no need” (D&C 49:21).

I’ll be honest, for me hunting is a little bit of an adrenaline rush.  There is nothing quite like listening to a big bull elk bugling on a cool fall morning.  But, on a more personal level hunting has taught me a lot about life. I learned at a very early age that life is precious and can be gone in an instant.  I saw that food didn’t just come from a store and that it was a precious commodity.  I learned how to take care of the animal–cleaning, cutting it up, and getting it ready for storage.  I was taught never to kill more than I could eat. I was taught to be an excellent shot with my rifle so that the animals die quickly and not suffer.  In addition I got to spend a lot of quality time with my dad and observe him in situations other than work and home.  He taught me how to be a man in the mountains and I am grateful for that.

Thanks for asking about hunting, I hope that answers your question.

To get to the bottom of the matter I conducted a highly scientific poll in which I texted 25 random Mormon friends of mine asking them “Are you Christian?” Of those, 17 responded (the other 8 were probably busy watching the Red Sox wail on the Yankees). Here’s what they replied:

• Yes
• Yes i am christian.
• Yes sir
• I don’t know what answer you want… Yes, i am…I believe in christ and try my best to follow him
• Yes!
• yep
• Yes, clearly
• Yes
• heretofore yes
• Ain’t no thang. Good luck to your hide. I’ll let you know of our next potential gatherin’ (note: I suspect that this one might not be in response to my question…)
• Yes!
• just simple yes or not? yes. if you want more detailed let me know.
• You bet.
• Yes. (an emoticon!)
• I am and know that he leads this church.
• Of course
• Yes

And the last friend of mine responded by actually calling me up and flabbergastedly (probably not a word) asking me why I’d ever even ask him that — of course he’s Christian! So, there you have it, at 17 votes to none the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian religion. That is, according to Mormons anyway. They say this because Christ is the central figure of Mormon theology.  “We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:26). In the words of Joseph Smith, “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.” Susan Easton Black, a church scholar (and coincidentally my neighbor) calculated that Christ or His ministry is mentioned on the average every 1.7 verses in the Book of Mormon. Mormon teaching is preeminently Christ-centered.

It seems the major part of the dear Mother Earth’s population agree that we are Christians. To a Muslim, Mormons are Christians; to a Buddhist, Mormons are Christian. I’m guessing that even a Pastafarian would probably call Mormons Christians. The problem is that some members of other religions chilling out under the holy umbrella of Christianity don’t like sharing the dry space. They claim that since some of our beliefs differ from that of “traditional” Christians, we shouldn’t be allowed use of the term. And they have a point — truly we are different in many ways (and proudly so, I say).  Our view of Christ differs from a Lutheran’s point of view of Christ just as a Baptist’s view of Him differs from a Catholic’s, but it should not be these doctrinal differences that define Christianity (read more about our view of Christ here).

The question at heart here is this: who has the right to determine the definition of the word “Christian”? Let’s look at the term’s history. According to Acts 11:26, the disciples of Christ were first called “Christians” at Antioch. The term meant someone who was a follower of the man Jesus. And the term went from there, eventually being applied to the Catholic and Orthodox churches and the many denominations that later started springing up. But today, no one really owns the legal rights to such terms. Certainly Evangelical Christians (who seem to take most issue with this claim) don’t own these rights. The term should be defined in the same way as any other term: by how it has been used by the common person over the course of many years. If any one group did own the rights, it would be the Catholics—the Christians who have been around the longest.

But I say we leave the definition up to the most reliable definitional source we humans have: www.merriam-webster.com which provides the following:

Main Entry: Chris·tian

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos

1: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

2: the hero in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress

So as long as you’re asking me if I’m a Christian in the first definition’s sense, then yes, I’m unquestionably a Christian.  And that rounds out the 4 ways in which Mormons are Christians:  1) By self definition, 2) By majority vote of the earth’s population, 3) By original definition of the word “Christian”, and 4) By current dictionary definition of the same.

I know Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, that He lived and performed miracles and died for us. I know He rose again on that blessed third day. I know He loves me and that through His atoning sacrifice I can overcome sin and be saved.  I’m grateful to Christian friends and neighbors of the Mormon and non-Mormon type who spread the good news of His gospel.

Here is our dilemma:  Who will believe us?  How do we share it?

Most of us are hesitant.  We have spent time building good, strong relationships with our neighbors and coworkers, and there is the fear that if we broach the topic of religion, if we invite our friends to a church meeting or to a missionary lesson that our friendships will dry up.

Since Mormonism is such an integral part of our lives we’re worried that a rejected invitation equals a rejected friendship.

I’d like to ask you, our non-Mormon readers, to imagine yourselves in a scenario.  You are talking to a trusted Mormon friend and somehow the LDS Church comes up.  You talk for a few minutes about it pleasantly, but not in much depth.  Then your friend invites you to learn more, maybe saying something like this:

We’re having the missionaries over for dinner on Wednesday.  It’s their job to teach people about the Church, and I’d love for you to learn more.  Will you come over for dinner and a short lesson?

What would you be thinking and feeling?  What would you say?  Be honest.