Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_Joseph Antley]

The talking points on this issue can (and maybe will) go on forever.

Maybe so, but it's a rather recent phenomenon, since it wasn't too long ago that LDS authority would have shrunk back in horror at the thought of being lumped in with the above.[/quote]

It's not a matter of us wanting to be lumped in with anyone. It's a matter of us wanting to be recognized as people attempting to follow Jesus Christ according to our consciences, just like everyone else who claims to be a Christian.

For me, and I think for most Mormons, we don't have the political or PR agenda you ascribe to us.

[_Hoops]

It's not a matter of us wanting to be lumped in with anyone. It's a matter of us wanting to be recognized as people attempting to follow Jesus Christ according to our consciences, just like everyone else who claims to be a Christian.

What's the difference? You want to be seen as following Jesus Christ according to your conscience just like everyone else - that's as good of a definition of "lumping in" as I have ever seen.

[Guest]

Hoops, my point is that it is impossible to create a definition of "Christianity" that includes Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Baptists, Ethiopic Christians, Medieval Catholics, 4th century Catholics, Paul's first converts, Paul, and the Twelve Apostles themselves, but at the same time excludes Mormons.

The "Christianity" that we are being excluded from did not exist until a few hundred years ago.

I see your point now. And it is just as wrong now as ever. Assuming your language, one certainly can "create" a definition that includes everyone you've described. And it has been done. It's called orthodoxy or core Christian doctrine. And it was developed for this precise reason: to distinguish between heracy (I've never known how to spell that) and Christianity. The only place one could not include them all is in the efficacy of scripture, since we didn't have it during the lives of the apostles. After that, one certainly can.

Let's fly with that then. Are Catholics, Orthodox, Ethiopic Christians, and virtually all professed Christians prior to Athanasius Christians even though they believed in more scripture and inspired texts besides what you have in your modern Bible?

Secondly, does it have to? Why does Christian orthodoxy have to explode on the scene in a historical second? Of course it doesn't, it developed over time and, we believe, with the guidance of The Holy Spirit. Of course, you may claim that maybe Mormonism will one day be considered Christian from the Holy Spirit's prompting, and I suppose it could (though I cannot see how), but that day is not today.

I disagree with the whole concept of defining a stringent Christian "orthodoxy" because I don't think such exists or has ever existed. Christians, their beliefs, and their practices have differed in virtually every single way since the time of Peter and Paul except for one regard: their faith in the salvific power of Jesus Christ.

Any further definition of what constitutes a "Christian" is constructed around beliefs and practices that have only become mainstream over the past few centuries (principally the last two). The great irony is that most of history's Christians over the past 2,000 years would have considered most people who fit your modern definition of "Christian" as certain heretics (and publicly did, during the Reformation's inception).

[_Joseph Antley]

It's not a matter of us wanting to be lumped in with anyone. It's a matter of us wanting to be recognized as people attempting to follow Jesus Christ according to our consciences, just like everyone else who claims to be a Christian.

What's the difference? You want to be seen as following Jesus Christ according to your conscience just like everyone else - that's as good of a definition of "lumping in" as I have ever seen.

Sorry, I'm not very good at making points. And I may be mistaken -- and if so, correct me -- but I thought that you had suggested that Mormons want to be considered Christians now because of PR purposes. As in, we want to be more publicly accepted.

I was arguing against that perception by saying that it isn't about PR, it's about having our faith in our Lord made clear, not because we want to be "lumped" with everyone else, but because we want people to know that we believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and Savior of the world.

We don't care whether we're grouped with other Christians or not. If we did, I expect we'd be fighting to be included under Protestantism as well, or be trying to get into the World Council of Churches. It's not about comparison or competition.

If our religion is to be understood then our faith in Christ must be understood, because our faith in Jesus as the Savior of mankind is the central and most important of our religion's tenets, around which every other facet of Mormonism revolves.

[_stemelbow]

Traditional "Christianity" is wildly different from Mormonism when it comes to doctrine, and there are more differences than they are similarities. It makes absolutely no sense to try to say that Mormons fit into the "Christian" tradition, since they don't.

This is, essentially, dogmatic nonsense. It really makes no sense. Mormonism iwas born in upstate New York in the early to mid-1820s based on questions and ideas inherent among those Christian traditionalists of that day. Mormonism is a claimed restoration of Christian doctrine. To say it "absolutely" does not fit into Christian tradition is either completely ignorant or completely misleading. Either way, as in each and every time in the past when this argument is brought up, I see the same thing. Its pointless to even cover the topic anymore because it always goes back to dogmatic, incoherent, conflating of terms nonsense it seems. I say that, and I'm out. have fun.

[_jon]

[quote="stemelbow'']
Mormonism iwas born in upstate New York in the early to mid-1820s based on questions and ideas inherent among those Christian traditionalists of that day.[/quote]


Stem, you don't believe this do you?

Mormonism (if you believe it) was specifically God's true Church restored by Him through His Prophet. It was specifically God's truth, not the ideas of the day, surely?

[_stemelbow]

Stem, you don't believe this do you?

Mormonism (if you believe it) was specifically God's true Church restored by Him through His Prophet. It was specifically God's truth, not the ideas of the day, surely?

It was born from the ideas of the day. I have no problem with that statement, but I do wonder if you get my point. I won't worry too much about it though. Its kinda periphery to the issue.

[_jon]

Stem, you don't believe this do you?

Mormonism (if you believe it) was specifically God's true Church restored by Him through His Prophet. It was specifically God's truth, not the ideas of the day, surely?

It was born from the ideas of the day. I have no problem with that statement, but I do wonder if you get my point. I won't worry too much about it though. Its kinda periphery to the issue.

Stem, I'm not sure what your point is on this.
Was Mormonism born out of the ideas prevalent in 1820's New York?

[_basilII]

The best solution to the question of who is a Christian would be to always attach some qualifiers to the term Christian: traditional Christian, catholic Christian, orthodox Christian, restorationist Christian etc. But that is unlikely to happen. No one wants to surrender the right to be an unqualified Christian.

When many people hear the word Christian they have a certain concept in mind, right or wrong. Usually ‘Christian’ is associated in some way with the historic Christian tradition. Someone who professed to a Christianity that was radically different from most of what was believed and practiced for the last 2000 years would probably not be considered really Christian in many people’s minds. It is really a question of continuity. On the one hand we have Catholics, Orthodox, (most) Protestants, etc. who in some way believe that the history of the last 2000 years helps define what a Christian is today (like to be considered a current believer in (mainstream) Mormonism, its not just a matter of accepting Joseph Smith and his teachings but also the developments that have occurred in the mainstream LDS faith over the last 160 years). Of course there are major disagreements on the interpretation of that history, but pretty much all sides agree that that history, in the creeds and the canon of scripture, helps decide who and who is not a Christian today. On the other hand we have Restorationists of various kinds and other movements like attempted revivals of Gnostic Christianity, etc. who argue that Christian history since the 1st or 2nd or 3rd century is basically useless in defining Christianity: real Christianity was completely lost and needed to be restored or rediscovered. So a Mormon who believes in polygamy and a corporeal God and a Gnostic who believes in escaping from the material world and that Jesus never had a physical body could both consider themselves Christians.

So to me the argument about who qualifies as a Christian is really an argument about the continuity or discontinuity of the Christian faith. And of course on that point Mormons and traditional Christians will continue to disagree.

[_jon]

I think the BBC may have as succinct and clear definition of Christian as I've heard:

we include as Christian any group that sincerely regards itself as Christian, and whose beliefs are based on the teaching of Jesus

The question then becomes one about whether or not Mormonism is based on what Christ taught...