Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_Runtu]

No, you're not missing something. How can Jesus be fully man and fully God outside a montheistic framework?

It depends on how you define Godhood.

[_Hoops]

No, you're not missing something. How can Jesus be fully man and fully God outside a montheistic framework?

It depends on how you define Godhood.

Yep. So doctrine is important then.

[_Runtu]

Yep. So doctrine is important then.

Important to what? If my beliefs about Godhood don't match up entirely with yours, is that enough to bar me from salvation?

[_stemelbow]

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.

What else can I say? I disagree with your assertion. From what I've seen, the confusion is made for the purpose to critique if not to out and out dogmatically label LDS as non-Christian. Sure anyone can offer any sort of attempted reasoned critique of whether LDS truly believe Christ is the central player in all of salvation, which as far as I've ever seen would be absurdly naïve, misleading, or twisted, but just because some people dispute it doesn't mean the dispute carries weight. I don't see why we should give concessions to those who wish to play those games.

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

When Mormonism is brought up of course. Mormonism claims to be Christian. That's the whole point of this. Can't we consider groups who clearly define themselves as that which they claim to be? No, you and others say? Why? because its easy, it seems, to get all twisty in defining the term Christian, in some silly hope to exclude certain groups. Is not Christian those who believe Christ is the Son of God, who actually lived and then took upon HImself the sins of mankind, thus offering salvation? No, says the people who wish to exclude. its more than that. To be Christian means something else. Hoops said, I believe in the other thread on this topic, that a Christian is one whose sins are forgiven. really? Does it take such judgment to determine a Christian? What a mess!

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.

What did I say that was in conflict with anything pertaining to Protestant history? I agree with your "correction". I simply don't think you made much of a point here, so I disputed your point on the grounds that there are clear identifiable, often, differences between Protestant and Catholic. The differences don't bring unity, but have often brought dispute.

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.

That really means nothing in light of this discussion and topic of course. It doesn't matter. my point is there are evangelicals who dispute that Catholicism is Christian and for much of the same reasons people dispute LDS are Christian. It is, I think reasonably stated, absurd.

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.

That has nothing to do with my point of course. I said nothing of whether LDS teach or talk about the history of christianity during the "apostasy" period. I do say LDS feel themselves in some sense connected to Christian tradition. I say that to dispute your claim LDS don’t feel in any way connected to the tradition. That’s just silly if you ask me. I’m also not disputing that LDS truly believe Christianity as a whole went into apostasy. But that does not really address my point or thinking here. Ask any LDS if they believe Christ is the Savior and you’ll get a yes, just as you will with any mainstream Christian. Then ask any LDS if a Baptist is Christian. What do you get? Yes, all, if not most of the time. Ask a Baptist the same about LDS and you get a no most of the time (I’m assuming here). What does that say? LDS feel they are connected with Baptists in Christian tradition. Baptists don’t feel that way about LDS. They’ve been trained to think LDS ought to be excluded for whatever reason.

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.

Kudos to Eric. That sounds fantastic.

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.

I know you disagree. I see that. Thanks for the reply anyway.

[_beastie]

The Trinity is certainly a large issue for Mormonism. Non Trinitarians have changed Jesus in a qualifiable way. It goes back to why Jesus is the only acceptable sacrifice, we don't really know why it is is this way, but it is clear that it is. Yes, Mormonism teaches the historical Jesus, yes, no one is disputing this. But, it does not teach the Jesus who is fully God and fully man within a monotheistic framework.

In terms of Milesius. My stance is the same. I have no idea if he/she is a Christian or not. How would I know? How could I know? just as he/she has no idea if I am.

Milesius rejects the trinitarianism.

Is it or is it not necessary for a Christian to accept trinitarianism?

[_Hoops]

Yep. So doctrine is important then.

Important to what? If my beliefs about Godhood don't match up entirely with yours, is that enough to bar me from salvation?

