Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

How do you know it's way off base? How did you come to know/understand this?

Or are you just making suppe here for no good reason?

I take issue with Mormons who proclaim that they are something they are not. I object to trivializing the idea of Christ to twisted people.

[_Jersey Girl]

I wonder if triniterianism is as fine a theological distinction as a polygamous, non-eternal Jesus whose Atonement is roughly co-equal to paying your tithing and obeying octogenarians.

Trinetarianism or not, doesn't change the self existent nature of the god.

IE, it doesn't matter.

What if you believe in a Pinnochio (see what you do to me?) that is a living boy

vs

a Pinnochio that is a puppet made of wood.

Does it matter if one is real and one is wood? Can you both still be Pinnochioans?

[_Jersey Girl]

How do you know it's way off base? How did you come to know/understand this?

Or are you just making suppe here for no good reason?

I take issue with Mormons who proclaim that they are something they are not. I object to trivializing the idea of Christ to twisted people.

But how do you know it?

[_Jersey Girl]

This why I want to know *how* you know it.

It is a rare occasion when I see anyone LDS or ex-LDS who see's the significance of the differences between the Mormon and Christian understanding of who God/Jesus is and who is not acting out of a sense of existing or residual religious pride.

I know that Brian J. Mackert gets it and how he came to get it.

I want to know *how* you know this.

[_beastie]

MPH Christ is meant as an extreme example to prove a point. There is a point where the perversion is too much. Mormon Jesus is way off base from Biblical Christianity, albeit not as far as MPH Jesus. So, how far is too far for Beastie?

When it's obviously not based on the Biblical Jesus at all.

Jersey Girl

I didn't see where you posed the question the first time. Multi-tasking here.

My answer is "no".

I agree.

Look, GP - I don't intend any offense, but if I remember correctly, you were born into Mormonism, correct? Life long Mormons often don't understand the theological distinctions that go on in larger Christianity - mainstream Christians are just kind of lumped together in one blob. (the "not true" blob) And often what they do understand about larger Christianity has to do with EVism, because that is the group that most often targets Mormonism. Your willingness to throw Catholicism under the bus seems to support my suspicion that you probably don't know many details about mainstream Christianity. My question about triniterianism was to demonstrate that there are very serious debates within the larger Christian community about the very nature of the godhead - and that's the debate that you want to use to divide Mormonism from larger Christianity. I agree it divides Mormonism from mainstream Christianity, but not from the essence, or larger, Christianity as a whole.

Christians really don't all agree on every detail. They really don't. Some stress work, just like Mormons. Some stress the necessity of salvatory ordinances, just like Mormons. Some disagree with triniterianism, just like Mormonism. There are a lot of differences between various Christian groups, so when we define "Christian" we need a definition that goes beyond those differences to embrace groups our culture almost universally accepts as meeting the definition of "Christian" - like Catholicism.

[_Ray A]

This is from Religious Tolerance, generally a site reputable for objectivity (that is, presenting different viewpoints).

Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.

However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons who have been "born again" regardless of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.

Yet, from the negative Emails that we receive on this topic, there are many Christians out there who hold with fierce determination to their own definition of "Christian" as the only valid one. We wrote a special essay to address their concerns.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Well then the term Christian has violence done to it. Fine then. Mormonism is hashing out whether God will talk to the new savior, Joseph Smith. Yes, I am largely ignorant of the larger world of Christianity. Is it possible that there is no definition of Christian? I don't know. I have no problem throwing any Christian religion under the bus based on the Bible alone. I see the term as a fuzzy one, but eventually you find yourself in MPH land, right? I maintain that Mormonism is over yonder. It is not slight theology that divides the Church from the rest, it is much more.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's another aspect.

Joseph Smith (arguably) changed the nature of not just God but also of man.

Does the LDS concept of God or man, or God's relationship to man differ from that of other Christian denominations?

If it differs, can Mormonism rightly be described as a Christian religion?

[_beastie]

I take issue with Mormons who proclaim that they are something they are not. I object to trivializing the idea of Christ to twisted people.

How do you determine what is "trivializing" when you're unaware of the theological debates within the larger Christian community?

Look at Ray's link. Get an idea of how serious the debates are within the larger Christian community. This is what LDS and exLDS seem to be unaware of, at times:

Yet, from the negative Emails that we receive on this topic, there are many Christians out there who hold with fierce determination to their own definition of "Christian" as the only valid one. We wrote a special essay to address their concerns.

Once you have begun using theological issues to declare "this group is Christian, but that group is not" even when the "not" group is accepted by the larger culture to be Christian - such as Catholicism - then you have to decide WHICH of all the Christian sects is taking "The Right Stance" on theological issues - like the issue of the nature of the godhead. And then you've gone outside of the simple question: is the group Christian? - to which group teaches the CORRECT theology. So you need a more basic definition of Christianity, one that can still embrace communities that our culture almost universally accepts as Christian even though they have serious theological disputes. A definition kind of like the one I offered - a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus as their personal Savior (using the word "Jesus" in a manner obviously connected to the Biblical Jesus, which excludes examples such as Mr. Potato Head).

Do you really think you know enough about primitive Christianity - preCatholicism - to make judgments about what trivializes Jesus, about what diverges from "real" Christianity? Scholars have studied this topic for centuries without being able to come to an agreement on that particular issue. They can't even agree that Jesus really existed, much less agree on what, exactly, HE taught, and what, exactly, HIS religious organization looked like, or if he even had one.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

OK, new direction. Am I being unreasonable in rejecting Mormons as Christians?