Are Mormons Christians?

[Loki]

Can Mormonism be described as a branch of Christianity, or is it something entirely different? Thread inspired by the discussion about Mormon temples in the geo quiz thread.

My view is yes. The reason for is, is that their Articles of Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Faith_(Latter_Day_Saints)) are all Biblical, or Biblical inspired ... except the inclusion of the Book of Mormon as a holy book. Their very name is also very Christian -- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I know that mainstream Christianity considers Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses to be fringe movements, or sects. But if you think about it, all Christian groupings are by definition sects of Christian doctrine, including all Protestant and Catholic groups/rites. I am looking from the point of view of an atheist, an outsider.

[Psychonaut]

Given that their devotion is to Jesus Christ, then yes, I think we can call them Christian in a very broad sense. They're just as Christian as any of the "heretical cults" that were abound in the early years of the church (i.e. Cathars, Arians, Manichaeism, etc.). They're a bit more on the Gnostic side of the pendulum since they actually admit that Jehova has a wife, but certainly within the same general heading as the other early Christian variants.

[Aliandrin]

I voted ves but seeing as how I generally aver that Christians are just Jews+Vol.2, and Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the same religion, you can pretty much discount my vote on those grounds.

They worship Christ? Then they're Christian. Are they much more different in practice than most other Christians? Probably. It's like having a family of crows asking if a starling is a Bird. Well, it is. Doesn't make it even remotely the same animal.

[Gooding]

I voted yes as well, with a qualification: The LDS are a nineteenth century variant of Christianity. The whole Restoration business is a nineteenth century construct, but they do worship Jesus Christ as they understand Him which is an alternative understanding that the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches hold. This is what happens when I quit smoking, folks...I start participating in Christian conversations.

[Manifest Destiny]

So far I'm the lone "No" vote. I have nothing against Mormons or their religion, but they believe too many non-Biblical things for me to classify them as Christian (polytheism, Eternal Progression). I think they're Christians in the same sense that the Nation Of Islam is Muslim: they've both created their own separate religion that happens to be based on another faith.

[Sally]

I voted no. I have no desire to disparage Mormons, for many of them are upstanding, sincere family-oriented individuals. Truly, some of the most genuine people I've ever known have been Mormons. However, they don't believe that Christ instituted baptism, and they also hold that there is no original sin. Concerning the Trinity, they believe that three gods form one divinity, which is distinctly divergent from traditional Christian teaching.

[Æmeric]

They are Christian but with their own distinct sphere. I wouldn't lump them in with Protestants. Incidently, it is the Conservative Protestant sects (Baptist, Pentacostals, Evangelical Calvinists) that claim Mormons are not Christians.

Oddly enough the Mormons came out of the same social enviroment - early 19th century New England - which gave us the liberal theology that gave rise to Unitarianism among the Yankee elite & in practice (if not in actually church renets) among some of the mainstream Protestant sects in the US such as the Espiscopalians & Congregationalists. The Mormons are much more socially conservative then their contemporay Yankee brethren. A legacy from their Puritan forefathers preserved in the Mountain West?

The Mormons use to not allow Negroes full membership in the Church until the late 70s. It was controversial & a lot of Mormons thought it had to do with political pressure from Jimmy Carter (a Southern Baptist who apparently didn't like Mormons) then with actual divine revelation.

[Loddfafner]

Oddly enough the Mormons came out of the same social enviroment - early 19th century New England - which gave us the liberal theology that gave rise to Unitarianism among the Yankee elite & in practice

Mormonism started in the area around Rochester, New York in what historians call the Burnt-Over District. There was a proliferation of evangelical, utopian, and radical movements including the abolitionists (Frederick Douglass was active there), feminism (Seneca Falls where the suffrage movement kicked off is only a few miles from the place the Mormon Tablets were allegedly discovered), and the Oneida and Shaker communities.

[Æmeric]

Mormonism started in the area around Rochester, New York in what historians call the Burnt-Over District. There was a proliferation of evangelical, utopian, and radical movements including the abolitionists (Frederick Douglass was active there), feminism (Seneca Falls where the suffrage movement kicked off is only a few miles from the place the Mormon Tablets were allegedly discovered), and the Oneida and Shaker communities.
Culturally, that part of Upstate New York was an extention of New England. The settlers in that area were from the New England states. Joseph Smith & Brigham Young were both born in Vermont. Kirtland, Ohio (sight of the first Mormon Temple) on near Lake Erie was another transplanted New England cultural area. I had a set of 4xgreat grandparents from Connecticut that converted to Mormonism while living in Kirkland. (After Grandpa died in Utah, Grandma returned East with her younger children & became a Baptist.:rolleyes:) The radicalism that gave us the initial suffragett movement, abolitionism, utopianism etc... came from the New England cultural area.

Mormons are generally seen in the Mountain West as being very (Nordish) White, the result of the initial families being mainly of Yankee background with additional converts arriving from England, Denmark & Norway.

[Loki]

Mormons are mostly of good racial stock, but perhaps quite a bit inbred in some places?

[Æmeric]

Mormons are mostly of good racial stock, but perhaps quite a bit inbred in some places?

The founding population was of sufficient numbers. But some of the fundamentalist Mormon sects have practice inbreeding, e.g. the Kingston group & the sect located at Colorado City, Arizona. Most contemporary Mormons do not practice polygamy, so those that do are limited in their choices of mates. Even when it (polygamy) was practiced, the typical Mormon male only had the one wife. Usually in plural households there was just 2 wives & it was only the higher ranking church officials that took several wives. But most Mormons (from the older families) have polygamous ancestors if they go back to the 19th century.

[Rasvalg]

My brother lives in Ogden, Utah as that is where he is stationed. He has some words that he calls the Mormons and none of them envolve them being xtian. But yes they probably are xtian by all definition. They are there own sect with their own ways.

[Frigga]

I remember that when I was a Christian, all within my social sphere felt that Mormons were a cult, and were not Christian. I have since left Christianity, and as an outsider now, I feel that they are more Christian then not. But, I still have to admit that I find some of their views odd. That must be a holdover from my youth. Oh well. :)

[Murphy]

Mormons reject the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and Trinitarian Protestantism (Luther, Calvin).

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.

[Psychonaut]

Mormons reject the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and Trinitarian Protestantism (Luther, Calvin).

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.

Wasn't the trinitarian doctrine only fully formulated in the 4th century, being finalized with the Nicaean Council? There were countless variants of Christianity that were present prior to that that had different theological perspectives. Mormon theology is of course much closer to some of these early sects than it is Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy, but does that necessarily remove them from the Christian umbrella? Would you also consider Cathars or Manichaeans to be non-Christians?

[Gooding]

Wasn't the trinitarian doctrine only fully formulated in the 4th century, being finalized with the Nicaean Council? There were countless variants of Christianity that were present prior to that that had different theological perspectives. Mormon theology is of course much closer to some of these early sects than it is Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy, but does that necessarily remove them from the Christian umbrella? Would you also consider Cathars or Manichaeans to be non-Christians?

