Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_Paloma]

Hey all, I just wanted to chime and point out again that not one person who has taken the position of Mormonism is not Christian has clearly defined what Christian means...in 25 pages. If I'm mistaken then someone politely point me to a post in which someone did so.

Stemelbow, if you'll read my post a couple of posts above, you'll see why I think that Mormonism is certainly derived from Judaeo Christianity, but it is sufficiently different to need to be classified as something other than Christianity, which encompasses historical continuity and doctrinal distinctions not shared by Mormonism.

As a lot of posters have mentioned throughout this long thread, Mormonism simply sharing beliefs - such as a belief in God (even in a kind of Trinity), belief in sin, repentance, the Atonement, salvation for sins, the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. - with ''orthodox'' Christianity does not constitute a true sharing of beliefs since the way that orthodox Christianity and Mormonism understand those doctrines are widely divergent. Mormonism describes and interprets key doctrines such as the nature of God, the person of Christ, the Trinity, the nature of humanity, sin and repentance, the Atonement and Jesus' substitionary sacrifice through His death, our eternal future with God, etc. in very different ways. Also, Mormonism has additional doctrines, authoritative Scriptures and requirements for salvation/exaltation.

As I mentioned above, whether individual Mormons are Christian is an entirely different matter. While I would say that Mormonism is not Christianity, as a system of shared history and doctrines, I could not say whether individual Mormons are Christian or not. Nor could I presume to say whether individual persons within orthodox Christianity are Christian or not. In fact, I find it to be a meaningless statement that a non-personal 'ísm' çan be Christian (ie. one who has trusted God). Things or systems cannot perform personal and volitional acts such as trusting. A Christian is a follower of Christ who trusts God for salvation, and I believe there are many many Christians within Mormonism.

[_Paloma]

I'm reasonable and I disagree.

I think a lot of folk within orthodox Christianity would disagree with me. We tend to put too much trust and emphasis on our own theological constructs and borders and not enough on God's expansive heart and mercy toward all of us finite beings.

Or maybe you were just joshing. Seems to me you put a great deal of trust in God's transcendent love, justice and mercy; moreso than in your own finite limitations and judgments.

[_Hoops]

When discussing whether Mormonism is or is not 'Christianity', I think we need to recognize that any ''ísm' or 'íty' ís a system of doctrines/beliefs created by means of a human construction of thoughts that tries to faithfully encapsulate the essence of that entity.

Completely agree. I can not think of one "ism" that fully incorporates what it is trying to explain.

While I see that Mormonism derived from Christianity and is an offshoot of Christianity, I think it has diverged significantly enough to be considered a new religion with roots in Christianity.

I think by its own admission its roots are wholely other. "They are all abominations." Recent appeals to the contrary notwithstanding.

A Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ or put another way, one who trusts Christ for salvation.

I agree with this definition. However, I more universal is this: ... one whose sins are forgiven. This, imho, puts all the salvic power in the One who is truly capable of it.

other than trust (that God exists, that he has made a way for us to return to Him).

Amen! Amen! And again I say Amen! This is EXACTLY the point. And, to put a finer point on it, He has made Himself known or knowable.

I think the most important thing is one's individual trust in God and in Jesus Christ, however true/accurate or misguided one's theological beliefs are.

This is where we diverge, I think. The most important thing is NOT my trust or faith or whatever. The most important thing is that God is who He says He is and that He can and will forgive me. This requires knowing who God is.

I think that ultimately God looks to the human heart to find faith.

Christian Faith is not self generated. It is a gift.

Since faith is personal, there's no such thing as a Christian nation or even a Christian religion when it comes to determining who is Christian or not.

This reduces faith to a whim or a fancy. It's not. It is a complete renewing of one's mind. It is an emotional, intellectual, spiritual agreement that God is who He says He is.

[_Paloma]

This is where we diverge, I think. The most important thing is NOT my trust or faith or whatever. The most important thing is that God is who He says He is and that He can and will forgive me. This requires knowing who God is.

While I understand God to be transcendent and the self-existent Creator of the world, as well as Three-in One according to the orthodox Christian understanding, I do not think that I have a perfect understanding of who He is. Nor do I think He requires that of me or of any other believer when it comes to trusting Him for forgiveness.

Christian Faith is not self generated. It is a gift.

I agree. We respond to and accept this gift, which is an act of faith.

This reduces faith to a whim or a fancy. It's not. It is a complete renewing of one's mind. It is an emotional, intellectual, spiritual agreement that God is who He says He is.

