Council of 1879

One more Romney-related post before moving on ...

I said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region? Or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879? Or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die heretic!" And I pushed him off the bridge ...

That classic Emo Phillips bit* gets at something we discuss quite a bit here, particularly on Fridays -- the exclusive arrogance of the RTCs (real, true Christians). The authors of Left Behind are just one example of the kind of Christians who seem to delight in separating the wheat of the RTCs from the tares of the reprobate nonbelievers who -- falsely, in their view -- also claim the name "Christian." The "wheat and tares" there refers to this parable -- which expressly teaches that making such distinctions is Not Your Job because you're bound to get it wrong:

"While you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest."

That's not the only thing Jesus had to say about the subject, of course. He also said things like "By their fruits you will know them" (ZOMG -- works righteousness!) and "In the same way you judge others, you will be judged" and "Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord,'" and many other things that are relevant here. But the parable of the wheat and the weeds/tares does provide, at the very least, a useful general guideline: If someone says they are a Christian, it's not my place to correct them.

Our Mormon neighbors provide a complicating wrinkle to the application of this rule. "We're Christians too," they say, "just like you." The latter part of that claim -- the "just like you" part -- is certainly not the case. There are some pretty big differences, such as for example the entire Book of Mormon.

Those of us Christians who do not believe that this newest testament is holy scripture thus find ourselves in a paradoxical situation: We're asked, out of respect for our Mormon friends, to overlook this difference and to dismiss everything in that book as adiaphora and inconsequential trivia.

I have a hard time viewing such a dismissal as respectful of their faith. I want to say, instead, that the content of their holy book matters -- that it shapes their faith and doctrine and identity in a meaningful way. If the Book of Mormon is meaningful, then it also seems reasonable to say that the teachings of this text distinguish Mormons from non-Mormons. And the category of non-Mormons here includes all of those Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic and other believers traditionally referred to by the descriptive term "Christians."

Please note, I am trying to be strictly descriptive here and no judgments are intended or implied in this description. As a descriptive term, the word "Christian" means many things, but it does not mean everything. One of the many things that "Christian" does not mean is "a follower of the prophet Mohammad who regards the Koran and its teachings as sacred." The proper description for such a person would be "Muslim" or "Islamic." Acknowledging this distinction is a sign of respect for followers of both faiths. It is a distinction that adherents of both religions would agree with and insist on.

Mormons are also, at this purely descriptive level, distinct from non-Mormon Christians, but this distinction is problematic in a way that the distinction between Christians and Muslims is not. Like most non-Mormon Christians, I'm inclined to say, without intending any disrespect, that one of the many things that "Christian" does not mean is "a follower of the prophet Joseph Smith who regards the Book of Mormon and its teaching as sacred." Yet many Mormons would find this statement offensive. Such a statement, they say, is not strictly descriptive, but is a form of passing judgment no different from the RTC's claim that everyone who disagrees with Tim LaHaye's eschatology is damned to Hell.

This is perplexing even to talk about because the disagreement here includes a dispute over the nature or category of that disagreement. Mormons insist that this disagreement is an intrafaith dispute between insiders -- no different from the disputes between, say, Calvinists and Catholics. Non-Mormon Christians, on the other hand, see this as an interfaith disagreement -- a dispute between insiders and outsiders. This again suggests a bewildering situation in which non-Mormons seem to be regarding the substance of the Book of Mormon as more significant than it is regarded by Mormons themselves.

I think it is both possible and necessary, in our pluralistic world, to discuss both intrafaith and interfaith disputes civilly and with respect, but I'm not sure how best to do that in this context. It seems the only way to discuss this disagreement without giving offense is to concede the argument and deny that the disagreement matters. I don't want to do either. Non-Mormon Christians and Mormons believe very different things. We need to be able to acknowledge that without either of us telling the other what they ought to believe.

So -- he said, grateful for the robust diversity of perspectives usually found in the comments here and hoping to hear from as wide a range of views as possible -- what do you think? Is it possible to maintain the idea that X means anything more than just "all who choose to say they are X" without becoming as exclusive and arrogantly judgmental as the RTCs?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Similar Old Joke:

This guy's sitting on an airplane and the old man next to him pulls out a giant, leatherbound King James Version Scofield Reference Guide Study Bible. Guy says, "Wow, that's a huge Bible, I take it you're a Christian too?"

