I have spent hours talking and chatting to my wife's cousin's husband on all matters religion. He is an elder of his local temple. Been a Mormon his whole life...his parents Mormon, his wife, his children. Went on the missionary trips...been through the ceremonies...the whole nine yards. We spoke of several doctrinal areas...the nature of God...the way of the gospel...the means by which we may be saved...heaven and hell...the relation to the Bible of the book or Mormon, D&C, the Pearl etc . This was a few years ago now. Since then he and my wife's cousin have divorced, he remarried, and we've moved to another country. So a lot of water has flown by, but what I remember of our interactions was the friendliness, the complete lack of personal offense taken when we disagreed; we started off as friends, and we finished as friends. The other thing I remember is our vast differences when it came to essential beliefs. The nature of God, justification by faith, the way of salvation in particular. What I also noticed was always his somewhat reticent regard to discussing the ceremonies. However, to him they were clearly important...even to the point that they were essential parts to his faith as not just a Mormon, but a Christian.
Now Jane Doe seems to agree with his beliefs...which surely doesn't come as a surprise. But Jane's insistence on being calling herself an LDS Christian, to me is skewed for the very reason I brought up previously in another post. Mormons equate their authenticity as Christians on a very different foundation than do other Christians...the Bible is not the sole basis for their faith and practice. Just as Catholics hold to tradition as being the equal to scripture, and in some cases interpret scripture by the traditions thus placing tradition above scripture, so Mormons have other 'scriptures' which in my discussions with my friend, and with others online such as Jane Doe, determine a faith that is something quite apart from Biblical Christianity.
I liken it to a basketballer playing the game according to the rules of netball. Similar goals, but completely different route to get there. Jane Doe affirms this, while getting offended at being challenged whether this is true Christianity or not. I don't think this an unfair, unjust, or inappropriate challenge. It isn't intended to be offensive. It isn't insulting. It is not disparaging her person, her character, or her personality.
Jane has offered herself as the local LDS representative here and challenged us to ask questions. We already know the answers though. We do not misunderstand Mormon doctrine. It's all over the internet. The question is whether Mormons can justifiably call themselves Christian based on what doctrines...true teachings...that both belief systems hold...and there are vast differences. Not just subtle differences over insignificant details, but major differences over major basic tenets of faith and practice. Jane seems to consider that the ceremonies and special events and programs etc so essentially Mormon, are at all necessary to progress and salvation generally as pertaining to the kingdom of God...yet are they not part and parcel of the Mormon gospel which we are told was completely unknown to the world until Joseph came along? Or are they simply nothing but superfluous addons like a pot luck lunch?