Mormonism not Christian...

[_lulu]

Still waiting my little beotch. What is your question regarding Mormonism is not Christian?

Let's get one thing straight at the outset, thews, I'm not a little bitch. I'm a big bitch. There's a big difference. Learn it.

The question: What is your specific substantive response to each separate issue raised in the following, now posted for a 3rd time in this thread

While you are beating your chest about Trinitarianism and Mormons not being Christians, you are ignoring a whole load of Christian history. Christianity never was a unitary movement so give up on it. There’s never been one sole, solitary person who got to decide who is Christian and who isn’t. Although a good war could sometimes settle it.

Some people were heretics and some weren’t, but if you proclaimed ”belief in Jesus,” whatever that meant, you were a Christian. You might be a heretic, but you were a Christian.

Were historical Jesus and historical Judas on the same page? Were the Ebionites down with Paul? The principal way that Peter and Paul got along with each other is that they almost never had to see each other. Which ones were Christians and which ones weren’t? Support your answer. Then you can tell me whether Montanists and Manacheans were Christians.

Is it consistent that you could be a non-Trinitarian Christian before Nicaea but not after? Arians sacked Rome but they weren’t Christians, right?

Thought your priest should be personally worthy before your baptism would be effective? You’d make a fine Donatist, the first Protestants before there were even Protestants. If Christianity has never been unified, who has the power, and on what basis are you going to decide who is and who is not a Christian. With the use of a sharp sword, you might make some headway on who is a heretic, but by definition, a heretic is a Christian.

Then you have a whole lot of Gnostics who weren’t even sure that Jesus was really “man.” Then you’ve got Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars and Albigensians. May they rest in peace.

You can then go down the list of Christological heresies but when the clergy went home east from Nicaea, they preached a Trinitarianism that still looked a whole lot more like homoiousian than homoousian. And the only thing that saved the not so far Easterners for centuries is they could always claim that it was just tough to get Greek to align with Latin.

What did the “Christians” in Persia think? Is “essence” the same as “substance?” Can you cram a non-Chalcedonian Christ in to the Western understanding of the Creed? Nestor couldn’t.

What did the 6th century Christians in western China think? How do you say homoiousian in Mandarin? As far as we know, they didn’t have the Creed. They we too busy thinking about how one could be attached to Christ without being attached.

You can stick a Filioque in there too.

Where’s Waldo? Another Protestant before there were Protestants, he’s off being influenced by the Cathars and Albigensians. Does it matter? Well Waldensians deeply influenced Jan Hus, who met the fiery stake in the era of the 3 competing Popes. Hus deeply influenced the Anabaptists. Some Anabaptists claim a chain of ordination all the way back to the Waldensians. Anabaptists were the first in Europe (the world?) to argue for the separation of church and state, long, long before the French Enlightenment. And ignore the fact that you couldn’t get most of their Christology into the Creed with a giant shoe horn. Oh, they thought the only believers should be baptized, pretty much the biggest religious idea in the good old US of A and an idea the Donatists would be comfortable with. But are Anabaptists Christians?

Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ (Christian) where the Bible is silent, we are silent. Guess they are not Christian they couldn’t care less about the Creed.

Christadelphians, check
Oneness Pentecostals, check
Christian Scientists, check
John Locke, check
Issac Newton, check
Benjamin Franklin, check
Thomas Jefferson, check

Apart from a few generals, who has ever had the power to declare who is, or is not, Christian?

Nobody.

Christianity has always been a vast movement with some connection to Jesus, who may, or may not have existed in any meaningful way in connection with Christianity.

So when you say that Mormons are not Trinitarians, what is your point? The statement is tautological.

When you say Mormons aren’t Christians, you don’t understand Christian history. It makes no more sense than saying that Peter, James and John were Mormons.

lulu - heretically

[_Samantabhadra]

lulu, I understand your point, but I think you are slightly misinterpreting the historical record. The point is not that there weren't, for a period of some centuries after the Resurrection, multiple competing Christianities, some of which (like Mormonism) had more in common with pagan mystery cults than with orthodox Apostolic Christianity.

The whole point of the Councils was to establish the limits of orthodoxy, i.e. what "counts" as Christianity. Period. Various Church Fathers may or may not have espoused views that ran contrary to one or more tenets of what eventually became orthodoxy, but that is immaterial to the question of what defines Christianity--what defines Christianity is the authority of Jesus Christ, handed down to the Apostles, and from them to the bishops who sat in council and hammered out the structure of Christianity.

Even before them, however, the early Church Fathers were railing against individuals who claimed to be "Christian," claimed to lead Christian rituals, but had not received empowerment from a bishop. In other words, even before the Councils, the limits of what counted as "Christian" were strictly set by the authority of the Apostles. So even if there was, early on, a profusion of competing Christianities, "Christianity" as such always self-consciously looked back to the authority of the Apostles. Some of those early "Christianities" were therefore not properly "Christian," because they fell outside the bounds of Apostolic tradition. In essentially the same way, and for essentially the same reasons, Mormonism is not Christian any more than Zeus-worship or Shiva-worship is Christian.