Old man says, "I am a Southern Baptist. What are you?"

Guy says, "United Methodist."

"I see," the old man says, wrinkling his nose.

"What?" the guy says, "You think only Baptists are going to Heaven?"

"Of course not," the old man says. "Not all Baptists."

Comments

[Bugmaster]

I guess one way of drawing the distinction would be to classify the Abrahamic faiths by the primary entity that their followers worship. In this case, we'd get:

Sunni Islam: Mohammed
Shiite Islam: Mohammed
Catholics: Jesus
Baptists: Jesus
Evangelicals: Jesus
Mormons: Joseph Smith
Jews: YHVH

So, we have four different religions on our hands. If we were to draw a "phylomemetic" tree for them, the followers of Joseph Smith would be closer to the followers of Jesus than the followers of Mohammed, but they'd still constitute their own category.

[GailVortex]

But, Bug, no Mormon is going to agree with you that they "worship" Joseph Smith at all, much less that he is the primary entity that they do. And Muslims worship Allah, not Mohammed.

Mohammed is the primary prophet for Islam, though. Maybe Joseph Smith qualifies as the "definitive prophet" of the Mormons?

[Geds]

So I assume you'll give us an easy one tomorrow, right Freddy? Like how about peace in the Mideast or finding in nature an example of a number of objects equal to the square root of negative one...

Anyway, to riff on Bugmaster, I think that more than the people, the big thing to look at is the book that is offered by evangelists. If you run in to a Christian handing out Scripture, you're probably going to get a little green New Testament. A Muslim would hand you a Koran. A Mormon will give you the Book of Mormon.

The Bible is one of the four books of the Mormon canon (the other two being The Pearl of Great Price and, um, something else). Yet whenever you see a Mormon evangelist you invariably see the Book of Mormon. Similarly, when you see a Christian evangelist you'll probably see a New Testament, which actually requires slightly more work since the Old and New Testaments are generally codified as two halves of the same book. A Christian evangelist would never split the books and offer an Old Testament or just a Torah.

If someone handed me a New Testament, I'd say, "Oh, you're a Christian." If someone handed me a Book of Mormon, I'd say, "Oh, you're a Mormon." It's fairly simplistic, I suppose, but it's kind of important.

The place where the distinctions get really fun is when the Reformed Latter-Day Saints get involved.

[Bugmaster]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "worship", but yeah, both the "primary prophet" and the "primary scripture" tests work just as well.

[Jos]

I don't know anything about the Book of Mormon or Mormons in general, except that they are pretty America-centred or something.

However, the thing is, I don't think Mormons should be thrown out of the 'Christian' club simply because they have a different book. After all, Catholics and Protestants have different books too: the Bible. And, OK, yes, there were probably some pretty heavy disputes between the Catholics and the Protestants about those books that are/are not in the Bible, but they don't deny they're still Christians.

And since the Book of Mormon is not even claimed to be an actual part of the Bible but some kind of supplement or something (is my speculation), I don't see that much of a problem.

[Jesurgislac]

I don't have a problem with defining Mormons as "Christians who believe the Book of Mormon is true" or as "Christians who believe that Joseph Smith was a holy prophet". I'm sure there are more subtle ways in which one could distinguish Mormons from other Christians.

Nor am I sure why you would have a problem with this, Fred. You don't have a problem with defining Rapturists or RTCs as "Christians who believe that the Book of Revelation is a prophecy of the End Times".

I was brought up a member of one of the smaller sects: my parents and my sister identify as Quakers, or "Christians who believe in the Peace Testimony" or "Christians who believe that all of life is sacramental" (and so are, I think, almost the only sect of Christianity that doesn't do Holy Communion, ever, because each meal is meant to be regarded as a sacred breaking-of-bread) or "Christians who have abolished the laity". I've met Quakers who identified as Muslim Quakers or Buddhist Quakers: there is (and has been for some time) whether Quakers should define themselves as a sect of Christianity.

Mormons are Christians who believe in something weird that no other Christian sect believes in.

That describes quite a few Christian sects: even the Catholics, who would hate to be defined as a "sect", believe in "Papal infallibility" which no other Christian sect believes in, either.