I agree with you that faith is a "complete renewing of one's mind". I think we need to see our need for a Saviour and understand that God meets our need - and yes, accept His gift of faith and salvation. While I think it's important to understand who God is, I don't think that's the most important thing. I think that God's love transcends our finite and flawed understanding of who He is.

[_maklelan]

Stemelbow, if you'll read my post a couple of posts above, you'll see why I think that Mormonism is certainly derived from Judaeo Christianity, but it is sufficiently different to need to be classified as something other than Christianity, which encompasses historical continuity and doctrinal distinctions not shared by Mormonism.

I have to disagree with you here. To say that Mormonism departs from "Christianity" is to presume a reference point for the definition of Christianity that is independent of Mormonism. You can't say it is "different" unless you can delineate the boundaries of the entity from which it differs. This is problematic, since any attempt to draw boundaries is based upon the self-identification of groups as Christian. Mormons self-identify as Christian, but to have them plotted as an independent group that deviates from the combined notion of "Christianity" is to presuppose they are not Christian, which is begging the question. Self-identification is the single most important criterion in establishing religious identification. Other considerations obviously come into play, but you simply cannot entirely overlook self-identification, which is what your perspective does.

As a lot of posters have mentioned throughout this long thread, Mormonism simply sharing beliefs - such as a belief in God (even in a kind of Trinity), belief in sin, repentance, the Atonement, salvation for sins, the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. - with ''orthodox'' Christianity does not constitute a true sharing of beliefs since the way that orthodox Christianity and Mormonism understand those doctrines are widely divergent.

And that is irrelevant. To say that the mainstream of a religious tradition has sole rights to defining the boundaries of that tradition, or that participation in that tradition is predicated upon proximity in specific ideologies to that mainstream is simple sectarianism. Additionally, the vast majority of the beliefs to which you will point as divergent within Mormonism are beliefs that developed well after the rise of the Christian religious tradition. This means your definition will no doubt exclude the Christians of the first century CE.

Mormonism describes and interprets key doctrines such as the nature of God, the person of Christ, the Trinity, the nature of humanity, sin and repentance, the Atonement and Jesus' substitionary sacrifice through His death, our eternal future with God, etc. in very different ways. Also, Mormonism has additional doctrines, authoritative Scriptures and requirements for salvation/exaltation.

And holding these criteria as fundamental excludes the earliest Christians. The following ideologies are demonstrably present in first century Christianity: a corporeal deity (no discernible opposing ideology), an open and unfinished canon (no discernible opposing ideology), creation ex materia (no discernible opposing ideology), salvation by faith and works (this ideology and opposing ideology attested in the New Testament), a created and subordinate Christ (no discernible opposing ideology), worship of more than one being (no discernible opposing ideology), and the exaltation of saved humans (possible opposing ideology). If these ideologies conflict in your mind with modern Christianity's "key doctrines," then you are saying there were no Christians in the first century of the Common Era.

As I mentioned above, whether individual Mormons are Christian is an entirely different matter. While I would say that Mormonism is not Christianity, as a system of shared history and doctrines, I could not say whether individual Mormons are Christian or not. Nor could I presume to say whether individual persons within orthodox Christianity are Christian or not. In fact, I find it to be a meaningless statement that a non-personal 'ísm' çan be Christian (ie. one who has trusted God). Things or systems cannot perform personal and volitional acts such as trusting. A Christian is a follower of Christ who trusts God for salvation, and I believe there are many many Christians within Mormonism.

And this kind of definition is unfalsifiable, subjective, and entirely unhelpful.

[_Paloma]

Maklelan, to say that Mormons self-identify with Christianity and yet (as I understand it) to have Mormonism at its inception repudiating Christianity and introducing a restoration which contains very new interpretations of existing doctrines within Christianity, new doctrines altogether and new authoritative Scriptures, seems to me to be a rather odd contradiction.

I do not see my position as necessitating the conclusion that there were no first century Christians and don't find your assertion that the theology and doctrines of historic Christianity lack Biblical basis and lack continuity with Christianity from the time of Christ to be compelling.

I'm wondering if you're suggesting that all of the research, books and classes that fall under the subjects of History of Christianity and Systematic Theology within Christian Schools of Theology are lacking in their failure to understand that Christianity is not consistent with Christian faith from the beginning (which seems to be your view).

[_maklelan]

Maklelan, to say that Mormons self-identify with Christianity and yet (as I understand it) to have Mormonism at its inception repudiating Christianity and introducing a restoration which contains very new interpretations of existing doctrines within Christianity, new doctrines altogether and new authoritative Scriptures, seems to me to be a rather odd contradiction.