[_lulu]

In essentially the same way, and for essentially the same reasons, Mormonism is not Christian any more than Zeus-worship or Shiva-worship is Christian.

Zeus-worship and Shiva-worship doesn't worship Jesus. Mormons are heretics. They are not pagans or heathens.

[_Yoda]

In essentially the same way, and for essentially the same reasons, Mormonism is not Christian any more than Zeus-worship or Shiva-worship is Christian.

Zeus-worship and Shiva-worship doesn't worship Jesus. Mormons are heretics. They are not pagans or heathens.

Yes. I agree with this. Mormons are heretics, the same way the Gnostics are heretics.

Actually, the Mormon claim is that Mormonism is the ONLY form of Orthodox Christianity...that the apostles in the LDS Church are the ONLY ones with proper authority to lead Christ's church.

This, to me, would be a heretical position to the other Christian sects who claim to be Orthodox.

[_lulu]

Yes. I agree with this. Mormons are heretics, the same way the Gnostics are heretics.

But in regards to Mormonism, the oldest and biggest Christian denominations want to create a new category: "non-heathen, non-pagan, non-Christian." And do so without facing directly the issue that they are creating a new category.

[_MCB]

I see it as a problem of degree. Against the "gold standard," Mormonism is just too far out there. Perhaps if some Catholic theologian might some day invent a scale by which one could quantify divergence from the standard, we would see that Mormonism occupies a place that has been unoccupied since 300 AD (unless you would count the more esoteric units within Masonry). But it would be difficult, because of the Gnostic character of Mormonism, to use anything more than a range score, because of the variations within, and the lack of stable doctrine. Mormonism is today closer to the standard than it was in the 1900's (thank God!!) but that is because of the influence of the larger society. I am mostly concerned about the residuals of 19th century Mormonism.


The different Trinity is just another residual from the multiplicity of gods of the nineteenth century. I don't think that is the worst of the problems.

LULU, how come we think alike so much?

[_Yoda]

I see it as a problem of degree. Against the "gold standard," Mormonism is just too far out there. Perhaps if some Catholic theologian might some day invent a scale by which one could quantify divergence from the standard, we would see that Mormonism occupies a place that has been unoccupied since 300 AD (unless you would count the more esoteric units within Masonry). But it would be difficult, because of the Gnostic character of Mormonism, to use anything more than a range score, because of the variations within, and the lack of stable doctrine. Mormonism is today closer to the standard than it was in the 1900's (thank God!!) but that is because of the influence of the larger society. I am mostly concerned about the residuals of 19th century Mormonism.


The different Trinity is just another residual from the multiplicity of gods of the nineteenth century. I don't think that is the worst of the problems.

LULU, how come we think alike so much?

Great minds. LOL

[_lulu]

I see it as a problem of degree. Against the "gold standard," Mormonism is just too far out there. Perhaps if some Catholic theologian might some day invent a scale by which one could quantify divergence from the standard, we would see that Mormonism occupies a place that has been unoccupied since 300 AD (unless you would count the more esoteric units within Masonry). But it would be difficult, because of the Gnostic character of Mormonism, to use anything more than a range score, because of the variations within, and the lack of stable doctrine. Mormonism is today closer to the standard than it was in the 1900's (thank God!!) but that is because of the influence of the larger society. I am mostly concerned about the residuals of 19th century Mormonism.


The different Trinity is just another residual from the multiplicity of gods of the nineteenth century. I don't think that is the worst of the problems.

LULU, how come we think alike so much?

But classicly, it has never been a matter of degree, it has been a matter of categories. If Roman theology wants to switch from categories to degrees, that it's privilege. But it should be upfront about it, discuss it openly and thoroughly (thorough being an RC theology characteristic). Right now, we have a sub silentio creation of a new category especially for Mormons. I don't think that's a good way to go.

Why do we think alike? I'm an aw-full, liberation theology inspired, high church, empirical evidence based, Taoist wanna be.

[_MCB]

Why do we think alike? I'm an aw-full, liberation theology inspired, high church, empirical evidence based, Taoist wanna be.

That explains it!!

[_madeleine]

But classicly, it has never been a matter of degree, it has been a matter of categories. If Roman theology wants to switch from categories to degrees, that it's privilege. But it should be upfront about it, discuss it openly and thoroughly (thorough being an RC theology characteristic). Right now, we have a sub silentio creation of a new category especially for Mormons. I don't think that's a good way to go.

Mormonism isn't in a special category. It's clear for Roman Catholics. It is by a valid baptism that a person is initiated into a Christian life. If you have a valid baptism, you're a Christian religion, if you don't, you aren't.

Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals and Christadelphians are the three I can think of off the top of my head that do not have valid baptisms, and therefore are not Christian religions. All because of their rejection of the Triune God, Who is the Christian God.

That isn't to say that people who belong to these religions are not seeking Christ. They do so in a non-Christian framework.