[burgundy]

I once got grief from a (non-Jewish) friend for saying definitively that Messianic Jews are not actually Jews (or, really, Messianic Judaism is not really Judaism. It's possible that some of the adherents are technically Jews.) Apparently I wasn't being inclusive enough, or I was being judgmental, or hypocritical since I'm Reform, or something. But it seems pretty straightforward to me - if your religion teaches that Jesus is/was the messiah, then your religion is not Judaism. It might not be exactly Christianity either, or it might be a weird type of Christianity, but it is not Judaism.

I'm inclined to say the same thing about Mormons, but I don't feel like I have any business saying what other religions' fundamental defining principles are. I do think it's fair to say sometimes, "Look, your religion is totally fine with me, but the only way for concepts to have meaning is for them to have boundaries, something that separates them from the things that are not-them. And what you've done is moved beyond the boundary of this religion."

[Geds]

Jos:

And here we see the problem.

I say that Mormons and "Christians" have a different conception of Jesus. You could then counter that fundamentalist Christians have a different conception than Coptic Christians and that the Gnostic Christians have a different one, too. And you'd be absolutely right.

I think Bugs and I managed to lay down a couple of simplistic definitions that can easily be shot full of holes. This could be why the Christian v. Mormon debate feels a lot like herding cats.

[Toby]

This again suggests a bewildering situation in which non-Mormons seem to be regarding the substance of the Book of Mormon as more significant than it is regarded by Mormons themselves.

If you step outside the PR realm, I think Mormons do think the Book of Mormon is terribly important, and they agree with non-Mormons that it distinguishes true Christians from nominal Christians: those who believe in the Book of Mormon are true Christians, those who don't, aren't. At least, it says as much in some of those pamphlets they hand out. Joseph Smith asked someone (Moroni, I think) which of the churches at the time were true; he was told none of them, and went on to establish (re-establish?) the only true church.

[Majromax]

Not general enough. You have to list, in order, the most important people or objects that reveal the divine nature. With that in mind, you'd probably have something like: (prepare to flame away)

Islam[2]: Mohammad, Koran, Allah
Catholics: Jesus, Pope, Mary/Saints[1], Bible, God
Evangelicals/Fundamentalists: Bible, Jesus, God
Mormons: Jesus, Joseph Smith/Book of Mormon, Bible, God
Jews: Torah, Talmud, Rabbinical tradition, YVWH

I'm listing the holy books in front of the divine being themselves because the books are physically present. They can be read, interpreted, and discussed in a way that the ephemeral presence of divinity can't. Indeed, anyone claiming to have new revelation from on high is likely insane.

The relative orderings in this list quickly show the differences in religion. Drawing primary inspiration from the mythology of Jesus gives a very different religion than drawing primary inspiration from the text of the Bible.

In particular, we see what the Mormons have that other Christians don't -- Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Not only do they draw inspiration from the person and book, but they also would give the newer revelations precedence over the older Jesus/Bible. A definition of Christianity that is merely a checklist ("Draw inspiration from Jesus, the Bible, and God") is flexible enough to include Mormons; one that either talks about order or is exclusive ("Draw inspiration only Jesus, the Bible, and God") is not.

[1] - I'm not familiar enough with Catholic theology to properly rank the Pope and the Saints in terms of how much they reflect the divine nature in practice to Catholics. This is just a guess.
[2] - The various branches of Islam are missing because I'm not at all familiar with them. Indeed, I'm not very familiar with Islam as a faith at all. Specifically for the short list, the ranking of the Koran and Mohammad might flip, and I know I'm ignoring other religious texts.

[Jesurgislac]

Burgundy, if you put a gray wolf and a spaniel next to each other, I'm sure both would look at the other (unless one was male and one was on heat) and go "Look, your species is totally fine with me, but the only way for concepts to have meaning is for them to have boundaries, something that separates them from the things that are not-them. And what you've done is moved beyond the boundary of this species."

Nevertheless, if one was male and one was on heat, they could make rather noisy canis lupus love together, and later, have puppies. And the puppies would not be sterile mules but fully fertile mongrels.

Judaism and Christianity and Islam are all related species: Mormonism is a sub-species of Christianity.