It's only a contradiction if you equivocate regarding the word "Christianity." Mormonism did not at its inception repudiate "Christianity," it repudiated the Christian denominations it believed departed from the original faith. It cannot repudiate the very institution it claims to represent in its fullest.

I do not see my position as necessitating the conclusion that there were no first century Christians and don't find your assertion that the theology and doctrines of historic Christianity lack Biblical basis and lack continuity with Christianity from the time of Christ to be compelling.

I look forward to the argument you are preparing in defense of this assertion. As it stands, you've not actually directly addressed my claims.

I'm wondering if you're suggesting that all of the research, books and classes that fall under the subjects of History of Christianity and Systematic Theology within Christian Schools of Theology are lacking in their failure to understand that Christianity is not consistent with Christian faith from the beginning (which seems to be your view).

Most "Schools of Theology" acknowledge that Christian ideologies have developed and changed quite a bit over time. If any actually insist that all of (or even the majority of) modern Catholic or Protestant ideologies are unchanged from the time the New Testament was composed, then yes, they are egregiously lacking.

[_huckelberry]

So can someone resist God's grace in your soteriology? In other words, if God chooses someone, can that person choose not to accept him, or is God's decision the only one that matters?

I suspect if you try to fit Calvinist ideas into a picture of humans as having no beginning it will make no sense. In a view where people are created by Gods decision some decisions of God must preceed our decisions.

It's one thing for God's decision to precede our own, but it's another if God's decision precedes our own and overrules our own. If our decisions don't effect anything unless they just happen to agree with the decision God made before us, then our decisions don't really effect anything.

I can imagine that if God gave no respect to our decision then God would be a dehumanizing force in the world. For robbing a person of their decisions destroys there personhood ,soul. That is why God goes to great lengths to respect and nurture our decsions. That is why his election is a call to us to choose and we must subsequestly actual choose to turn towards his call. Calvinists have referred to Gods irresistable grace not because it overrides or disregards our choices but because when humans really see it the find it desirable.

There is another side to choices and that is I fear they could be given too much respect. If I make a poor choice I do not wish everybody to so respect it that they never lend me guidance or perhaps worse never let me change it. "you made your bed now you must lie in it" If God was not willing to help us unchoose some choices than there would be no forgiveness and turning from our path. In a sense it is those left to persue hell which are given by God the most unrelenting respect for their choices. God does not negate the devils choice but lets him be just who he chose to be.

[_maklelan]

I can imagine that if God gave no respect to our decision then God would be a dehumanizing force in the world. For robbing a person of their decisions destroys there personhood ,soul. That is why God goes to great lengths to respect and nurture our decsions. That is why his election is a call to us to choose and we must subsequestly actual choose to turn towards his call. Calvinists have referred to Gods irresistable grace not because it overrides or disregards our choices but because when humans really see it the find it desirable.

There is another side to choices and that is I fear they could be given too much respect. If I make a poor choice I do not wish everybody to so respect it that they never lend me guidance or perhaps worse never let me change it. "you made your bed now you must lie in it" If God was not willing to help us unchoose some choices than there would be no forgiveness and turning from our path. In a sense it is those left to persue hell which are given by God the most unrelenting respect for their choices. God does not negate the devils choice but lets him be just who he chose to be.

It is sounding like you would agree with Latter-day Saints that though God gives all the opportunity to receive salvation, it is ultimately up to each person to satisfy the necessary criteria.

[_Paloma]

[I look forward to the argument you are preparing in defense of this assertion. As it stands, you've not actually directly addressed my claims.

You have not included the source of your claims that there are certain ideologies such as corpoeal deity, creation ex materia, worship of more than one being, etc. in the first century. I don't doubt your knowledge or scholarship, but would be interested in reading and assessing these ideas in context and in light of first century Christian thought when I have time. Would you suggest some sources that I can access?

When I mentioned that I didn't find your assertion that "...then you are saying there were no Christians in the first century" to be compelling for me, I was basing that on my own understanding of Christian history and not on the ideologies you mentioned.

I do recognize that the history of orthodox Christianity is neither static nor monolithic. However, I see the tenets and practice of Mormonism, both at its inception and in the developments and evolutions of its almost two hundred year history as too widely divergent from historic Christianity to be included.

But I also understand that ínclusion is not what is sought by Mormons. Mormonism doesn't want to be seen as belonging within orthodox Christianity, but rather as the one true Christian church, I understand. I wonder if Mormons should make that abundantly clear, just as the modern LDS Church tries to make it widely understood that other groups derived from Mormon roots (and especially the FLDS) are not Mormon.