Or for that matter, what of the Arian variant of Christianity espoused by many Germanic tribes that had contact with Rome before the invasions? The two above named groups, the Cathars and Manichaeans were/are Gnostics, which could be considered a seperate religion altogether, with overtly Christian influences.

[Absinthe]

To me, they are a bizarre Christian sect, albeit not traditional christians. But they fall under the general christian umbrella.

For those who voted No, where do you place them? The sphere of Judaism? I am curious. :)

[Manifest Destiny]

To me, they are a bizarre Christian sect, albeit not traditional christians. But they fall under the general christian umbrella.

For those who voted No, where do you place them? The sphere of Judaism? I am curious. :)

I'd consider the LDS church to be a polytheistic religion that is based on Christianity.

[Absinthe]

I'd consider the LDS church to be a polytheistic religion that is based on Christianity.
How is it polytheistic? Please enlighten me... :)

[Loki]

How is it polytheistic? Please enlighten me... :)

I reckon because Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct gods. Mainstream Christianity believes that it is one god, manifested in three persons. Of course some, like Jehovah's Witnesses, don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, and don't believe the Holy Spirit is a person.

I wouldn't call it polytheistic, it's just another interpretation on a matter in which the Bible is vague, if not confusing and contradictory.

[Psychonaut]

I reckon because Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct gods. Mainstream Christianity believes that it is one god, manifested in three persons. Of course some, like Jehovah's Witnesses, don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, and don't believe the Holy Spirit is a person.

I wouldn't call it polytheistic, it's just another interpretation on a matter in which the Bible is vague, if not confusing and contradictory.

They also have the "Heavenly Mother," who is God's wife. My Mormon buddy tells me that they believe her to be an entity of the same order as Jehova, but (for some reason I was unable to get out of him) they don't worship her directly.

[Manifest Destiny]

How is it polytheistic? Please enlighten me... :)

Mormons believe in something called Eternal Progression, which is a process by which devout Mormons can eventually become gods (Exaltation). Believing in the existence of multiple gods is polytheism. :)

There are plenty of sites on Google that talk about it, but here is one from a UK church: http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/etimplications.htm

[SwordoftheVistula]

They also have the "Heavenly Mother," who is God's wife. My Mormon buddy tells me that they believe her to be an entity of the same order as Jehova, but (for some reason I was unable to get out of him) they don't worship her directly.

That's not too different from the Catholic treatment of Mary, and they do worship her directly.


Mormons believe in something called Eternal Progression, which is a process by which devout Mormons can eventually become gods (Exaltation). Believing in the existence of multiple gods is polytheism. :)

Also not too different from the Catholic/Orthodox system of 'sainthood'

[Manifest Destiny]

Also not too different from the Catholic/Orthodox system of 'sainthood'

Are Catholic saints considered gods/goddesses who get their own planets to rule over?

[SwordoftheVistula]

Are Catholic saints considered gods/goddesses who get their own planets to rule over?

They are given 'holy days', have prayers said to them, and otherwise occupy positions roughly equivalent to the pantheon of mid to lesser gods found in polytheistic religions.

[Sally]

That's not too different from the Catholic treatment of Mary, and they do worship her directly.


That is a common misconception. Catholics venerate saints, including Mary, but worship God alone.

[SwordoftheVistula]

That is a common misconception. Catholics venerate saints, including Mary, but worship God alone.

A semantic technicality. 'Veneration', 'worship', whatever, they may not be equal to the King God (Yaweh, or sometimes Jesus) or even the Queen God (Mary), but certainly have some sort of mystical/spiritual respect, with homage of some sort payed to them.

[Æmeric]

A semantic technicality. 'Veneration', 'worship', whatever, they may not be equal to the King God (Yaweh, or sometimes Jesus) or even the Queen God (Mary), but certainly have some sort of mystical/spiritual respect, with homage of some sort payed to them.

This was something I noticed as a child. Catholics praying to statues (of saints). It was easy to make the connection to idolatry. I brought up the subject at Sunday school (at a conservative Protestant Church) & well.... I won't go into what I was told about the Catholic faith & the Pope etc...

Now I've gone & offended the Catholics.

[SwordoftheVistula]

(at a conservative Protestant Church) & well.... I won't go into what I was told about the Catholic faith & the Pope etc...

We all were taught this, I imagine, even at a 'liberal/mainline' Christian (protestant) denomination in the 80s and 90s I was taught what are considered 'Christian Identity' doctrine. The integration of Catholics took place because of political expediency to fight against communists, liberals, and in some cases non-Europeans.

[Loki]

In our church, they taught us that the Pope was the Antichrist, and that following him was a sin. ;)

[Beorn]

In our church, they taught us that the Pope was the Antichrist, and that following him was a sin. ;)

I don't think I even knew who the Pope was till I was older.

That's either a sign that the CofE was so good at indoctrinating or perhaps simply couldn't care less.

[Osweo]

I've never really gone into the details of their weird cosmology and 'theology', but they put Christ high up enough to put him in their name, so what could you call them apart from 'Christians'?!?
Catholics demanding conformity to stuff that was wrangled out at various Fourth Century Councils has little relevance. The question is more - how to define 'Christian' without including for example Hindus who accord Jesus some degree of recognition, or Mani, who included Jesus in his prophets. I would answer simply that Jesus has to be given a preeminent place in their system, secondary to no other figure beyond 'God', extraneous to Christian tradition (e.g. Muhammad). As far as I know, the Mormons conform here. I don't think many of their rank and file really know all the absurd details that we outsiders bring up to mock them with, surely?

[Frigga]

Well, I do remember a really odd thing about Mormons that I was once told. Apparently, Mormons have to buy a special set of underwear that they're supposed to wear all the time, or at least while they're doing work for the church, or ministering. I didn't get it directly from the horse's mouth, it was from a friend of mine who had gone to school with a Mormon girl. I can't remember their name, otherwise I would have named them! I do seem to remember that they had to buy them from a catalog, and they weren't supposed to let anyone know about them. I just found that way too odd! Dictating what kind of underwear you're to wear? :eek: Who knows, maybe she was just pulling my leg.

[Gooding]

They also have the "Heavenly Mother," who is God's wife. My Mormon buddy tells me that they believe her to be an entity of the same order as Jehova, but (for some reason I was unable to get out of him) they don't worship her directly.