This is getting to a much broader issue, which I would be happy to discuss. But I'll do my best. Doctrine is important for teaching Truth. Doctrine is one way God communicates with us. Just because you, Runtu, do not have, don't understand, or dismiss certain aspects of that Truth does not me that Runtu is automatically disqualified. And I'm using terms here for the sake of expediency. However, as a believer, it is incumbent on you to pursue Truth, that's what doctrine is for. Where you stand on the path of pursuing Truth in no way effects your salvation. You've been saved well before you've embarked on this path.

So, briefly, that issue alone is not enough. Nor any other issue is enough. Nor is knowing more Truth than the next guy somehow makes you MORE qualified. It's not about qualification, it's about the work of Christ. And recognizing that work of Christ is true repentance.

[_beastie]

This is getting to a much broader issue, which I would be happy to discuss. But I'll do my best. Doctrine is important for teaching Truth. Doctrine is one way God communicates with us. Just because you, Runtu, do not have, don't understand, or dismiss certain aspects of that Truth does not me that Runtu is automatically disqualified. And I'm using terms here for the sake of expediency. However, as a believer, it is incumbent on you to pursue Truth, that's what doctrine is for. Where you stand on the path of pursuing Truth in no way effects your salvation. You've been saved well before you've embarked on this path.

So, briefly, that issue alone is not enough. Nor any other issue is enough. Nor is knowing more Truth than the next guy somehow makes you MORE qualified. It's not about qualification, it's about the work of Christ. And recognizing that work of Christ is true repentance.

And, as you requested, I provided evidence from the LDS church that they do, indeed, teach about having one's sins forgiven through repentance and the power of the atonement.

And yet you still deny that Mormonism is Christian.

If you really meant what you said above, and I underlined, you would accept Mormonism as a Christian religion.

[_stemelbow]

It appears obvious to me that the term Christian (which by definition is a term used to describe those who believe Jesus Christ is the Savior) is being co-opted by a subset of Christianity. Strong-arm practices are being employed. It seems like the effort is to set it up this way: If a group of diverse people are standing around talking, and the question of what do Christians believe comes up, the one group would wish to take charge and answer for Christianity. But there are far too many subsets. It, simply, in reality is not the way its been painted. there are tons of groups who hold Jesus as the Savior and yet believe a number of different things. Its argued by a major subset of Christianity that means the majority should win the term. To treat Mormons or JW as Christian believers would mean the majority aren't the only ones--aren't by default the winners of the descriptive term. There's no more claiming to speak for the term Christian by one group. Diversity must be admitted.

Its just a fact, there are different groups within Christianity. There are varied beliefs. The one uniting statement is Christ is the Savior, LORD and His teachings are true. To complicate it beyond that is to confuse, and bully others out of Christianity.

[_MsJack]

What else can I say? I disagree with your assertion. From what I've seen, the confusion is made for the purpose to critique if not to out and out dogmatically label LDS as non-Christian. Sure anyone can offer any sort of attempted reasoned critique of whether LDS truly believe Christ is the central player in all of salvation, which as far as I've ever seen would be absurdly naïve, misleading, or twisted, but just because some people dispute it doesn't mean the dispute carries weight. I don't see why we should give concessions to those who wish to play those games.

And that's just it. You are one of those Mormons I referenced earlier who responds to anyone who disagrees with you on this matter with something to the effect of, "Well, that's perfectly silly and absurd and how could anyone even think that?" Dialoguing with you on the matter is impossible because you just can't consider any perspectives on this other than your own.

When Mormonism is brought up of course. Mormonism claims to be Christian. That's the whole point of this. Can't we consider groups who clearly define themselves as that which they claim to be? No, you and others say?

Not true. I already said quite recently (in a related thread):

For my own part, self-identification is a huge part of whether or not I grant a term to a particular group. Polygamous LDS groups clearly do self-identify as "Mormons," and Mormons do self-identify as "Christians," so in most cases, I'm happy to grant the terms to both groups provided context makes my meanings clear. I suspect brand name control is a huge part of why certain factions within Mormonism and Christianity try to deny the terms to other groups, and this is the best essay I've ever seen on that aspect of the subject: "Are Mormons Christians? Are Post Toasties corn flakes?"