[Jesurgislac]

Majromax: Indeed, anyone claiming to have new revelation from on high is likely insane.

Tell that to Spencer W. Kimball.

[Ursula L]

A useful comparison when considering the Christian/Mormon divide as defined by books included in the list of sacred scripture would be to consider the Protestant/Catholic divide in books considered as sacred scripture - with the Catholics including several books that many Protestant groups consider apocryphal.

If you're counting both Catholics and Protestants as "Christian Just Like You" then it would seem that absolute agreement on what is scripture is not a defining aspect of Christianity.

There is also some historical disagreement among Protestants as to whether or not the Old Testament was properly considered scripture - my father's church (American Baptist) has some text in the articles of association specifying that Old and New Testament would be used as scripture, as a way of defining themselves based on this divide.

The obvious solution is to accept that people can be Christian in a way that is not "just like you" even down to the fundamental point of what scripture is used.

But that also seems to ignore some important differences. For example, the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead by proxy, or the practice in some denominations of baptizing infants, seems Very Very Wrong to someone raised in a Baptist church where self-determination of faith is considered of paramount importance.

I guess the point, as framed in the original post, seems too narrowly defined to straighten out the controversy of what is or isn't Christian.

[joXn]

Isn't it true that if we went through the Nicene Creed and discussed point by point the theological meat of the various statements, the broad group we classify as "Christians" would pretty much agree on everything, while the Mormons would have significant differences? And that, evaluated that way, Mormons believe a whole host of dogma (about the nature of God, Jesus, the Trinity, and so forth) which have been classified as heretical since at least the Council of Nicaea?

Basically, Christianity is a game which is played according to a certain ruleset, which has been pretty well established since the middle of the 1st millennium. The Mormons don't play by those rules; so it's legitimate to say they're playing a different game.

[Doctor Science]

Jesurgislac:

I was thinking of the same analogy. I'd agree that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are in the same genus, but I'd say that Mormonism is a subspecies of Christianity that is evolving to be a separate species.

Conversely, the Christian subspecies Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy are currently introgressing, e.g. via the Liturgical Movement.

By those standards, Mormonism may count as a full species within the subgenus or species group of Christianity, because it's more different from Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism than each of them are from each other.

Whether I would call the LDS "Christian" would depend on who I was talking to. If I was forced to be completely honest rather than kind, though, I'd say that they aren't mainstream Christians.

[Toby]

Is it possible to maintain the idea that X means anything more than just "all who choose to say they are X" without becoming as exclusive and arrogantly judgmental as the RTCs?

Without becoming exclusive? No. If you're excluding, that's exclusive. Without becoming judgmental? No. If you're judging, that's judgmental. Without becoming arrogant? Well, I think so, but the ones you're judging might see things differently. There's no value-neutral, purely descriptive way to go about things, because there's an underlying dispute as to what it means to describe a person or a church as "Christian".

Here's the main reason why I'm disinclined to call Mormonism any kind of Christianity.

As far as I know, it remains part of Mormon doctrine that God was once a mortal on another planet, who lived a good Mormon life, and was deified or some such by the entity who was God of his planet, and made the God of this planet. And if a Mormon man here on Earth lives a good Mormon life, he too can be deified, and made the God of some other planet, etc.

So, the sci-fi aspects of that are pretty weird, but I'm pretty indifferent to those. What I'm not indifferent to is this: if you really believe that God is nothing more than just a well-behaved man, then I'm not sure you actually believe in God at all. If you really think that an asshat like me could convert to Mormonism, live a well-behaved Mormon life, and then become God, then I don't think you mean anything like God by "God".

(Emphasis on the "really" there--not everyone buys entirely into the theology of the church they follow.)

Now this is essential: before you can be a Christian, you have to believe in God. With this in mind, I'd be inclined to say that Jews and Muslims are in fact closer to Christianity than a Mormon who truly believes that God is just a well-behaved dude. Hell, I think the same goes for at least some Hindus and Buddhists, and who knows who else.

[cjmr]

Majormax--You need Magisterium in there, too for Catholicism.

IMHO it should go: Jesus, Bible/Magisterium/Pope, Saints (including Mary), God

[Jesurgislac]

Ursula: But that also seems to ignore some important differences. For example, the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead by proxy, or the practice in some denominations of baptizing infants, seems Very Very Wrong to someone raised in a Baptist church where self-determination of faith is considered of paramount importance.