This is how it was explained to me.Heavenly Father, as the Head of the Family does not like to have his name blasphemed and he absolutely forbids the worship of Heavenly Mother lest her name get degraded and ultimately have blasphemous words ( cuss words) associated with her.They were both originally humans from Kolob who followed the commandments of their own God perfectly and thus achieved divinity.They begat a heavenly family that descend to earth as humans so they (or we) can observe and follow these commandments.Ideally, a Temple wedding will seal a practicing LDS couple for time and eternity, giving them the opportunity to become exactly like Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and create and rule their own universe.

www.lds.org
www.mormon.com

[Psychonaut]

Well, I do remember a really odd thing about Mormons that I was once told. Apparently, Mormons have to buy a special set of underwear that they're supposed to wear all the time, or at least while they're doing work for the church, or ministering. I didn't get it directly from the horse's mouth, it was from a friend of mine who had gone to school with a Mormon girl. I can't remember their name, otherwise I would have named them! I do seem to remember that they had to buy them from a catalog, and they weren't supposed to let anyone know about them. I just found that way too odd! Dictating what kind of underwear you're to wear? :eek: Who knows, maybe she was just pulling my leg.

This is true. When I was at AIT, we had quite a few Mormon guys. They were allowed to wear their special underwear (which is kind of like boxer briefs that come down to your knees) for everything except for PT.


This is how it was explained to me.Heavenly Father, as the Head of the Family does not like to have his name blasphemed and he absolutely forbids the worship of Heavenly Mother lest her name get degraded and ultimately have blasphemous words ( cuss words) associated with her.They were both originally humans from Kolob who followed the commandments of their own God perfectly and thus achieved divinity.They begat a heavenly family that descend to earth as humans so they (or we) can observe and follow these commandments.Ideally, a Temple wedding will seal a practicing LDS couple for time and eternity, giving them the opportunity to become exactly like Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and create and rule their own universe.


Huh. It was explained a lot different to me, but my buddy is a little off. He told me that a good analogy was to think of God as your boss (like at work). You obey your boss because he is your boss, but you don't behave the same way towards your boss' wife. His authority over you doesn't transfer to her simply because she is his wife. :shrug:

[Sally]

In our church, they taught us that the Pope was the Antichrist, and that following him was a sin. ;)

Did your church distribute Chick tracts, too? Those things are great; I've even seen them in Finnish! However, they might've been an almost exclusively American phenomenon. ;)

http://i43.tinypic.com/2dt3gue.gif


http://i39.tinypic.com/2mfj4hl.gif

[Loki]

Did your church distribute Chick tracts, too? Those things are great; I've even seen them in Finnish! However, they might've been an almost exclusively American phenomenon. ;)


Yes! :D They handed them out in Sunday School :p

[Gooding]

Yes! :D They handed them out in Sunday School :p

*Groans* I've encountered Chick tracts in the public restrooms in College.LOL, I had found their materials to work wonders as laxitives!:D

[Treffie]

In our church, they taught us that the Pope was the Antichrist, and that following him was a sin. ;)

Same here, I was a member of a Pentecostal happy, clappy church! :embarrassed

[Loki]

Same here, I was a member of a Pentecostal happy, clappy church! :embarrassed

Me too! :D Can you still speak in tongues? :p

[Treffie]

Me too! :D Can you still speak in tongues? :p

No, I never did, but I watched the older members do it - it looked like they were having an epileptic fit. :confused:

[Æmeric]

Well, I do remember a really odd thing about Mormons that I was once told. Apparently, Mormons have to buy a special set of underwear that they're supposed to wear all the time, or at least while they're doing work for the church, or ministering. I didn't get it directly from the horse's mouth, it was from a friend of mine who had gone to school with a Mormon girl. I can't remember their name, otherwise I would have named them! I do seem to remember that they had to buy them from a catalog, and they weren't supposed to let anyone know about them. I just found that way too odd! Dictating what kind of underwear you're to wear? :eek: Who knows, maybe she was just pulling my leg.


http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/images/mormon-temple-garments.jpg

^

This is the Mormon underwear. I had the inpression it was only worn during temple ceremonies. I attended junior high & high school with a student body that was 1/4 to 1/3 Mormon. And I never saw these in the locker room. As I pointed out in the underwear thread everyone wore these:


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IeEkufcr8sg/RlJwUej61YI/AAAAAAAABGM/yAeUR83Xcgs/s400/white+briefs+00401.jpg

Which might seem weird nowadays, the conformity.


In Arizona public schools, religious instruction was permitted during school hours. However it was considered an extracurricular activity, there was no credit earned & could not take place on school grounds. Mormons took advantage of this by buying land adjacent or across the street from junior & high schools with sizable Mormon student bodies & erecting seminaries. This is one way to tell which neighborhoods have sizable numbers of Mormon families, from the seminaries along side the junior & high schools & whether there was a Mormon chapel.

[Psychonaut]

I had the inpression it was only worn during temple ceremonies. I attended junior high & high school with a student body that was 1/4 to 1/3 Mormon. And I never saw these in the locker room.

Huh. I remember that the guys never wore these to work out, but after we showered in the gym, they'd all put on their special underwear before putting on their duty uniform. :shrug:

[Loki]

The discussion regarding speaking in tongues merits a separate thread ... go here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3528) for the split-off.

[Æmeric]

Huh. I remember that the guys never wore these to work out, but after we showered in the gym, they'd all put on their special underwear before putting on their duty uniform. :shrug:
Maybe it's something they do after they turn 18 or maybe there was a divine revelation making the wearing of the underwear mandatory all the time since 1980. I know they are sold at specialty stores that cater to Mormons (in Arizona), that also sell Mormon religious books other articles of specific interest to Mormons. Zions Department Store also carries it but most Zions were in Utah, they only had one store in the east Phoenix Metro area.

There are certain names that I associate with Mormon families - in the Mountain West. Farnsworth, Turley, Flake, Pomeroy, Driggs, Crandall, Udall, Skousen, Christensen, Kimball, Pratt, Young... I went to school from the 5-12 grades with a guy named Young who was the great-great-great-grandson of Brigham. Rulon is a forename that I have only encountered among Mormons, I think it comes from the Book of Mormon.

[Gooding]

The Sacred Underwear is fascinating...they have a couple of other practices that I thought was interesting as well.They have something you can only get once in your life: "The purpose of a patriarchal blessing is (1) to identify the tribe of Israel to which a Latter-day Saint belongs, (2) to bless the member with knowledge and spiritual gifts, (3) to give advice or help to the individual (often this includes foretelling of possible future events, opportunities, and temptations). Within the Church, a patriarchal blessing is considered to be a revelation for the recipient, with the promises made in the blessing considered conditional upon the recipient's obedience to gospel principles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchal_Blessing#Patriarchal_blessings_in_The_ Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

They also have something called a Fasting Sunday..You don't eat all morning and when you go to chapel, you sit in the sanctuary and listen to the monthly message given to the entire church by the President/Prophet of the LDS church. Not to mention the mandatory priesthood endowed on all male members of the church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Sunday,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaronic_Priesthood They are really a fascinating society and their Temple in Kensington is quite grand.

[tudorjason]

I know that this discussion has been inactive for over a year, but I would like to provide comments, and perhaps insight to the LDS faith.



Loki:

I applaud you for asking this question so that people can maturely discuss the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and understand it better.

