Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_consiglieri]

Catholic means universal, * * * Mormonism is not of this faith,

How can Mormons not be members of a faith that is universal?

[_Aristotle Smith]

Has the Catholic church always accepted the baptisms of other religions as valid? Or were converts in the past required to be baptized within the Catholic faith?

The Catholic church has always accepted the baptisms of other religions as valid. That was resolved during the Donatist controversy in the late 4th century.

ETA: I forgot that one of the only exceptions I know of is Mormon baptism, because it's not considered to be a Trinitarian baptism.

[_madeleine]

Has the Catholic church always accepted the baptisms of other religions as valid? Or were converts in the past required to be baptized within the Catholic faith?

A Christian baptism has always been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. I have been hearing lately of some of the Orthodox requiring a convert from Roman Catholicism be baptized again. Which, flies in the face of reason, but when it comes to East/West relationships, reason hasn't seemed to prevail very often.

[_madeleine]

Catholic means universal, * * * Mormonism is not of this faith,

How can Mormons not be members of a faith that is universal?

You "* * *" out: One faith, one baptism.

A LDS baptism is not valid, therefore not a part of the universal faith. It isn't valid because of the rejection of the Holy Trinity, and the intent of the baptism is something other than the Christian faith...probably another thread would be better if you want to explore that further.

[_consiglieri]

You "* * *" out: One faith, one baptism.

I was sort of kidding around with that one. ;^)

I think Mormonism has a lot in common with early Christian gnosticism.

I know I am not the first to say this, but I was kind of surprised to see in an LDS book regarding Joseph Smith's history the synopsis that, whereas other churches teach people are saved by grace or works, Joseph seemed to teach (at least in the Nauvoo period) that people are saved by knowledge.


You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Milesius]

Asinus asinum fricat.


It is only natural that you two Dunning-Kruger exemplars would gravitate towards each other.

It was only a matter of time before this f***-tard dip**** entered the thread to demonstrate one more time for all to see what a class-A moron he is.

...

Go shine the mud off the bottom of my boots, ya imbecilic turd. f***, you're stupid. Unbelievable.

Do us all a favor and jump off something tall.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[_Milesius]

LOL. As if the Christians of the first few centuries were Mormons. The fact of the matter is that Holy Joe's final Christology bears no resemblance to the Christologies of the first few centuries, apart from subordinationism.

Completely irrelevant evasion of my concern. My comment was meant to point out that any definition of "Christian" that relies on the creeds as foundational criteria unilaterally excludes the earliest Christians. This is not an appropriate way to go about delineating the fundamental meaning of the word. The fact of the matter is, there is no definition of the word "Christian" that excludes Mormonism that does not also (1) exclude the earliest Christians, (2) beg the question, or (3) both.

You are full of it. Take the Apostles' Creed and append to it the following anathema:

But those who say God the Father has one or more wives, is "a man like one of you," that He "dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did," "work[ed] out his kingdom with fear and trembling," or that "the mind of man is as immortal as God himself," let him be anathema.

[_Milesius]

As an experiment in the practical viability of such an argument (maybe not precisely the same, but close enough), I will write myself a Marxist political platform, call myself and my platform Republican, and then when Republicans complain, I'll just point to the fact that Lincoln wouldn't qualify as a Republican by their definition either, so they have no right to exclude me based on our obvious philosophical differences. Sure, I suppose I could do this, but who in their right mind would buy into my argument?

An astonishingly specious analogy. Political parties are hardly analogous to Christianity in terms of self-definition and history. The former constitute responses to contemporary social, political, and economic issues, as well to the opposing parties. There is simply no reason to expect to find a fundamental common denominator that holds universally and throughout the history of a party; nor do assertions of participation in the Republican party include, explicitly or implicitly, claims of ideological continuity with the historical roots of the party. With Christianity there is, by very definition, an explicit claim to a common denominator as well as ideological continuity with the historical roots of the movement. Attempts to exclude Mormonism are also almost exclusively interested in that continuity, and almost exclusively appeal to ideologies ostensibly established at the roots of the movement.

You forgot to work in "richly anaphoric." Anyway, I am afraid that no amount of polysyllabic words can make your claim credible.

[_Milesius]

Just to recap:

Early Christianity:

Subordinationism, yes.

Battlestar Galactica theology, no.

[_cksalmon]

My comment was meant to point out that any definition of "Christian" that relies on the creeds as foundational criteria unilaterally excludes the earliest Christians.

Using the creeds as foundational criteria unilaterally excludes the authors of New Testament?

(I don't rely on the creeds as foundational criteria, myself, but what you've written, mak, just is what begging the question looks like in practice.)