On the other hand, when a group selects terminology for themselves that is misleading or does not adequately describe the point of their message, I may refuse to call them by the term.

What is under discussion here is the one argument that I see as valid in categorizing Mormonism as something other than Christianity in a taxonomic sense. I've been willing to let Mormons self-identify as "Christian" for a long time.

by the way, out of curiosity, stemelbow: (1) Do you consider members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints "Mormons" because that's how they self-identify? (2) If yes, what do you think of your own church's attempts to deny the term to them?

Is not Christian those who believe Christ is the Son of God, who actually lived and then took upon HImself the sins of mankind, thus offering salvation?

Is a Jew someone who believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, someone who believes in the Torah and the Neviim and the Ketuvim? Is it someone who professes the Shema?

Hoops said, I believe in the other thread on this topic, that a Christian is one whose sins are forgiven.

I'm not Hoops, but I imagine he was talking about who is a Christian in a spiritual sense, not a taxonomic sense. The two are very different.

so I disputed your point on the grounds that there are clear identifiable, often, differences between Protestant and Catholic. The differences don't bring unity, but have often brought dispute.

Yes, you keep on saying that the Protestant disagreement with Catholics is no different than the Mormon disagreement with the rest of the Christian world. You're appallingly wrong, but as far as I can tell, nothing will convince you otherwise.

That has nothing to do with my point of course. I said nothing of whether LDS teach or talk about the history of christianity during the "apostasy" period. I do say LDS feel themselves in some sense connected to Christian tradition. I say that to dispute your claim LDS don’t feel in any way connected to the tradition. That’s just silly if you ask me.

Mmhmm. So you care about what other Christians think and believe and feel connected to them, but you don't care about them enough to study their lives, talk about them, or learn from them? That'd be like someone insisting that she deeply loves her extended family even though she never calls, never writes, never sends cards or birthday gifts, and never talks about them.

And you think I'm the silly one?

I don't care that you technically think other Christians are "Christians." I technically think Paul Crouch is an evangelical. Doesn't mean I like him, respect him, or feel much connection to him.

Now pay attention, because I'm about to make my second complaint in this thread (the first happened earlier in this post when I said dialoguing with you is impossible):

I sincerely dislike it when Mormons make a big deal of the fact that they'll technically grant the term "Christian" to members of traditional Christian faiths, as if they're being magnanimous or something. Mormons don't accept our baptisms and don't even show respect for them half the time (I had a missionary tell me "You didn't get baptized, you went swimming"), they don't believe we can have the Paraclete in our lives (you would call it "the Gift of the Holy Ghost"), their scriptures call our beliefs an "abomination," they don't see our Eucharist or Communion celebrations as valid and won't come to the table with us or invite us to theirs, they publish official literature that talks about how wrong we are and how we don't have the gospel of Jesus Christ and implies that we aren't even Christian, and prior to 1990, their temple ceremony contained an extremely offensive segment which mocked one of our major creeds and attributed common Protestant beliefs to Satan. And we're supposed to feel grateful when we run into everyday Mormons who affirm our Christianity in some loose technical sense of the word?

Thanks, but no thanks.

I don't agree with the people who run around screeching about how Mormons aren't Christians, but I also don't care to be called a "Christian" in the backhanded way that Mormons apparently mean it.

[_Kishkumen]

Mormonism is either a new religious tradition or it is Christianity. It seems that most LDS people would rather be the latter than the former. MsJack's argument is that it is a new religious tradition. I see nothing objectionable about that. I think it is kind of sad that the whole reason for the Restoration is being rubbed out in favor of joining the Christian club. At the same time, I can understand Christians who engage in boundary maintenance by saying, "no way, buddy!" If Mormons have a problem with that, then maybe they should consider welcoming Warren Jeffs as a fellow Mormon. Listen, lots of people consider themselves Christians or Mormons, but that does not obligate the majority of Christians and Mormons to accept happily just any old person who does.