Were you or are you a member of the LDS Church? Because it is taught that the Catholic Church is abominable and that the leader of the church is the Antichrist or Antichrist-like. I’ve been a member all my life, but I haven’t asked someone why this belief exists. I try not to learn about differences in people sometimes so that I don’t subconsciously begin to be prejudice.

Loki and others:

This may just be my point of view and therefore doesn’t matter as a whole, but if people consider the LDS Church a sect, it may mean that they group all of the churches that have branched out from the original Mormon Church with the original church, including the extremists that still practice polygamy. This is because I have found that a lot of people still believe the original LDS Church does practice polygamy, which it stopped immediately when the United States forbid it. In my opinion, when I think of sects, I think of the extremists and little branches of Mormonism; I don’t consider the original church to be a sect itself.

But like I said, this may not be such a big deal.

Perhaps there use to be some inbreeding when the Church practiced polygamy, but I’m sure it was very little, and maybe even accidental. Keep in mind that when polygamy was practiced by the Church, the Latter Day Saints were isolated from the rest of the country, and when men had to fight in the Mormon War and died, there were fewer men for every woman.

Inbreeding, which is incest, is a huge sin – right up there with homosexuality. So today, true LDS members don’t inbreed.

Dresden (and Murphy for first paragraph):

True, the LDS Church believes that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings; however, the Church does not believe that all three beings are Gods. This is like saying Vice President Biden is also a President of the United States. The US government has the Executive Branch and the Church believes in a Godhead of three separate beings, but only one of them is a God, and that is Heavenly Father.

Eternal progression, or exaltation, perhaps is unique in Christianity. This is one of the best things about the Church. All I can say is that this is the incentive we can achieve for living a righteous life. We could live with our families, and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, on Earth forever after the resurrection.

This is something that I have had difficulty believing myself, but according to the Church doctrine, those who are resurrected and are righteous enough to be in the Celestial Kingdom, will have their own world. I’ve been told that this is being God-like but I have taken it to mean that we may be more like a Jesus to the world, not an actual God. But even if this is wrong perspective is incorrect, right now, because the resurrection hasn’t happened, there is only one God. So right now, polytheistic beliefs do not exist in the LDS church.

Also, I know that it is easier to do so, but try not to provide a source that is not LDS.org or a source that doesn’t have LDS.org as its own source for information. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the Church and, even worse, a lot of outright lies by Mormon haters who misconstrue the doctrine to fit their agenda.

Sally:

I’m not exactly sure if I understand you correctly. But the LDS Church believes that John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Wouldn’t that be instituting baptism?

I also don’t understand your statement of LDS members do not hold that there is original sin, so I’m not sure if you don’t understand what the Church believes. The Church believes that Adam committed a sin, but we are not accountable for Adam's transgression. Jesus Christ paid for that sin. Personally, even if I wasn’t an LDS member, I wouldn’t believe I had to pay for someone else’s mistake. We are all accountable for our own lives.

The Church believes that the fall of Adam had to happen so that people could be born and be tested on Earth. It was part of the plan.

Frigga:

I am very glad you have realized that the Church is more Christian than not. Sometimes it does take stepping back to gain a new perspective on something.

The special underwear is a sacred garment that is typically only worn when a couple is married in a temple.

Gooding:

On Fast Sunday, members are able to go to the front of the congregation and describe their testimony and what they are thankful for. It’s a chance to show the blessings they have received.



The LDS Church is very family-oriented and also focuses on being physically and fiscally responsible. I don’t know if other faiths have these beliefs. Family is extremely important, I don’t know any other church that has gyms (or cultural halls as we call them) in their churches (unless they’re attached to a school, and teaches that debt and materialism could stray you away from Heavenly Father.

A huge misconception I would like to correct is that the Church doesn’t believe in the Bible. This is probably one of the biggest misconceptions of all. The LDS Church has several scriptures, including the Book of Mormon but also the Bible. There were other people on the Earth besides those who told stories or were described in the Bible. Don’t you think they had lives, points of view on their daily lives, and beliefs?

Most people do not understand the entire gospel. They either can’t remember some details or they misunderstand. So if you ask an LDS member a question about the faith, you may not get the 100% truth. If someone wants to understand the Church better, going to an actual member or LDS.org, is best.

And although there are beliefs that conflict with choices or perspectives that others have, true LDS members don’t hate others for it. I would never hate someone for being part of another religion, or being gay, or being different or conflict with the LDS Church in any way.

Bottom line is that the LDS Church is a Christian Church. It isn’t a convenient church but all of the beliefs of the Church test our faith and righteousness and the Church believes Christ is the Savior. Isn’t that what a Christian church is about?

[Óttar]

Joseph Smith was a Freemason and some of their ceremonies blatantly use Masonic ritual. They also have set about attempting to convert posthumously everyone who has ever lived. They have a sh*tload of records. I guess at least they don't believe Julius Caesar and Alexander are in Hell, but you have to question the motivations of a man who believed an angel gave him a set of golden plates that said Native Americans were a lost tribe of Israel among other things.

[The Ripper]

No, I do not consider them Christian.

[Sally]

Sally:

I’m not exactly sure if I understand you correctly. But the LDS Church believes that John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Wouldn’t that be instituting baptism?

Hello tudorjason! :)

This quote by Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J., from The Question of the Validity of Baptism Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints illustrates why I stated what I did earlier in the thread:


This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

The Mormon practice of posthumous rebaptism is troubling. Ultimately, I don't believe Mormons have valid baptism, no matter how well intentioned they are:


Question: Wheter the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.



+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER

Prefect

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.ht ml

While I disagree with the Mormon church's theology, I don't want to pass judgments on individual Mormons (a lot of my family is Mormon, by the way), and I admire the Latter Day Saint's pro-life position on abortion and their opposition to same-sex marriage.

[Óttar]

Question: Wheter the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.



+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER

Prefect
Why would anyone think the pope would consider the Mormon baptism valid in the first place? :confused:

[Wyn]

Why would anyone think the pope would consider the Mormon baptism valid in the first place? :confused:

In Catholic doctrine all baptisms done by the Trinitarian formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_formula) are valid, hence Calvinist, Anglican etc. baptisms are considered valid. I suppose a lot wouldn't be familiar with this requirement, and thus which denominations have valid baptisms, so for some there would probably be a need for official clarification.

[Mercury]

I'm going to say no. Mormonism differs too greatly from the other sects of Christianity. They are polytheistic, believing Yahweh is one of many gods and a descendant of a god himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology), due to eternal progression. They also seem to reject the idea of Yahweh being omnipotent, as the Smith clearly states God created our world through pre-existing matter (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?130410-Joseph-Smith-Pre-Existing-Matter). I don't know of any other Christian sect that thinks God has limited powers. To me, calling Mormonism a Christian faith is like saying Christianity is a Jewish sect.

