Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[Guest]

Certainly, I can see that Mormonism would fall under Christianity in a broad taxonomic sense.

I think that many Christians (and perhaps most people who don't claim to be Christians as well) - i.e. the typical 'person on the street' - would not consider Mormonism to be "Christian".

This is purely speculative and anecdotal, but I have the impression that most relatively uneducated (re Mormonism) non-Mormons think of Mormonism as a strange and 'different' religion that just wouldn't fall under the umbrella of "known" Christianity. I believe this is partly because of its obscurity, especially in Canada where I live, and partly because any knowledge people do have (or think they have) is tied to vague impressions of polygamy and perhaps baptism for the dead. In the last few years, I've been aware of significant confusion in the minds of people where Moslems and Mormons are seen as one and the same. Terribly wrong, of course, but that just highlights for me the lack of knowledge people have.

Those Christians who are more informed and especially those who have some theological training, including having studied the History of Christianity would likely not view Mormonism as part of Christianity. Traditional Christians understand themselves to be part of a vast and varied movement going back to the early Church. They would see Christianity as consisting of the early Church, Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christians, Protestants and even Anabaptists (who triggered the Radical Reformation) and all the denominations flowing from these traditions right up to the present day. I expect there are many History of Christianity texts that do not mention Mormonism at all. It just is not part of the tradition.

I have a 2 volume set of books, The Story of Christianity on my bookshelf. There is a 2 and one half page section (out of a total of over 800 pages) entitled New Religions that mentions "...during the nineteenth century was the birth of several movements that so differed from traditional Christianity that they could well be called new religions. The largest of these were the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Science." The author goes on to briefly describe these 3.

I suppose one could argue that because Mormonism is mentioned in the book ofChristian History I have that therefore it is part of Christianity. Certainly, it arose from Christian soil.

My point here is an attempt to understand how people view Mormonism, and I suspect that most people would not easily identify Mormonism as part of Christianity. However, I also think that does not necessarily or generally reflect prejudice or even a bias. It is just peoples' perspective, given their relative lack of knowledge on the one hand, and informed thinking on the other, where Mormonism just doesn't really register on the "Christian" radar.

[_MsJack]

But Mormonism is Christocentric.

I agree. Others would not---and no, their disagreement does not mean they just want to confuse an otherwise clear issue no matter how many times you make assertions to that effect.

Baha'i, as far as I'm aware, don't maintain that they are Christian, so I don't get how this applies.

I think we're both confused. When did self-identification and its role in religious taxonomy enter the discussion?

I think this is overly vague and perhaps a bit too simplistic to mean much. Afterall what else is Protestantism but that which you define [SNIP] Indeed, in my experience many an Evangelical tries to say Catholicism is not Christian because of this.

It doesn't sound like you know very much about Protestant history. The early reformers diligently searched the writings of the Bible as well as the early church fathers in an effort to return to a purer form of Christianity, but they didn't throw out their Catholic heritage, nor did they initially want to. Martin Luther very much wanted to reform Catholicism, not abandon it. That's why it's called a Reformation. The point is, there was always a continuity with the Christians who came before them.

The number of evangelicals I've known who have been willing to say Catholicism isn't Christian has been small and generally limited to the type who thinks highly of things like The God Makers.

But you're kdding yourself if you think Mormons don't in any way see themselves connected to the larger Christian tradition.

Really, stem? I'm the one who's kidding myself?

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'"

No, I don't think Mormons see themselves as connected to the larger Christian tradition. They have theological reasons not to (see above). On top of that, I don't hear it in your classrooms or Sunday School classes nor do I see it in your devotional writings. I took 15 religion credits in my time at BYU, and the only times the teachings and beliefs of historical non-LDS Christian figures were mentioned was (a) when I took classes that were specifically meant to study Christian history (i.e. "Gospel & Christian History" with Paul Peterson and "American Christianity & the Rise of the LDS Church" with Roger Keller); (b) when a Christian figure said something that seemingly backs up LDS doctrine, like citing Athanasius to back up LDS beliefs on exaltation. I occasionally hear fond things about William Tyndale or Martin Luther. But beyond that? No, I don't think Mormons care very much about the Christian history that happened between "the apostasy" and the foundation of their church. There isn't going to be a manual on the teachings of Jonathan Edwards or Augustine for use in LDS Sunday schools anytime soon.

Eric Huntsman used commentaries and scholarly works from a variety of Christian and non-Christian scholars in his New Testament Greek classes, and often discussed how other Christians understand certain passages, but Eric is a Mormon with a demi-Baptist background who reaches out to other Christian traditions in ways that I seldom see Mormons do.

Its just far to subjective and technical a complaint it seems.

Technical, yes. But you lose me on "subjective" and "complaint." I don't see what's subjective about my categories, and I haven't complained about anything on this thread.

[_Hoops]

You were the one who emphasized it earlier. First you mentioned the "works" problem, which you seem to have abandoned after several of us pointed out that Catholicism also has requirements regarding rites and rituals. Then you moved on to the Trinity. I assumed it had great significance by your choice to focus on it.

And, of course, you are either lying, being purposefully obtuse, or just lazy. Since I doubt it's the latter, that only leaves two rather unflattering options. Really, what you've actually said, is that you haven't bothered to actually read my positions - which is fine - since you attribute to me that which I have not written. It's the standard EV contention that you are assuming I'm making. Which I'm not. But don't bother yourself anymore. You can rest easy in the knowledge that no one will bother checking up on your claims. I'm not sure what the point is with discussing something with one who plays so loose with the truth. That's a no winner for sure.

I'll grant you that your rhetorical flora is impressive, and your wide eyed students are probably sufficiently cowering in their seats. too bad there isn't any substance to it.

[_beastie]

And, of course, you are either lying, being purposefully obtuse, or just lazy. Since I doubt it's the latter, that only leaves two rather unflattering options. Really, what you've actually said, is that you haven't bothered to actually read my positions - which is fine - since you attribute to me that which I have not written. It's the standard EV contention that you are assuming I'm making. Which I'm not. But don't bother yourself anymore. You can rest easy in the knowledge that no one will bother checking up on your claims. I'm not sure what the point is with discussing something with one who plays so loose with the truth. That's a no winner for sure.

I'll grant you that your rhetorical flora is impressive, and your wide eyed students are probably sufficiently cowering in their seats. too bad there isn't any substance to it.

LOL. Are you just POd that I demonstrated that you backtracked about the Pentecostals?

I have no idea what you think I'm lying about, You've been quite ambiguous about your issues with calling Mormonism christian, so it's possible I have simply misunderstood your position. But to assume I'm lying or being deliberately obtuse...I hardly know what to say. I think this is the first time I've chosen to interact seriously with you, and I realize my previous inclination to ignore you was well-placed.

But before you leave in a snit, please tell me: during the thousand plus years that the Catholic church taught infants had to be baptized to be saved, were they Christian?

[_Milesius]

Mormon henotheism (or monolatry, if you prefer) is completely incongruous with Christianity, as are its occult temple rituals and its "priesthood."

(Just to be clear, I do not think a distinction between clergy and laity is incongruous with Christianity -- far from it.)

[_beastie]

I actually spent a few minutes rereading Hoop's comments on the first Romney thread to vainly try to figure out how he/she decided I was "lying". I was incorrect to state that Hoops explicitly emphasized the works issue. Hoops has been far too coy for that. I extrapolated that conclusion from the fact that the only definition of "Christian" that Hoops deigned to give was a Christian is someone whose sins are forgiven. That seems to exclude any emphasis or requirement of works - ie, rites and rituals. While my first post on the Romney thread was not directed toward Hoops, but rather the OP, when I asserted

Catholics have as many issues with “work versus grace” as Mormons do.

Hoops replied:

Not hardly.

But here's what really convinced me Hoops was focusing on works (as well as the definition of the trinity)
I said:

Because we all accepted Jesus Christ as our Savior and believed that, without his atonement, nothing we could do would unite us with God again. Isn’t that the essence of Christianity?

Hoops replied

It is indeed. Wouldn't it be nice if LDS left it at that?

Gee, that certainly sounds to me like Hoops has a problem with the other things that Mormonism requires.

Of course, Catholicism has similar requirements, Hoops' denial aside.

[_beastie]

Mormon henotheism (or monolatry, if you prefer) is completely incongruous with Christianity, as are its occult temple rituals and its "priesthood."

(Just to be clear, I do not think a distinction between clergy and laity is incongruous with Christianity -- far from it.)

Are you a trinitarian? I seem to recall you identifying yourself as a modalistic.

[_beastie]

bumping up for Hoops - I do back up my claims, despite his/her insistence otherwise.

This isn't some game og "gotcha". This isn't "I'm not gonna let you in because you were mean to us once." This is about doctrine. Doctrine, we believe, is one way God communicates with us. Hence the development of the Trinity.

[

God communicating with us = human beings fighting over teachings for over four hundred years.

Evidently, God speaks as clearly to you as he does to Mormons.

That's assuming doctrine not yet in evidence. If you can explain how the power of Christ is manifest in the forgiveness of sins, please do tell, and support with LDS doctrinal statements.

Seriously, do you know anything about Mormonism at all? Are you relying on Ed Decker for your information or something?

http://LDS.org/plan/jesus-christ-is-the-way?lang=eng

If we believe in Jesus Christ, follow His teachings, and repent when we commit sins, His Atonement, or sacrifice, can wash us clean of our sins and make us worthy to return to God’s presence.

So what?

If I recall correctly, you've never been LDS, have you? I've had lengthy experiences in both camps. I know that LDS people accept Jesus as their Savior, and believe that, without his atonement, we would be eternally divided from Heavenly Father.

You, apparently, don't know that.

Perhaps you should have had a better understanding of Christianity then.

I want you to identify what, specifically, I don't understand about Christianity.

[_Milesius]

Mormon henotheism (or monolatry, if you prefer) is completely incongruous with Christianity, as are its occult temple rituals and its "priesthood."

(Just to be clear, I do not think a distinction between clergy and laity is incongruous with Christianity -- far from it.)

Are you a trinitarian? I seem to recall you identifying yourself as a modalistic.

No, lol, I am an "Arian." I think Modalism passes the logic test but not the scripture test. (Trinitarianism passes neither.)

[_beastie]

No, lol, I am an "Arian." I think Modalism passes the logic test but not the scripture test. (Trinitarianism passes neither.)

Ah. I knew you adhered to something other than Trinitarianism.

I suspect Hoops would not view you as a Christian. Apparently, if you're not a trinitarian, you're SOL.