Quakers don't baptise at all. Nor is there a confirmation nor indeed any special ceremony where a Quaker child is received into the Meeting. (At some point, when an attender - child or adult - has been coming to Meeting for some time, a member of that Meeting will ask the attender if they want to become a member.

Dr Science: Conversely, the Christian subspecies Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy are currently introgressing, e.g. via the Liturgical Movement.

Also schisming, e.g. via the questions of women as priests and bishops, recognition of LGBT people and same-sex relationships, married clergy, &c. Also, of course, there are Catholics who think the only point of the Liturgical Movement is to make other churches more like the Catholic Church, Protestants who don't do any liturgy at all, and Greek Orthodox who still regret losing the same-sex marriage service.

[A Kennedy]

I guess one way of drawing the distinction would be to classify the Abrahamic faiths by the primary entity that their followers worship. In this case, we'd get:

Sunni Islam: Mohammed
Shiite Islam: Mohammed
Catholics: Jesus
Baptists: Jesus
Evangelicals: Jesus
Mormons: Joseph Smith
Jews: YHVH

See, this is definitely where we differ. If I were to write this chart, it would look like this:

Sunni Islam: God
Shiite Islam: God
Catholics: God
Baptists: God
Evangelicals: God
Mormons: Joseph God
Jews: God

(A little note, by the way -- the thought that Christians worship Jesus as God (and the only God) is Just Not So. In fact, some Anglican thinkers have labeled this as a heresy called "Chistolatry." Take that for what you will, but as a trinitarian, a Christian is expected to worship God in the Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.)

The fact is, yes, it matters which person you consider to be of which religion. But it also matters whether you consider nominal religion to be of great importance to the pursuit of truth and faith. Not everyone agrees that it REALLY, REALLY MATTERS whether you are a Mormon or a Baptist, nor indeed whether you are a Jew or a Christian. I realise that some people may be offended by this, but I also tend to notice that those who are most offended by being "lumped in" with other believers of "different faiths" are those who are most concerned about their own ideas, and least concerned about the truth about God. Just my observations, mind you.

[Hemingway]

As a former Mormon and current athiest, I may have something to add here. First, it probably makes sense to start with my definition of a "Christian": Someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, that his death made the salvation of humans possible, and that he was resurrected.

Working with this definition, I don't think there is any question that Mormons are Christians. They believe all of these things, and they are central to their worship. They don't worship Joseph Smith or any other prophet, ancient or modern-day, in any meaningful sense. In my experience, Joseph Smith was viewed by Mormons as a combination of George Washington and Moses, a founding father with a direct line to God. But, he was not viewed as divine, is not prayed to, and he plays no role in the Mormon's idea of salvation.

I would also question whether the Book of Mormon is their primary scripture. In my experience, the new and old testaments got about equal play with the BoM (the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price got very little attention, in general). Indeed, I would guess that more Mormons have read the New Testament than the BoM, if only because the Book of Mormon is a tougher read (this is a wild ass-pull, though, I don't really know).

As a current athiest, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but for those who would not define Mormons as Christian, I would be very curious to know how their definitian of "Christian" is different than mine. Because based on my definition, I really don't even see how you could argue that they are not Christian.

Hemingway (First time poster)

[Jesurgislac]

joXn: Isn't it true that if we went through the Nicene Creed and discussed point by point the theological meat of the various statements, the broad group we classify as "Christians" would pretty much agree on everything

Well, except for the Religious Society of Friends, who would argue that reciting creeds is as unnecessary and improper as swearing an oath. Quakers have no creed.

[A Kennedy]

As far as I know, it remains part of Mormon doctrine that God was once a mortal on another planet, who lived a good Mormon life, and was deified or some such by the entity who was God of his planet, and made the God of this planet. And if a Mormon man here on Earth lives a good Mormon life, he too can be deified, and made the God of some other planet, etc.

This is a "well-known fact" that I've never seen any evidence for (even in the book of Mormon, which I haven't finished, though). Do you have a cite?

[Geds]

Quakers don't baptise at all.

They're not the only ones. Most flavors of protestantism down towards the evangelical side will still call you a Christian even if you haven't been baptized. It's just a public declaration of faith and not a necessity to them.

Isn't it true that if we went through the Nicene Creed and discussed point by point the theological meat of the various statements, the broad group we classify as "Christians" would pretty much agree on everything, while the Mormons would have significant differences?

Probably. Although that, too, could be weird. A Mormon might say they believe in God the Father and Jesus the Son, just like it's printed in the Nicene Creed, but, as Toby pointed out, "As far as I know, it remains part of Mormon doctrine that God was once a mortal on another planet, who lived a good Mormon life, and was deified or some such by the entity who was God of his planet, and made the God of this planet." Since that is the case, God the Father of Christianity and God the Father of Mormonism would be very different. Mormonism similarly maintains Jesus, but has some stuff about how Jesus and Satan were both sons of God and were the two firstborn of life on Earth (and, possibly, repeated everywhere in the universe where there's one of these Mormon god beings).

[ako]

If I were going to categorize Mormons purely for my own convenience, I wouldn't consider them Christians, for the same reason I wouldn't categorize Christianity as a type of Judaism, Islam as a type of Christianity, or Buddhism as a type of Hinduism. They're related, but the cosmology and practice have changed enough that I'd consider them a new religion.

However, it isn't just about my convenience. People have emotional investments in identities, and for some outside to say, "You're not really this, but something else!" is harsh and presumptive. It's not something to be undertaken lightly, particularly when there are few or no objective reasons to favor one system of categorization over another. I haven't got a Christianometer to point at people and determine if they're really Christian or not. It doesn't show up on blood tests, and Christians don't give off measurable Christian rays. It's really me preferring my conclusions over what people who are actually emotionally invested think.

So I don't know.

[Hemingway]

[i]This is a "well-known fact" that I've never seen any evidence for (even in the book of Mormon, which I haven't finished, though). Do you have a cite? [/i]

I'm twenty years out from being a practicing Mormon, but I can confirm that this is true. I've heard it out of the mouth of the president of their church (via satellite, not in person). The belief is most likely based on something from the Doctrine and Covenants, but honestly I don't remember where.

So to answer your question, no I don't have a cite. But if you can't believe an anonymous poster on the internet, who can you believe?

When I get a chance, I look through the D&C and see if I can find proof of my assertion.

Hemingway

[Geds]

I'm twenty years out from being a practicing Mormon, but I can confirm that this is true. I've heard it out of the mouth of the president of their church (via satellite, not in person). The belief is most likely based on something from the Doctrine and Covenants, but honestly I don't remember where.

Well, according to Wikipedia (who we can trust even more than an anonymous internet poster who showed up out of nowhere on a message board claiming to be a former practitioner of an oft-ostracized faith currently being debated[/snark]), it is based on a verse in the Doctrine & Covenants, specifically 132:30.

This is the Wikipedia entry on Exaltation, which is apparently then name of the doctrine.

[John]

not everyone buys entirely into the theology of the church they follow--Toby

I might even go so far as to say that no one buys entirely into the theology of the church they follow. It just doesn't seem humanly possible.

[Caravelle]

The thing is, and I suppose somebody already mentioned this, if Mormons are Christian, then wouldn't Christians (and maybe even Muslims) be Jews ?

They all believe in the same God after all, Christians just add a Messiah, and Muslims and Mormons add a prophet (one difference between the two being that Muslims don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, while Mormons do).

So if you distinguish Christians from Jews from Muslims, logically you should distinguish Mormons as well.

[Jesurgislac]

Ako, it's been my impression that people only ask the question "So are they (whoever they are) really Christians?" if they already know the answer they want is "No".

If Christianity is a species, Quakers and Mormons are weird sub-species. That Fred has never asked whether Quakers are Christians is probably because the Quakers he knows appear to be nice, likeable, peaceful, untroublesome people.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha.

[Hemingway]

Well, according to Wikipedia (who we can trust even more than an anonymous internet poster who showed up out of nowhere on a message board claiming to be a former practitioner of an oft-ostracized faith currently being debated[/snark]), it is based on a verse in the Doctrine & Covenants, specifically 132:30.

That looks right. I don't think there's any controversy that Mormons believe that humans can become Gods (I thought that was wicked cool when I was ten). That's thick throughout their doctrine. Also according to Wikipedia, there seems to be some current controversy going on in the church whether the idea that God was once a Man is doctrine, even though many "prophets" have said exactly that. (I'm guessing this is one of their many doctrinal back-pedals where politics/reality trump "the word of God." See: polygamy, racism, etc. One of the disadvantages of a relatively recent birth for a religion is that their inconsistencies are well recorded.)

I don't begrudge you your skepticism about my motives, as I have seen many stealth Mormons join discussions of the religion in order "set the record straight." I'm a true-blue athiest, though, and haven't been a believing Mormon for nearly twenty years. Just thought I would add my foggy boy-hood recollections to the mix.

Hopefully, this won't be the last time I contribute (I hope I have something to say about something other than Mormonism).

Hemingway

[Robin Lionheart]

And what shall we make of Jeffersonian Christians, those peculiarly atheist Christians who believe in Jesus’s code of morals but not in his divinity or his miracles? Can “Christian” be stretched until it’s no longer religion but philosophy?

[mmack]

That Fred has never asked whether Quakers are Christians is probably because the Quakers he knows appear to be nice, likeable, peaceful, untroublesome people.

Jes, Jes, Jes,

Everybody knows the Quakers are those nice people who make oats. And oatmeal cookies.

[Hemingway]

I'm a true-blue athiest

Also a true-blue misspeller.

[Jesurgislac]

Hemingway: So to answer your question, no I don't have a cite. But if you can't believe an anonymous poster on the internet, who can you believe?

You're going to fit in just fine here. ;-)

[Geds]

I don't begrudge you your skepticism about my motives, as I have seen many stealth Mormons join discussions of the religion in order "set the record straight."

I was just screwing with you, Hemingway. It was in response to your, "But if you can't believe an anonymous poster on the internet, who can you believe?"

We do get a fair amount of Mary Roshes around here, but we can usually sniff 'em out pretty quickly. Your first post seemed more of the, "I've been reading for a while but haven't had anything to say yet," variety.

Besides, you haven't really been initiated in to the Slacktivist world until you've been openly mocked or flamed at least once...

[Caravelle]

Hey, I've got a (relevant ?) question for you religious historians out there : how Jew did the first Christians feel ?

If they believed they were basically Jews, except for the Jesus thing, then it makes sense to accept that Mormons feel the same way about Christianity. And to consider that given the addition of a prophet hasn't made them diverge too much from the Christian "norm" yet*, they can still qualify as Christians...

*this is obviously a subject I know nothing about

[bluefrog]

Information about the planet Kolob can be found in the third chapter of the Book of Abraham, part of the _Pearl of Great Price_ (italics are not my friend). Wikipedia has a fairly extensive article, for whatever it's worth.

[indifferent children]

I've always been taught that Christianity is Monotheistic. If this is a requirement, then Mormons are not Christians, since their Godhead definition means that Father and Son are totally distinct gods.

[A Kennedy]

That Fred has never asked whether Quakers are Christians is probably because the Quakers he knows appear to be nice, likeable, peaceful, untroublesome people.

Like Richard Nixon and Aleister Crowley? Now, I'm just playing around, but isn't interesting that two men considered among the most evil English-speakers of the twentieth century come from Quaker stock?

Just goes to show, anyone can come from anything... it's the fruits (in total) that matter, not one bad apple.

[DN]

Since that is the case, God the Father of Christianity and God the Father of Mormonism would be very different.

Many Real True Christians believe in a God that requires you to believe in a bunch of stuff despite the fact that it seems to be contradicted by all the evidence (creation in seven days, homosexuality as a choice) and if you won't ignore the evidence, you will burn in unquenchable fires for all eternity. I believe in a God of infinite love who doesn't pose trick questions before torturing you for giving the "wrong" answer.

God the Father of Real True Christianity and God the Father of my Christianity are very different.

I'm not sure we share the same religion.

[cjmr]

Richard Nixon? Evil? Seriously?

[Hemingway]

I was just screwing with you, Hemingway. It was in response to your, "But if you can't believe an anonymous poster on the internet, who can you believe?"

We do get a fair amount of Mary Roshes around here, but we can usually sniff 'em out pretty quickly. Your first post seemed more of the, "I've been reading for a while but haven't had anything to say yet," variety.
I was just screwing with you, Hemingway. It was in response to your, "But if you can't believe an anonymous poster on the internet, who can you believe?"

Exactly. I'm relatively new to posting comments on blogs in general, so forgive me for occassionally sounding thin-skinned. I'm really not. So feel free to flame away.

I'll try to contribute more so that you can judge me by my work, rather than my self-serving declarations. Slacktivist is one of the coolest online communities I've ever lurked. As a fairly hard-core athiest, it really helps to remind me of the rainbow of believers out there.

[Geds]

how Jew did the first Christians feel ?

Very. Like, extremely.

For the first hundred years or so, Christianity was seen as basically an offshoot of Judaism. It didn't really come in to its own until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and still clung to its roots until the diaspora following the Bar Kochba Revolt.

Things were a bit different outside of Jewish lands and in places where Christianity was winning converts from amongst Gentiles. We can still see those debates in the writings of Paul about not forcing non-Jewish practitioners of Christianity to follow the Jewish laws and receive circumcision. But the fact that it was a debate and that there were those who made (apparently convincing) arguments to the necessity of following both Christ and Law says a lot.

Early Christianity, in fact, called itself "The Way," indicating "those who followed the way of Jesus of Nazareth," which was an indication of the fact that they did not consider themselves followers of a new religion, but practitioners of an offshoot of Judaism as defined by their teacher.

[treeandleaf]

I think the Patristic-era answer, which had the merit of neatnes, would be to define Christians as those who are baptised using the formula 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'; so Mormons on this theory would be Christians, albeit of a peculiar sort, but Quakers.

But I don't think this proves anything, other than that a neat definition is not always a helpful one. Though don't you get Quakers of other faiths, anyway?

[BugHunter]

Can we just kill them all and let God sort them out? It is His job, after all?

[Toby]

If Christianity is a species, Quakers and Mormons are weird sub-species. That Fred has never asked whether Quakers are Christians is probably because the Quakers he knows appear to be nice, likeable, peaceful, untroublesome people.

That's a dubious analogy. What is there in Quaker doctrine (or practice) which might strike a guy like Fred as contrary to Christianity? Because there's plenty of that in Mormonism.

[Jack Bishop (the other Jake)]

So, if we infer from that passage that our God is a former mortal, deified by the God of his plane, who was once a mortal, I have to ask...

Is it Gods all the way down?

[treeandleaf]

Ack - that should have read 'but Quakers wouldn't be'. Apologies.

[cjmr]

Are Mormons baptized using the trinitarian formula?

[Render]

(First time commenter here, although I've enjoyed the quality of this blog for quite a while.)

Although the verse mentioned above does allude to the Mormon concept of exaltation (or eternal progression, if you like, a concept analogous to the heretical Christian concept of theosis), the primary source of the doctrine is from a sermon that Joseph Smith gave shortly before his death, called the "King Follet Discourse," which is considered the first and last word on the subject. Joseph Smith's rhetorical style in the sermon is a little frustrating to modern ears, but the sermon is certainly bold and unapologetic, if heretical to mainstream Christians.

I don't see too much backpedaling on this particular doctrine, and I would argue that there has not been doctrinal backpedaling on some of the other issues mentioned above. For example, whether Utah's first settlers were right in practicing polygamy has not been questioned in the church although the practice has ceased, hopefully for good. Also, despite the policy repealed in 1978 that had prohibited those of African descent from serving in the lay clergy, the LDS church has been preaching firmly against slavery and racism since it was founded -- a paradox that few outsiders appreciate, and one that made many Mormons uncomfortable in their own skin when they had to reconcile the policy with their (hopefully anti-racist) personal beliefs.

As far as Mormons being Christians, this is a complicated question even to us Mormons. We self-define as Christians for many of the reasons discussed here: belief in the Bible, that Christ is the creator and the Son of God, that salvation is only through him, etc. Mormonism has always considered itself the only authentic Christianity. But I don't think that there is any question either that if you define Christianity by its historical providence, including its creeds and the doctrines codified in the third century, that Mormons are not Christians by that definition. So in my mind, it mostly comes down to semantics.