And I realize this isn't the proper thread for this topic but... how can anyone seriously be a Mormon? The people are nice, the churches are really fancy looking. And the Mormon faith does a lot of great things (charities, missionaries, etc..). But where is the evidence of Israelite colonization of the Americas? Where are the swords? The chariots? The metallurgy that the Israelites would've brought with them? How about the post-Pleistocene/Pre-Columbian horses? Or Elephants, Oxes, Asses, & wheat plants? I just don't understand how anyone can take it too seriously..

[Wulfhere]

What I find most disturbing about Mormonism is how much influence it had on Battlestar Galactica.

http://www.millennialstar.org/battlestar-galactica-and-mormonism/

The connection is hardly a secret. Many websites cover this (some of them are rather hostile towards the church, but others are friendly or neutral – the best one is here.)

But for those who came in late, I’ll cover the basics and then move into deeper territory afterwards.

Keep in mind, I’m discussing the original 1979 series for the first part of this post. Also keep in mind that I have no idea about Glen A. Larson’s current standing in the church. Some sources say he is an ex-Mormon, and others claim he is a current member. So I have no idea, although I suspect (based on the number of times I’ve seen Orson Scott Card called a former Mormon) that Larson is at least still on the roles of the church. But outside of intellectual curiosity and concern for his soul, his current standing in the church doesn’t mean much. What does matter is that at one point in his life, before he created BSG, Larson was LDS.

Okay – basic connections:

1. Kobol is an anagram of Kolob. In LDS theology, Kolob is the star nearest unto the throne of God. In Battlestar Galactica, Kobol is a planet rather than a star, but the connection between the two ideas is rather clear. Also, a ship named the Star Kobol appeared briefly as the site for armistice talks between the Colonials and the Cylons.
2. The colonies are run by a council (sometimes referred to as a Quorum) of the Twelve, with a President. While a political body, the members also have religious responsibilities and duties.
3. Marriage is often referred to as sealing. Adama marries Apollo and Serina with the words: A union between this man and this woman not only for now, but for all the eternities. Although the marriage ceremony is public rather than in a temple requiring a recommend to enter, the wording and theology comes from Mormonism.
4. In the episodes “War of the Gods” parts 1 & 2, the angels from the ships of light declare that agency is supreme: We cannot interfere with freedom of choice. His, yours, anyone’s. Count Iblis (the Satan figure who is at war with the angels in the Ships of Light) can only control those who had “freely given him dominion”.
5. In the “War of the Gods”, the highly advanced beings/angels on the Ship of Lights say “As you are now, we once were; as we are now, you may become.” Do I even need to spell this one out? Fine. I think it was Lorenzo Snow who said “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”
6. In the episode “Experiment in Terra” John (an angel) says to Apollo “I have no physical body, as you know it.” Apollo points at John and asks him “What do you call that?” John replies: “A reflection of intelligence. My spirit, if you will.” That one is not as clear cut (since a spirit body is still a body) but the idea and wording of intelligence = spirit comes from Mormon sources.

Okay, that’s the (non-exhaustive) list. But what does it all add up to? Mere window dressing? Pearls before swine? Or something much more daring than most viewers and fans have realized?

Well, here’s what Orson Scott Card thought:

I found the Glen Larson approach both silly and offensive; I also found that most Mormon critics who have commented on my work and Larson’s make the same self-contradictory mistake: They find Larson’s approach – dropping in trivial LDS references – superficial, and then complain that because I don’t do the same, I am denying/concealing/ignoring my Mormonism.

(page 159 of A Storyteller in Zion).

So, according to Card, BSG is superficially LDS. That seems to be the view of most viewers. But, Card is dead wrong. I don’t blame him – after a promising series opener, BSG had a few odd episodes that involved such things as a shoot-out between Apollo and “Red-eye” (a damaged and reprogrammed Cylon) on a dime novel wild-west planet. Other such episodes seemed to render the initial promise of the series moot, and I really can’t blame Card (and others) from deciding the LDS references added up to mere window dressing.

But the series began to pick up some steam, especially with the two-part episode “War of the Gods.” This episode did more than just introduce a new threat in the form of Count Iblis, and new allies in the form of the beings from the Ships of Light. They set the basic metaphysical groundwork for the series. One major revelation retroactively changed the underlying concept behind the whole series: The Cylon Imperious leader had the same voice as Count Iblis. In essence, Satan created the Cylons.

Suddenly, for those paying attention, BSG was no longer about humanity fleeing for its lives from a superior force, hoping to find shelter on a mythical planet called Earth. It was about the battle for humanity’s soul. The Cylons weren’t just evil (if somewhat inept at shooting) robots – they were created for the specific purpose of becoming an army whose purpose would be to eliminate humanity. Iblis is at war with the being in the Ships of Light, and this war is reflected in the war between humanity and the Cylons. Humanity’s survival wasn’t just about genetic reproduction: It was about spiritual advancement: Humanity was meant to survive because its ultimate destiny is to become as advanced as the beings in the ships of light. The Cylons (and Count Iblis) meant to kill them all off (or at least corrupt them) before that could happen.

In fewer words: The basic metaphysical background of the original BSG was Mormon in character. The show was not superficially Mormon, as Card said. Instead, it was deeply, truly, inherently Mormon.

Unfortunately, the original BSG never got to explore this much further, with its cancellation and then pathetic resurrection as Battlestar 1980 (the less said about this, the better. Larson himself has written it off as “Starbuck’s nightmare”).

And how have the Mormon elements fared since then? Not well. In the few revivals that have occurred since then (not counting the new series on Sci-Fi), the creators have had a hard time dealing with these elements, either ignoring them or transmuting them into something else.

Maximum press did a comic book series that used time travel to rewrite most of the TV show’s history. The “angels” became something more akin to uber-advanced aliens. While this series showed a knack for exploiting the folklore of BSG fandom, its radical character redesigns and bizarre storylines (including a time travel story arc that rewrote every BSG story ever) didn’t endear it to fans. However, to my knowledge, these comic have the first appearance in any BSG media of humanoid Cylons. (CORRECTION: I have been informed that Human looking Cylons first appeared in Galactica 1980. I probably repressed the memory).

Maximum press itself became a victim of the comic book market collapse of the late 90s, so another comics company called Realm Press picked up the license. This series kept the religious elements in, even if they became more or less generic. Unfortunately, the publisher was unable to stick to a schedule and most of the storylines went unfinished, so it’s hard to tell exactly where this batch of comics would have gone.

Around the same time as all of this, Richard Hatch (the actor who played Apollo on the original series and plays Zarek on the new series) began co-authoring a new series of BSG novels. From all accounts, Hatch is a nice guy – but these books are a weird mix of BSG, Hatch’s own personal philosophies and borderline racist ideas. In them, Apollo becomes something of a lost Jedi. Because of his contacts with the Being of Light, he is able to tap into his mental reserves and perform all sorts of amazing mental feats. The Mormon elements of progression become something more like New Age ESP. Plus, it turns out only “pure blooded Kobollians” can tap this mental power (apparently somewhere between the fleeing of Kobol and the founding of the colonies, some humans somehow tainted the bloodlines, though this is never really explained). Also, a planet called Parnassus becomes the true font of humanity, with Kobol becoming only an ancient stopping point on the way to the twelve colonies that were introduced to us (and destroyed) in the first episode of BSG.

As for the new TV series? Well, I really don’t know. They keep some of the terminology (Kobol, Council of the Twelve), but the underlying metaphysics of the new BSG series are still unclear. In the original series, Larson basically laid all his cards on the table with “War of the Gods.”

In this new series, however, we have the idea that the colonies practiced a rather diverse, polytheistic, pluralistic and private religion. When asked if she “believed” Kara/Starbuck replied by stating “yes, not that it’s any of your business” or something along those lines. This seems reversed from the open if highly informal religiosity of the colonials in the original series. The Cylons on the new series are clearly religious, although monotheistic. The colonials seem to have no serious, strict moral code, whereas the Cylons seems to know exactly what they should be doing. But I get the feeling the creators of the new show are holding back most of their cards. Once we finally figure out the religious/metaphysical grounding of this new series, I doubt it will be more than faintly LDS, but it should be interesting nonetheless.

In either case, the original BSG was a fun bit of television. The new BSG is, however, the best show on TV right now.

[Logan]

I am looking from the point of view of an atheist, an outsider.

You know that there isn't? Takes as much faith as Theism or Deism.

They seem but another type.

[GinaWild]

Probably yes.

[Sally]

In Catholic doctrine all baptisms done by the Trinitarian formula are valid, hence Calvinist, Anglican etc. baptisms are considered valid. I suppose a lot wouldn't be familiar with this requirement, and thus which denominations have valid baptisms, so for some there would probably be a need for official clarification.

Exactly. Most mainline Protestant churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) have valid baptism. But some Baptist sects (believe it or not ;)), Christian Scientists, Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, the Salvation Army and Unitarians do not.

[Aces High]

Joseph Smith was a Freemason and some of their ceremonies blatantly use Masonic ritual.

Not to forget that in the centre of downtown Salt Lake city there is a huge statue of Brigham Young (or bring em young...as he was not too kindly known)...and he has his arse pointed at the church whilst he is pointing to the bank.;)

Mormon=More money

[El Palleter]

In Catholic doctrine all baptisms done by the Trinitarian formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_formula) are valid, hence Calvinist, Anglican etc. baptisms are considered valid.That's Modernist doctrine, if not something worse.

The Church in her present state might as well call herself Neo-Protestant instead of Catholic.

Who will be next? Jews then Muslims?

[Óttar]

That's Modernist doctrine, if not something worse.

The Church in her present state might as well call herself Neo-Protestant instead of Catholic.

Who will be next? Jews then Muslims?
Baptism according to the Trinitarian formula has been considered valid from early times. Even the baptism accorded to some heretics was considered valid if done according to the Trinitarian formula.

[EliasAlucard]

Can Mormonism be described as a branch of Christianity, or is it something entirely different?No, they're not Christians. Perhaps they can be considered pseudo-Christians, but they're polytheists in any case, and they've added their own Book of Mormon as an extra religious book to the bible, and that's clearly not allowed according to the bible.

[Bridie]

Baptism according to the Trinitarian formula has been considered valid from early times. Even the baptism accorded to some heretics was considered valid if done according to the Trinitarian formula.Early times? As in pre-protestant reformation? :D :p Wasn't relevant then, for obvious reasons. ;)

[Johnston]

Given that their devotion is to Jesus Christ, then yes, I think we can call them Christian in a very broad sense. They're just as Christian as any of the "heretical cults" that were abound in the early years of the church (i.e. Cathars, Arians, Manichaeism, etc.). They're a bit more on the Gnostic side of the pendulum since they actually admit that Jehova has a wife, but certainly within the same general heading as the other early Christian variants.Jehovah's wife is Mary!:thumb001: She had the biggest orgasm any woman could ever!:lightbul:

[Odoacer]

Early times? As in pre-protestant reformation? :D :p Wasn't relevant then, for obvious reasons. ;)

Even Arians who had originally been baptized according to the Trinitarian formula were not required to be rebaptized. Perhaps pre-Vatican II, conditional baptisms would have been encouraged more frequently for Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism than they might be now. But the magisterial teaching has long been that even Trinitarian baptism performed by heretics is valid. There are qualifications, of course. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VII):


Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the "Old Catholics" generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.

I'm not sure why El Palleter felt the need to highlight Calvinists, but for whatever reason, the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to regard Anglican (Episcopalian) baptisms as somewhat more problematic than Calvinist (Presbyterian) baptisms!

[Johnston]

Even Arians who had originally been baptized according to the Trinitarian formula were not required to be rebaptized.I wish the Arians, Catholics, and Gnostics, were the only forms of Christianity present today.:cool:

[Odoacer]

I wish the Arians, Catholics, and Gnostics, were the only forms of Christianity present today.:cool:

Perhaps I shouldn't ask, but why do you feel this way? Even to the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox? You yourself appear to be none of these things. By the way, Gnostics were at least as "Christian" as Mormons, which is to say, pretty much only on a superficial level.

[Johnston]

Perhaps I shouldn't ask, but why do you feel this way? Even to the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox? You yourself appear to be none of these things. By the way, Gnostics were at least as "Christian" as Mormons, which is to say, pretty much only on a superficial level.I think it is ridiculous how often new forms of Christianity are simply hair-split versions of those that have come before. Think of how many versions of Athanasian Christianity there are. If Clovis and his wife had chosen the Gothic and Vandalic Christianity as it existed, then there would be no need for Protestantism 1000 years later. Orthodoxy now is the same as Catholicism back then, and Gnosticism should round off all the quirky religious individualists who would fit neither.

[EliasAlucard]

Given that their devotion is to Jesus Christ, then yes, I think we can call them Christian in a very broad sense. They're just as Christian as any of the "heretical cults" that were abound in the early years of the church (i.e. Cathars, Arians, Manichaeism, etc.). They're a bit more on the Gnostic side of the pendulum since they actually admit that Jehova has a wife, but certainly within the same general heading as the other early Christian variants.By your rationale, one could argue Muslims are Christians...

[Phil75231]

Voted "no" because, there are striking differences between Mormon theology and those of the conventionally accepted Christian ones (Catholic, Coptic, Protestant, E. Orthodox), far too many to discuss in this space. For now, it's enough to say that it also contradicts many points of orthodox (lower-case 'o', please note) Christianity to be seen as authentic Christianity. Rather, it's merely an offshoot of it based on the teachings of Joseph Smith. I would consider it a different religion entirely, albeit one derived from Christianity.

[Johnston]

By your rationale, one could argue Muslims are Christians...Muslims are the False Jews of Revelation, who took over the 7 Churches of the East. The Crusades were foretold as the army of light that would defeat the Jihad. St. John the Divine, island of Patmos!:)

[Johnston]

Mormonism is Protestant, and Restorationist. It attempts to reconcile Samaritanism from the Kingdom of Israel with the Kingdom of Judah, within the Christian framework. For those of you who hate Christianity for its relation to Judaism, remember that Europa herself and Adonis were Phoenician.

[Odoacer]

I think it is ridiculous how often new forms of Christianity are simply hair-split versions of those that have come before. Think of how many versions of Athanasian Christianity there are. If Clovis and his wife had chosen the Gothic and Vandalic Christianity as it existed, then there would be no need for Protestantism 1000 years later. Orthodoxy now is the same as Catholicism back then, and Gnosticism should round off all the quirky religious individualists who would fit neither.

No "need" for Protestantism? Erm, considering Protestantism is Trinitarian, that's not really accurate. There'd be no "need" for Socianism/Unitarianism, perhaps.


Mormonism is Protestant, and Restorationist.

Mormonism is Restorationist & Protestant-derived. But rejecting sola scriptura dumps it out of the Protestant camp. Really, it is a non-Christian religion, analogous to Islam.

[Johnston]

No "need" for Protestantism? Erm, considering Protestantism is Trinitarian, that's not really accurate. There'd be no "need" for Socianism/Unitarianism, perhaps.



Mormonism is Restorationist & Protestant-derived. But rejecting sola scriptura dumps it out of the Protestant camp. Really, it is a non-Christian religion, analogous to Islam.Therefore, it may be said that Protestant Trinitarianism is an approximation of the general Germanic feeling combined with Clovis and his ilk, and this being a compromise is almost Celtic in mindset (consider the hybrid nature of the Frankish/French people and their overwhelming influence). Gothic Christianity brokers no compromise at all, and is the true Germanic Christianity.

I would not say that Gnostic Christianity is either Germanic or Roman. It seems more like something a philosopher and his followers would be involved in. Perhaps it is Greek after all then, and a better thing than Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is easy to pin down as separatist and strung out. Gnosticism is impossible to pin down, and the Greek dominions like that would be like a minefield for the Turks to conquer.

[Odoacer]

Therefore, it may be said that Protestant Trinitarianism is an approximation of the general Germanic feeling combined with Clovis and his ilk, and this being a compromise is almost Celtic in mindset (consider the hybrid nature of the Frankish/French people and their overwhelming influence). Gothic Christianity brokers no compromise at all, and is the true Germanic Christianity.

I would not say that Gnostic Christianity is either Germanic or Roman. It seems more like something a philosopher and his followers would be involved in. Perhaps it is Greek after all then, and a better thing than Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is easy to pin down as separatist and strung out. Gnosticism is impossible to pin down, and the Greek dominions like that would be like a minefield for the Turks to conquer.

First, what is this so-called "Germanic feeling"? The important ideas that spurred the Reformation were doctrines like sola scriptura & sola fide. What "Germanic feeling" do these capture? Second, the Gothic Arians were more tolerant of the Catholics than vice versa, so "brokers no compromise at all" is hardly an accurate descriptor of their Christianity. The Visigoths in particular eventually agreed to abandon Arianism & adopt the Catholic faith. In Protestantism, the most uncompromising major sect was arguably Calvinism, which wasn't especially Germanic. Third, Christian Gnosticism was basically a synthesis of mystical ideas from Greek, Hebrew, & Eastern sources, expressed largely with Greek philosophical & Christian terminology.

[Johnston]

First, what is this so-called "Germanic feeling"? The important ideas that spurred the Reformation were doctrines like sola scriptura & sola fide. What "Germanic feeling" do these capture? Second, the Gothic Arians were more tolerant of the Catholics than vice versa, so "brokers no compromise at all" is hardly an accurate descriptor of their Christianity. The Visigoths in particular eventually agreed to abandon Arianism & adopt the Catholic faith. In Protestantism, the most uncompromising major sect was arguably Calvinism, which wasn't especially Germanic. Third, Christian Gnosticism was basically a synthesis of mystical ideas from Greek, Hebrew, & Eastern sources, expressed largely with Greek philosophical & Christian terminology.Arianism was the least compromising in its theology to predominant Christianity of the basic Roman population, because its demographic origins were in Germania, rather than elsewhere. Political choices to change this in the process of assimilation does not change that fact. Like I said, post-Constantinian Christianity is rife with squabbles over trifling differences. Only in the pre-Constantinian period was there a true diversity more than on a demographic level, in which theology was so radically different, in a period when the demographics were also.

[Frederick]

Edit: this is not meant to come to your ears

[Johnston]

Oh, evil Mormons, waah!

[Odoacer]

Arianism was the least compromising in its theology to predominant Christianity of the basic Roman population, because its demographic origins were in Germania, rather than elsewhere. Political choices to change this in the process of assimilation does not change that fact.

How was Arianism any less theologically compromising than Catholicism? I don't know where you're getting that idea. Moreover, Arianism originated in Egypt, not Germania. It spread rather quickly in the Roman Empire, especially in the eastern Mediterranean, & in fact threatened to overwhelm Catholicism; at least two emperors were themselves Arian or semi-Arian. The Goths & a few other Germanic tribes were converted to Arianism thanks to the missionary activity of Ulfilas, who was supported by the (semi-) Arian emperor Constantius II. You don't think politics was involved there? The Goths saw nothing desirable in becoming closer to the much admired & dominant Roman Empire? (Not to deny the sincerity of their faith - but the picture you paint is far too naïve.)


Like I said, post-Constantinian Christianity is rife with squabbles over trifling differences. Only in the pre-Constantinian period was there a true diversity more than on a demographic level, in which theology was so radically different, in a period when the demographics were also.

You're simply wrong.

[Amapola]

No, they are not trinitarians because the persons of the trinity have a diverse category for them and got to be gods through a evolutive process of divinization. I can become a god too next weekend this way.

[Lurker]

They believe that Jesus Christ is god and that the only path of salvation goes through him. So yes, they fit my Christian criteria.

[Lurker]

Mormons believe in something called Eternal Progression, which is a process by which devout Mormons can eventually become gods (Exaltation). Believing in the existence of multiple gods is polytheism. :)

There are plenty of sites on Google that talk about it, but here is one from a UK church: http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/etimplications.htm

This thing about believers becoming gods they actually got from the Bible (psalm 82 if I'm not mistaken, and jesus' argument against the pharisees in John 10).

[Johnston]

How was Arianism any less theologically compromising than Catholicism? I don't know where you're getting that idea. Moreover, Arianism originated in Egypt, not Germania. It spread rather quickly in the Roman Empire, especially in the eastern Mediterranean, & in fact threatened to overwhelm Catholicism; at least two emperors were themselves Arian or semi-Arian. The Goths & a few other Germanic tribes were converted to Arianism thanks to the missionary activity of Ulfilas, who was supported by the (semi-) Arian emperor Constantius II. You don't think politics was involved there? The Goths saw nothing desirable in becoming closer to the much admired & dominant Roman Empire? (Not to deny the sincerity of their faith - but the picture you paint is far too naïve.)



You're simply wrong.You merely agreed with my sentiments, that political sentiments determined affiliation, just like in the Reformation. The only ironic thing is that Arianism existed as a demographic hegemon in the areas most stridently counter-Reformatory much later on. Perhaps that is overcompensation, no?


No, they are not trinitarians because the persons of the trinity have a diverse category for them and got to be gods through a evolutive process of divinization. I can become a god too next weekend this way.Who cares one way or the other about Trinity and Unity? Each is true in its own way. Jesus Christ Himself said that only blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was unforgivable, and one can deny both the Son and Father.:D

[Odoacer]

You merely agreed with my sentiments, that political sentiments determined affiliation, just like in the Reformation. The only ironic thing is that Arianism existed as a demographic hegemon in the areas most stridently counter-Reformatory much later on. Perhaps that is overcompensation, no?

You claimed that Arianism was the most uncompromising form of Christianity because it originated Germania (which is false) & was adhered to by Germanic tribes. When I pointed out that the Visigoths abandoned Arianism for Catholicism, you dismissed the point as irrelevant because the change was politically motivated. Now, when I point out that Arianism was adopted by the Goths in the first place with political overtones, you say that I'm simply agreeing with you? You're the one claiming that Arianism "brokers no compromise at all." If that's the case, why did the Arian Goths, um, compromise? Also, Arianism was never a "demographic hegemon" in any geographic area after the Second Council of Constantinople. It retained adherents only amongst the Goths, Vandals, & Burgundians. The Goths & Vandals were minorities in the lands they conquered, while the Burgundians ruled over a relatively small territory in southeastern France until they were conquered by the Franks, by which time many Burgundians were Catholic anyway (again, compromising!). You seem to be very confused about the history of Christianity.


Who cares one way or the other about Trinity and Unity? Each is true in its own way. Jesus Christ Himself said that only blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was unforgivable, and one can deny both the Son and Father.:D

Mormons aren't even monotheists - they are "monolatrists" at best - so the question of being Trinitarian or Unitarian is irrelevant to their position within or without Christianity.

[Johnston]

You claimed that Arianism was the most uncompromising form of Christianity because it originated Germania (which is false) & was adhered to by Germanic tribes. When I pointed out that the Visigoths abandoned Arianism for Catholicism, you dismissed the point as irrelevant because the change was politically motivated. Now, when I point out that Arianism was adopted by the Goths in the first place with political overtones, you say that I'm simply agreeing with you? You're the one claiming that Arianism "brokers no compromise at all." If that's the case, why did the Arian Goths, um, compromise? Also, Arianism was never a "demographic hegemon" in any geographic area after the Second Council of Constantinople. It retained adherents only amongst the Goths, Vandals, & Burgundians. The Goths & Vandals were minorities in the lands they conquered, while the Burgundians ruled over a relatively small territory in southeastern France until they were conquered by the Franks, by which time many Burgundians were Catholic anyway (again, compromising!). You seem to be very confused about the history of Christianity.



Mormons aren't even monotheists - they are "monolatrists" at best - so the question of being Trinitarian or Unitarian is irrelevant to their position within or without Christianity.It is you who is misrepresenting my position as a strawman and constantly making mountains out of molehills. There is no theological middle ground in history between Trinitarians and Unitarians, and that is what I meant about a lack of compromise. I myself have little trouble figuring out how they work together just fine, according to my reference of Jesus about blasphemy, but political conditions are hardly cool and objective. We all know this, so relax.:cool:

[Amapola]

Mormons aren't even monotheists - they are "monolatrists" at best - so the question of being Trinitarian or Unitarian is irrelevant to their position within or without Christianity.

Hmmm, even taking into account the lax criterions of modern ecumenism, they are not: Trinitarian God (failed), Jesuschrist divinity and baptism (failed, as the invocation to the trinity is impossible). And this is a modern ecumenist statement, so go figure what traditionalism would say!

For me it's more than simple, they deny the essential fundamental doctrines of Christianism, so they are not Christian, period.

[Johnston]

Hmmm, even taking into account the lax criterions of modern ecumenism, they are not: Trinitarian God (failed), Jesuschrist divinity and baptism (failed, as the invocation to the trinity is impossible). And this is a modern ecumenist statement, so go figure what traditionalism would say!

For me it's more than simple, they deny the essential fundamental doctrines of Christianism, so they are not Christian, period.Then you would deny anything other than that agreed upon at the Council of Nicea, even though it had existed until that time in widespread distribution among self-professed Christians? Consider Arianism and Pelagianism. This means if it did not pass that test, it should not be Christian? Of course you would not agree, because this would undermine Roman authority over the Church, a la Donations of Constantine and Pepin, etc.

[Odoacer]

It is you who is misrepresenting my position as a strawman and constantly making mountains out of molehills. There is no theological middle ground in history between Trinitarians and Unitarians, and that is what I meant about a lack of compromise.

No, that's clearly not what you meant. You've claimed that Arianism is the least compromising form of Christianity. You've tied this, absurdly, to its supposed Germanic character, & have thus claimed that if Clovis had chosen Arianism rather than Catholicism, the Reformation probably wouldn't have been necessary, since you consider the Reformation an expression of "Germanic feeling." I understand your argument, as it has thus been stated, & I have represented it accurately. If you have misstated your argument, you can hardly blame me.

[Johnston]

No, that's clearly not what you meant. You've claimed that Arianism is the least compromising form of Christianity. You've tied this, absurdly, to its supposed Germanic character, & have thus claimed that if Clovis had chosen Arianism rather than Catholicism, the Reformation probably wouldn't have been necessary, since you consider the Reformation an expression of "Germanic feeling." I understand your argument, as it has thus been stated, & I have represented it accurately. If you have misstated your argument, you can hardly blame me.The essence of my statement is that the Germanic peoples have usually been prone to worship in their own form. When they were polytheists, they worshipped Tyr rather than Deus. When they became Christian, they worshipped Arian rather than Athanasian. They eventually broke Western Christendom in half on account of their innate differences. Of course, this is painting a broad brush, since Protestantism and Germanic qualities are not coterminous. You can be fixated on the details to no end if it suits you to win some argument that was not even intended to be there on the end of somebody else. Find another punching bag.:rolleyes2:

[Odoacer]

The essence of my statement is that the Germanic peoples have usually been prone to worship in their own form. When they were polytheists, they worshipped Tyr rather than Deus. When they became Christian, they worshipped Arian rather than Athanasian. They eventually broke Western Christendom in half on account of their innate differences. Of course, this is painting a broad brush, since Protestantism and Germanic qualities are not coterminous. You can be fixated on the details to no end if it suits you to win some argument that was not even intended to be there on the end of somebody else. Find another punching bag.:rolleyes2:

Eh, whatever. :ranger: