Tarik David LaCour, a Latter-day Saint blogger, has recently written a blog post entitled, Are Mormons Christian? Not really..... While I would expect such misinformed arguments from anti-Mormons such as the Tanners and other Evangelical critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is amazing to find someone who purports to be a believing Latter-day Saint to write such a misinformed article.
Firstly, it should be noted that David is enamored with Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and other Roman Catholic philosophers. In a public facebook post, he wrote the following:
St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian who ever lived and one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived. Saved me from atheism with his showing of how faith and reason work together and are not opposites. St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for me!
Ignoring the anti-biblical nature of invoking the dead (which is a Roman/Eastern Orthodox practice; it is opposed to LDS theology), and while Aquinas was a very intelligent person, he, as a believing Roman Catholic, held to a false gospel (e.g., he defended the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and transubstantiation; the perpetual virginity and bodily assumption of Mary; Trinitarian Christology, etc [funnily enough, he rejected the then later defined dogmatic formulation of the Immaculate Conception when he wrote the Summa Theologica]).
Secondly, Tarik is guilty of equivocation all throughout the article on the meaning of "Christian." His article assumes that "Creedal Christianity" exhausts the category of "Christian," but this is fallacious. However, his "soft-spot" for the Church of Rome comes out in this paragraph:
My friend Scott Dodge, who is a former Mormon and now a Roman Catholic deacon once remarked to me "There is no greater question than knowing who God is." That is particularly true of the Mormon-Christian dialogue because neither Mormons or Christians are questioning (at least not as a whole) whether or not God exists; that question is already presupposed to be that he does in fact exist. The real question is what are the attributes and nature of this being. All other questions, such as the nature of the Church, priesthood, scriptural interpretation, ethics, etc, flow out of who and what God is.
The first question I would have is why take the word of a former member of your Church as authoritative on the meaning of “Christian”? As I have discussed many times on my blog (e.g., Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus [in this paper, for e.g., I address the plurality of Gods; the Father having a body and other things which Tarik later claims are "fundamentally opposed to" LDS claims to being "Christian"--in reality, it is his definition of "Christian" that is opposed to meaningful exegesis and theology]), it is “Mormon” theology, not (Creedal/Latin) Trinitarian theology that is consistent with sound biblical exegesis. Furthermore, when discussing the Church of Rome, it disqualifies itself as the true Church due to the heresies it has imposed upon the gospel, such as the blasphemy of the Roman Mass and its teachings on Mary being proclaimed as dogmas (doctrines that are definitional of the gospel that must be believed de fide). For discussions of how anti-biblical and ahistorical these are, see, for instance:
On the Mass, for example, note the following from a Catholic author; such should give pause to those who wish to privilege what a Catholic has say about the gospel and the definition of “Christian”:
The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. “No act is greater,” says St. Thomas, “than the consecration of the body of Christ.” In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and authority of God Himself.
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered up on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of “alter Christus.” For the priest is and should be another Christ. (Rev. John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions [Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1974], 255-56; italics in original).
Such words detract from the atoning sacrifice of Christ (which the Roman Mass does; compare and contrast with the Epistle to the Hebrews, such as 10:10-14 and its use of εφαπαξ), as Roman Catholicism does on other issues (e.g., Rome's paralleling the unique offices of Christ with that of her Mariology, such as the doctrine of Mary being co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix).
For further information answering various Roman Catholic claims against the LDS Church, see Answering Trent Horn on "Mormonism" (a review of a recent work by a Catholic apologist against the Church)
With respect to the charge of equivocation, LDS scholar Kevin L. Barney hit the nail on the head when he reviewed Craig Blomberg’s essay, “Is Mormonism Christian?” in The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan, 2002) in his essay A More Responsible Critique:
Is Mormonism Christian?
The only thing I found really annoying about the book was the continued insistence that Latter-day Saints are in no sense Christian. This is most disappointing since the idea that the Saints are generically Christian should not be that difficult a concept to grasp. Although the wording varies a little from dictionary to dictionary, a Christian is one who is a follower of Jesus Christ, “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”6 This meaning is suggested by the Greek form from which the English derives: Christianos, the -ianos ending conveying the sense of “partisan” of Christ (analogous forms being Herodianos “Herodian” and Kaisarianos “Caesarian”). This is the public meaning of the word—the way it is used in public discourse and the way it is defined in dictionaries. Elsewhere Blomberg disparages this meaning of the word, calling it “some very broad and relatively meaningless sense by which every Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox church member, however nominal or sectarian, would also be included.”7 Exactly! Blomberg or any other evangelical is more than welcome to devise a private definition of the word that will exclude Latter-day Saints, but when they do this they must immediately articulate what that private definition is8 and acknowledge that they are not using the word in its commonly understood sense. When they simply say Mormons are not Christian (using an unarticulated private definition), their hearers and readers understand them to say that Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ (using the public definition, since words are understood to be used in their commonly defined senses unless another sense is indicated). Such evangelicals therefore regularly misrepresent and even defame LDS belief. This is truly offensive to Latter-day Saints such as myself, and I am puzzled as to why they cannot see that.9
Blomberg attempts to exclude Mormons from even the “relatively meaningless” public definition of Christian in his chapter entitled “Is Mormonism Christian?” He correctly states that the Bible only uses the term three times and nowhere offers a formal definition (p. 317). He then strives to exclude Mormons from the normative definition by limiting who can be called a Christian, not by articulating a proper lexical definition of the term, but by quoting the World Book Encyclopedia article on “Christianity”: “Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Most followers of Christianity, called Christians, are members of one of three major groups—Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox” (emphasis added). Blomberg then concludes, “Based on this definition, Mormonism is clearly not Christian, nor has it ever claimed to be so” (p. 317). While it is true that the Latter-day Saints do not claim to be Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, it is manifestly not the case that they do not claim to be Christian. In the broad and commonly understood sense of the word, the Saints have always considered themselves to be Christians. I am mystified how a scholar of Blomberg’s evident intelligence, talent, and sensitivity could so misread this encyclopedia text (which certainly does not make the exclusionist claim Blomberg ascribes to it), or for that matter why he would appeal to an encyclopedia rather than proper lexical materials to deal with this question in the first place. This methodology is more in line with sectarian propaganda than sound scholarship.10
I recently shared the following example with Blomberg in an e-mail correspondence following the appearance of The New Mormon Challenge; I think it illustrates well why simply calling Latter-day Saints non-Christian is inherently misleading. A family with several young daughters used to live in my ward. This family was friendly with a neighbor woman, who would often babysit the girls. As Christmas was approaching, the woman gave each of the girls a Christmas gift, which turned out to be a coloring book featuring Jesus Christ. The girls enjoyed the gift and colored the pictures. Some time later this woman came to the family’s home, ashen, and apologized profusely for having given their daughters such a gift. It turns out that the woman had just learned at her church that Mormons are not Christian, and therefore she of course assumed that she had committed a grievous faux pas in giving the girls coloring books featuring a deity their family did not believe in. Now in this story the woman understood the claim that Latter-day Saints are not Christian the same way the vast majority of people would, as meaning that they do not believe in Christ. This is because she naturally applied the public definition to her pastor’s words.
We can see by this story the mischief that results from the semantic legerdemain of calling Latter-day Saints non-Christian. The fact is, they are Christians in the generic sense of the word, even if, from an evangelical point of view, they are theologically in error and unsaved (i.e., being a Christian is not necessarily tantamount to being right). I personally would have no difficulty with certain shorthand distinctions that would make clear that Mormons neither are nor claim to be historic, traditional, creedal, or orthodox Christians. But to say they are not Christians at all without such a modifier is to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of their beliefs. Since one of the goals of The New Mormon Challenge was to avoid such misrepresentations, I was sorely disappointed that it took the position that Latter-day Saints are not Christian in any sense at all. I view this as an intellectually indefensible position, and in my view it severely undermines the credibility of the book.
Notes for the Above
9 Carl Mosser, in his chapter “And the Saints Go Marching On: The New Mormon Challenge for World Missions, Apologetics and Theology,” in The New Mormon Challenge, 413 n. 26, and 66, acknowledges that Latter-day Saints are offended when described as non-Christians, and he claims to “understand why Latter-day Saints feel offense.” Nevertheless, he does “not believe that at this time Mormonism can be categorized as Christian in any very useful or theologically significant sense.” This sentence illustrates my very point. Mosser appears to have in mind some sort of unarticulated doctrinal test. To use the word Christian in this fashion without clearly putting the reader on notice that a nonstandard usage of the word is meant (i.e., one subject to undisclosed evangelical theological limitation) is to perpetrate a linguistic “bait and switch.” Mosser may not find the public definition of the word “useful” or “theologically significant,” but it is by that definition that speakers and writers of English the world over communicate, which is very useful indeed.
10 Contrast with this what I believe to be a proper approach to the issue, as reflected in a 1998 document of the United Methodist Church, entitled Sacramental Faithfulness: Guidelines for Receiving People from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day [sic] Saints, available online at www.gbod.org/worship/articles/sacramental/intro.html as recently as 17 March 2003. Rather than claiming that Latter-day Saints are not Christian, this document explains that they are not within the historic, apostolic Christian tradition, which is a both true and unobjectionable statement (the word apostolic being used here in its tertiary sense of referring to a tradition of succession of spiritual authority held, as by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans, to be perpetuated by successive ordinations from the apostolic age). See Benjamin I. Huff, “Of Course Mormonism Is Christian,” and Kent P. Jackson, “Am I a Christian?” reviews of Craig L. Blomberg, “Is Mormonism Christian?” in FARMS Review of Books 14/1-2 (2002): 113-30, 131-37.
Dr. Witherington: My initial response is very simple: shame on you for oversimplification. You well know that there is a good deal of diversity among Mormons on these issues — and your failure to note the contours of Mormon thought amounts to disqualifying distortion. Let me flesh this out:
(1) I deny that Mormonism promotes polytheism. I have actually written a book on it: Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and gods. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct but decidedly not separate. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in the same sense that Social Trinitarians have suggested — they are united in perichoretic unity of spirit and purpose, in shared omniscience and glory. There is only one sovereign of the universe in Mormon thought — the Trinity or Godhead of three divine persons united as one in unity of thought, purpose, knowledge, power, act and glory. It is true that Mormons deny metaphysical simplicity, but so have many that you undoubtedly consider Christian including Alvin and Cornelius Plantinga.
However, you are correct that Mormons view the homoousion as an infiltration of Greek thought into scriptural revelation — and with good reason. Now for my test of a Christian: if a criterion would preclude Jesus Christ and the first 300 years of Christians, it cannot be a criterion on which to exclude a person from being considered “Christian” — and your criterion most certainly fails this critical test. In fact, it is very revealing that you would adopt a criterion that would undoubtedly exclude Jesus himself from being considered Christian.
(3) Now here is something very interesting. It is true that Mormons believe that the Father has a glorified, physical body in the same sense that Jesus now does — after the resurrection. But if the Father cannot have a body like Christ’s resurrected body, then how on earth could you possibly consider them to be “one” in any sense that could possibly satisfy the “monotheism” criterion? You see, the Father not only lacks a nature that the Son has (a human nature), but based on your criterion it is logically impossible that the Father have such a nature. Thus, the Father and Son are of two very distinct and separate and ontologically disparate natures. Shades of Arianism! As Aquinas held, if the Son had a mortal body, then so could the Father. But that means that the divine persons can become embodied. On the other hand, if what you mean is that the Trinity doesn’t have a body, then Mormons do not believe that it is possible for the Godhead or Trinity to have a body either. You are going to have to clear up this logical mess for me.
(4) Are you telling me that there are no issues regarding the reliability of the various mss. of biblical documents? Are you suggesting even remotely that there are not different points of view among biblical authors on even central issues like whether divorce is permissible and, if so, on what conditions? Only an uninformed person would make such a claim (note: I know that you are extremely knowledgeable on this issue, and that is what bothers me most about your oversimplified comments).
(5) Your distortion of Mormon soteriology is serious. I have no doubt that some Mormons believe we must do all that we can before we can saved — just as poll after poll shows that the majority of evangelicals actually believe that we have to be good before we can saved. But that is irrelevant. Your assertions are distortion of Mormon thought – distortions that I address at length in Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God. Christ’s death is totally sufficient to overcome both physical and spiritual death. It is totally sufficient to save us from death and hell the moment that we acknowledge him as Christ — that is the dominant view in Mormon scripture and thought. It is not sufficient to save us without accepting Christ as such — as all Arminians have long held.
(6) It is true that Mormons blur the creator/creature dichotomy — but no less than Jesus did himself as both God and man. I discuss this issue at length also in Of God and gods. I suggest that the Christian truth is that everything Christ is, he sought for us to be — to be one with him and the Father just as they are one and to share the very same glory with nothing lacking. You can check it out in John 17.
Now I know of your reputation and have read several things you have written. This is a major misstep and one that you owe more thought to.
The rest of the blog posts labours under the assumption that “Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy/Protestantism” exhausts the category of “Christian,” but such is fallacious. Furthermore, the earliest Christian authors were not (Creedal/Latin) Trinitarians, so would Tarik claim that they were not Christian? Consistency would require that he relegates the following authors as non-Christian, too:
Here are some examples of how early Christian texts were clearly non-Trinitarian, clearly showing that creedal Trinitarianism is not apostolic in origins, but a later, post-New Testament development:
The author of 1 Clement (end of the first century):
1Clem 46:6
Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ?
1Clem 59:3
[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy; who layest low in the insolence of the proud, who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who lookest into the abysses, who scanest the works of man; the Succor of them that are in peril, the Savior of them that are in despair; The Creator and Overseer of every spirit; who multiplies the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honor us.
1Clem 59:4
We beseech Thee, Lord and Master, to be our help and succor. Save those among us who are in tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; show Thyself unto the needy; heal the ungodly; convert the wanderers of Thy people; feed the hungry; release our prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the fainthearted. Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.
1Clem 64:1
Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him …that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ,through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.
1Clem 65:2
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen.
The Didache, variously dated from 50-100:
And concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water. And if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else is able, but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (7).
We thank You, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant. To You be the glory for ever.(9).
We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant, to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. (9).
We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name you that made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you revealed to us through Jesus Your servant. Glory to You forever and ever. You, Almighty Lord, have created all things for Your own name’s sake, You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your servant. Above all things we thank You that You are might. Glory to You forever and ever. (10).
Papias (AD 125):
The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature, and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up his work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” For in the times of the Kingdom the righteous man who is on the earth shall forget to die. “But when He says all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted Who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to Him, Who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” – Fragments of the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.
Aristides (ca. 125).:
Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the Most High God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men.(Apology, 2).
For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten son and the Holy Spirit, and beside Him they worship no other God. (Apology 15)
Justin Martyr (100-165), Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 48, 49:
And [the Jew] Trypho said, “…Resume the discourse… For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.”
And I [Justin] replied to this, “I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race… Now assuredly, Trypho,” I continued,”[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly [i.e. before his conception] as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”
And Trypho said, “Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ].”
What about the early use of the term “Trinitas” where the term “Trinity” was derived, and its earliest user, Tertullian? While most scholars, even those from “Orthodox” denominations, will readily admit that the Trinity is a doctrine that developed slowly over time, many apologists for the doctrine point to alleged biblical and patristic texts in favour of the belief. Some point to Tertullian, an early writer who was rather prodigious in his literary output. Indeed, one of the evidences of his being a “Trinitarian” (to use a then-anachronistic term) is that he used the term trinitas, where we get the term “Trinity.” Of course, this is to commit the root or etymological fallacy (see here for a discussion of this common exegetical fallacy).
Did Tertullian hold the modern definition of the Trinity? The answer is “no.”
One can access Tertullian’s writings here, and I would always urge any reader to rely on the primary source materials than anyone’s commentary, no matter how informed (my own included). However, when one reads his writings, we find a number of things that are inconsistent with Trinitarianism; for instance:
That the person of the Father is the only true God (Answer to the Jews ch. 1)
That the true God was the “common Father” (the person of the Father [Apology ch. 39])
That Jesus did not exist eternally (Against Hermogenes ch 3)
That the Son’s relationship to the Father can be understood as that of a beam to the sun, a rather “Arian” understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (Against Praxeas 8)
The Father is older than the Son (Against Praxeas 9)
One could go on, but you get the idea. Tertullian also believed that, while God is “spirit,” he did not believe “spirit” was immaterial but material; this belief is inconsistent with the doctrine of “divine simplicity,” which is necessary for any (creedal) Trinitarian theology (see Against Praxeas 7), something that Trinitarian defenders will readily admit.
In this light, there were no Christians in the opening centuries of the Christian period according to Tarik. Such, of course, is utterly absurd, but his "arguments" necessitate such a conclusion. Furthermore, the apostle Paul in key texts such as
1 Cor 8:4-6 clearly is not a "Christian" too.
One could continue, but such should show the blatant historical anachronism Tarik engages in my allowing for Trinitarian Christianity to exhaust the category of “Christian.”
Unfortunately, the facebook page discussion of this thread is just as weak. As my friend Stephen Smoot correctly noted, Latter-day Saints are "Christian? Yes. Creedal, Orthodox Christian? No. And that's the way I want it." Further, Stephen also correctly noted the following:
Mormons are fundamentally non-Christian and are closer to the materialism and naturalism of Epicurus and David Hume than they are to the non-materialism of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo."
So? Who died and made Aquinas the standard of Christianity?
I don't think we need exclusive claim of Christianity either. If you think Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, however you define that, and strive to live his teachings, I'm cool with calling you a Christian.
Unfortunately, as with his article, Tarik failed to "get it" by replying "Stephen, if that is the case, why do Mormons send missionaries to highly Christian countries and areas? They are already Christian, so they don't need out help." As I responded:
Rome and other faiths are, from the LDS perspective, in a state of great apostasy (e.g., preaching as dogmas the Trinity; the blasphemy of the Mass; the Marian Dogmas; in the case of Protestantism, forensic justification, etc). Think the Galatians and what Paul wrote in Gal 1:6-9. And Stephen is correct--we are Christians, not "creedal" Christians like Rome et al. are.
And:
Also, simply being "Christian" does not save. As noted above, those condemned by Paul in Gal 1;6-9, the Judaizers, were seemingly orthodox in many respects (Paul never condemns their view of God; Christology; etc), but as they perverted the gospel in one core element, they were under anathema.
It is disappointing when non-Latter-day Saints claim (falsely) that Mormonism is not Christian; it is reprehensible when a Latter-day Saint repeats such misinformed claims. In reality, not only are Latter-day Saints Christian, we are the best type of Christians one can be as we possess the true gospel of Jesus Christ (something that Thomas Aquinas, who Tarik is a fan of, did not possess, his great intelligence notwithstanding).
Further Reading:
Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks,
Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints
