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

[Geds]

Is it Gods all the way down?

Except the very bottom, where it's a turtle on the back of a turducken.

[A-Diz]

Like Richard Nixon and Aleister Crowley?

Blinks.

That's... probably not what my top two would look like.

[burgundy]

Total sideline: We appear to have both a bughunter and a bugmaster. Is there an inherent role conflict there? Is the bughunter a poacher on the bugmaster's territory? Who trumps?

[Geds]

Render: 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.

So, uh, let's pretend for a moment that I don't know what this "King Follet Discourse" is and that the source I found after my exhaustive (five minute) research on the internet was the Doctrine & Covenants thingy.

Are you saying that Exaltation (as mentioned by Toby, questioned by A Kennedy, and affirmed by Heminingway) is an actual and defended doctrine of the LDS Church? I ask since you're setting yourself up as the expert at the moment.

[Hemingway]

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.

Interesting. This raises a few issues for me:

1. I don't think most Mormons would define Christ as God or even a god. So they don't see themselves as polytheistic. Now maybe this means that a belief that Jesus is a god (or is God, I don't really grock the trinity stuff) should go into the definition of Christianity. I don't know.

2. Mormons do, however, believe that they will someday become gods and, perhaps, that God was once human and worshipped some prior god. This may make them polytheistic by some definitiions, even though they don't worship these other gods. They do seem to acknowledge the reality of other gods, however.

3. I'm not sure why I care. It's interesting (to me at least) that I have an opinion on this. I have now spent more of my life as a non-believer than as a believer, but I still have a moderately-strong opinion that they should be classified as Christian. It is probably partly because I spent those years as a believer sincerely worshipping Christ, so telling me that I wasn't Christian strikes me as somewhat absurd.

Another factor, though, is that I've found that even though I now reject the religion, it still shaped my view of how to approach all religous questions. My former-Mormonism has inclined me toward literal reading of scripture, a belief that if there was any true religion that it would be fairly eternal and unchanging, and, as I mentioned above, the Trinity still strikes me as just plain weird. I try to recognize these inclinations within myself and avoid letting them fossilize, but because religion is only of intellectual interest to me now, I don't know that I'm very successful because I don't have a strong motivation to change. In other words, even now that I am an atheist (woo! spelled it correctly), I still tend to evaluate other religions by the standards that a Mormon would apply. It's a little weird.

[Jesurgislac]

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

The Porridge Testimony, how could I forget?

[Geds]

That's... probably not what my top two would look like.

To be fair, he did limit it to English speakers of the 20th Century. That cuts out Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, the various bloodthirsty Roman Emperors and, y'know, most of the human race.

Although we're still left with Jeffrey Dahmer and the guy who invented those stupid stickers that go at the top of CD cases that just don't come off whatever you do. So Nixon and Crowley are probably top 5 in that list...

[MikhailBorg]

"Lieutenant Gorman, is this going to be a stand-up fight, sir, or another bug hunt?"

[ako]

In other words, even now that I am an atheist (woo! spelled it correctly), I still tend to evaluate other religions by the standards that a Mormon would apply. It's a little weird.

I think that's fairly common. I don't think any religion is real, but my biases towards what religion feels the most real definitely slant towards my grandparents' strain of conservative Catholicism. Everything else gets looked at, at least partially, in comparison. It's completely irrational, I know.

[Render]

Geds, exaltation is not emphasized as much as the concept of progression, that is that through repentance and the grace and forgiveness of Christ, we become more like God. Eternal progression is emphasized more than exaltation because it is a principle that you can use here and now, while eternal life is some far-off lofty thing and we don't know all the details of it. Mormons do indeed believe that the faithful (and that isn't necessarily exclusive to Mormons) can someday become Gods, but I don't think that puts us in a peer relationship to God; he's God, and we're us, and he's always going to be incomprehensibly beyond us.

As far as God being just some guy that made good and got to become a God, that's not really spelled out. I can't conceive of God as just some random guy. God is God.

[Toby]

Hemingway: I don't think most Mormons would define Christ as God or even a god.
[...]
It is probably partly because I spent those years as a believer sincerely worshipping Christ

You worshiped Christ, despite not thinking that Christ is God. This is the sort of thing that makes a (non-Mormon) Christian go, "Bwuh?"

[A-Diz]

I'm not sure this isn't a thoroughly threadjacking question, but why Nixon over any number of other 20th century American presidents?

Because if we're just going for dishonest conservative politicians I can think of other people to stick in the list, who I'd probably rank higher.

[Jesurgislac]

Toby: What is there in Quaker doctrine (or practice) which might strike a guy like Fred as contrary to Christianity?

No Nicene creed. No creed at all, in fact.

The accepted existence of Quakers who are atheists, Muslims, and Buddhists (and those are just the ones I've met).

No baptism, no communion, no laity, that Advices and Queries is as likely to be on the table at the center of the Meeting as a copy of the Bible, no religious service that Fred would be likely to recognize...

[mmack]

Richard Nixon? Evil? Seriously?

Oh yeah. He used to kick Checkers when no one was looking.

[Toby]

Jesurgislac: The accepted existence of Quakers who are atheists, Muslims, and Buddhists (and those are just the ones I've met).

Huh. See, I knew about the lack of sacraments (baptism, etc.), but that seems relatively unproblematic. That stuff there, though... I knew modern-day Quakerism was pretty crazy liberal, but I hadn't known it'd gone that far.

But given that that's the case, the question of whether Quakers are Christians or not doesn't seem worth asking at all. Some Quakers aren't Christian. So, as a group, are Quakers Christian? No.

[MikhailBorg]

why Nixon over any number of other 20th century American presidents?

I might suggest that it was Nixon, more than any president before him, who most destroyed Americans' faith in the executive branch of our government. Sure, we all suspected problems for decades if not longer, but it was Nixon who laid his cards on the table and showed us exactly how he abused his power.

Thanks to Nixon, we barely blink any more when the Chief Executive is revealed to be something less than Presidential.

[Geds]

Render: Interesting. I think, with your assistance, I'm getting farther away from the idea, but something tells me that would happen anyway.

Jesu: I think it's taken as a given that Quaker=Christian, so nobody really worries about it unless it gets tossed out in conversation.

[burgundy]

The next question for me Jesu is why then do you think Quakers are Christians? What is it that allows someone to be, for example, a Muslim Quaker? It is a mix of philosophy and religion, with the religion part optional, or what?

(I ask this as someone with no vested interest in the answer, and not a lot of knowledge, although a general positive impression, of Quakers.)

[Robb]

Are you saying that Exaltation (as mentioned by Toby, questioned by A Kennedy, and affirmed by Heminingway) is an actual and defended doctrine of the LDS Church? I ask since you're setting yourself up as the expert at the moment.

AFAIK, that's in the D&C, and therefore is official doctrine.

As to the semantic issues with Mormons, I see it this way: there's a land developer and a biologist, who are both reviewing legislation about how an outlying rural/wilderness area will be zoned as the neighboring suburban area inevitably expands. The biologist looks at the land with a view toward protecting the native habitat, ensuring the rest of the environment is adversely affected as little as possible. Naturally, she wants to stop the new housing development however possible. The developer, meanwhile, wants to make sure the housing development has a minimum environmental impact for a housing development, and wants to meet or exceed the state statues on how much land must be left as native marshlands or meadows, as well as include value-adding greenspace. Here's the kicker: both would apply to themself the label "environmentalist". The practical difference about what they say & mean is vastly different, even if ostensibly, their motivations seem to be the same.

As an ex-Fundie, I really don't know how I feel anymore about Mormons ("Christians" or not? I dunno), but I do feel that ignoring/burying/forgetting the differences & saying "We're the same as you!" feels disingenuous, even if it doesn't upset me as much as it used to. Mitt Romney is undefinably creepy - I think I'd actually be happier with Huckabee: I know more or less exactly what I'd get from him, much as I'd probably hate it. Of course, there's no way a Republican can win post-Bush anyway, so it doesn't matter.

*****

"Lieutenant Gorman, is this going to be a stand-up fight, sir, or another bug hunt?"

You secure that shit, Hudson!

A "Christian" is "a follower of Christ" or perhaps "one who believes that Christ is holy and whose teachings should be followed." In that sense, a Mormon is a Christian.

From a purely objective point of view, they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- not the Church of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young; although those two are arguably among the collective set of Latter Day Saints, they do not factor into the church's name, which places Jesus Christ at the fore. Ergo: Christian.

In contrast, a Muslim is not a Christian because they do not follow Christ nor believe that his teachings should be followed; rather, they believe that Mohammed's teachings should be followed.

To say that Mormons are not Christians because they have additional leaders from which they gain direction would suggest that you also refer to SDAs as Ellenites, CoEs as Henrites, and Catholics as Papites -- and *not* Christians -- despite the fact that Christ is the basis of those faiths as well.

But then I could turn that around and say that, for example, Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Abrahamites or Mosites or Yahwites or some such. Well, that's actually true, theoretically.

[Richard Hershberger]

This is all about semantics. "Christian" is used in various ways. Fred's post with its descriptive discussion based on accepted scriptures is one way.

Another way is as a description and judgment of a person's character or behavior. Christians in principle are to act in certain ways: loving their neighbors, for example. So we might look at a person who acts lovingly toward his neighbors and say he acts in a Christian manner. Further, we might do this regardless of his professed doctrine. Indeed, we might even use this with respect to someone who explicit rejects Christian doctrine, contrasting his behavior with that of professed Christians. (There is precedent for this: Jesus did something similar in the parable of the Good Samaritan.) It is a short step from "Christian" (or not) behavior to identifying the person as "Christian" (or not).

The problem is that it is nearly impossible to seperate these senses. No matter how carefully explicit you are in strictly defining the narrow sense you are using for purposes of the discussion at hand, as soon as you conclude that some group is "not Christian" someone will get upset at you.

This isn't true of established outside religions (no one gets upset when you point out that a Hindu isn't a Christian) but for any group that could at all plausibly be discussed in this way, there is no hope.

[Hemingway]

You worshiped Christ, despite not thinking that Christ is God. This is the sort of thing that makes a (non-Mormon) Christian go, "Bwuh?"

Excellent point. I see that that appears to be a contridiction, but it doesn't feel like one to me. We worshipped him, but he wasn't a god.

Here's how I always saw it:

First, there's God: He's God. He runs the show, he's got the power to change things and he's in charge of the whole she-bang. I worshipped him, although in a fairly impersonal way. He was there but I never had a real feeling about who he was. Also, to me he was a real, physical being with a body. This, I'm fairly sure was and is Mormon doctrine.

Second, there's Jesus: He's God's son. He's very important in that his death made our salvation possible. I always gathered this was because he was half-human/half-divine (Mormons believe that he is the literal son of God - like in a sperm-ova kind of way). He doesn't run the show, but is worthy of worship (we prayed in his name, I gathered because he was a conduit to God). He doesn't have the power of God, but is more than merely human. I guess you might call him a demi-God.

Third, there's the Holy Ghost. I'll be honest, I never knew what to make of him. He didn't have a body, but was somehow very important. Although the Holy Ghost was mentioned in blessings and baptisms, I wouldn't say that anything like worship was going on. Maybe a practicing Mormon can clarify his position in the theology.

Now remember, I was sixteen when I left the Church, so my views and approach were pretty naive, and my memory foggy. This is very much Mormonism as seen through a glass darkly. But I do think that both my statements (that Mormons don't see Jesus as a god and that Mormons worship Jesus)are true-ish. I'm open to contradiction by those more knowledgable, though.

[Jacob O'Brien]

If it's a question of authority, you could argue that Catholics, who believe in continued revelation (or something like that) through the Pope, are at least as different from Protestants as are Mormons. In any case, it's a question of degrees.

So where do we draw the line? Pragmatically, I'd say it depends on the issue at hand. Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, etc. are often close enough in values that they can work together on certain ethical issues. (Although they're just as often not, and subgroups of each will always dissent.) If we're talking about doing church together or evangelizing together, then they're probably not. So if a Mormon wants to call herself a Christian, I'd have to know what issue we're talking about before I could agree or disagree.

[indifferent children]

> I don't think most Mormons would define Christ as God or even a god. So they don't see themselves as polytheistic.

I think to any non-partisan outside observer, Jesus would have to be considered a god, if he is not just part of a 'bigger' god. Born of a god? Check. Immortal? Check. Independent identity and will? Check. Other tests for divinity...

Regardless of the definition for "god" (lower-case 'g') that Mormons would like to use, I would have to classify their Jesus as a separate god.

> Now maybe this means that a belief that Jesus is a god (or is God, I don't really grock the trinity stuff) should go into the definition of Christianity.

Nobody really groks the Trinity. :) However, the Mormons don't believe in the Trinity*. They believe that Father and Son are two completely separate entities, not three-who-are-one. That means that, unlike mainline Christians, Mormons are not Monotheists.

* Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, there is no controversy among Mormons about the Trinity. They are quite clear that they do not believe in the Trinity.

[hf]

I see one possibility, namely saying that from what you know Mormonism doesn't meet your personal definition of Christianity. This has a small chance of letting you discuss your definition and why you think the difference matters without causing offense. I have no dog in the fight and would generally follow the definition of whoever I choose to speak with about this (on the principle that you can't prove a definition).

[Jesurgislac]

burgundy: The next question for me Jesu is why then do you think Quakers are Christians?

For the same reason that I think Mormons are Christians.

The Religious Society of Friends, like the Latter-Day Saints, come from the Protestant Christian tradition historically and philosophically. The absence of a creed means that Muslims who become Quakers are not required to reject Islam in favor of Christianity, that people can discover they're atheists* and still feel that they are practicing Quakers, that sitting zazen and silent Quaker worship are so similar that Buddhists become Quakers and Quakers become Buddhists, as far as I can see, simply by osmosis.

*Agnostics, possibly. It gets kind of complicated when Friends say that there is that of God in everyone.

[hf]

indifferent children: Yes, but I see no practical difference since I think many pagans hold views similar to the Trinity. Lots of people would agree to call their deities part of a 'bigger' whole. It seems a bit like the apparently common Jewish retcon saying Hindus aren't really idolaters because they don't literally worship bits of stone and wood. How many people ever did?

[Keith]

Just to put things in greater perspective, to unbelievers, you all look like Scientologists.

I'm only half kidding.

Now back to the New Council of Worms.

[burgundy]

The Religious Society of Friends, like the Latter-Day Saints, come from the Protestant Christian tradition historically and philosophically.

So derivation is the key for you?

[Peter Boysen]

I think the whole "Mormon-Christian vs. Mormon-nonchristian" argument is moot when we have such larger topics as "Mormon-Illuminati vs. Mormon-non illuminati, vs. etc."

[Hemingway]

However, the Mormons don't believe in the Trinity*. They believe that Father and Son are two completely separate entities, not three-who-are-one. That means that, unlike mainline Christians, Mormons are not Monotheists.

It is definitely true that Mormons don't believe in the Trinity. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost (which I always thought was a lot funnier than the Holy Spirit. Boo!) are separate, distinct beings.

I'm still not sure that I would agree that, within the framework of Mormonism, you would call Jesus a god. Of the three things you mention (born of God, immortal, independent will), Mormons also believe that humans share two of those characteristics with Christ. We have independent will and we are immortal in the way that Christ is (he was born, died, resurrected, and is now immortal). The only difference, then, is that he was physically the son of a god. I'm not sure that makes him a god. I think demi-god may capture the spirit of the thing.

That's just fussing around with details, though. Your general point, that Mormons view the God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost in a profoundly different way than non-Mormons. Their entire view of the universe is fundamentally different than other Christians. Maybe, in the end, that is enough to label them as "non-Christian."

My non-believing, possibly wildly inaccurate translation of Mormonism is probably not the best basis for reaching a judgment, though. I'm trying to be fair to the religion, but that and a nickel . . . .

[Toby]

FWIW, my knowledge of Mormon doctrine stems from (a) what I've run across online and (b) this book my pastor showed me. Now, hear me out on (b). Pastor got invited to a Mormon group, and showed up, and started asking some questions about what they believe. They wouldn't talk to him about some of the trickier stuff. But he did get his hands on some literature--a sort of Mormon devotional that (among other things) laid out key doctrines in a fair amount of detail. He passed it around for us to see for ourselves. The stuff about God being a deified human, and about how a Mormon man can become a God--that was all in there. The book was a couple of decades old, though, and I know the LDS Church makes changes to its doctrine now and then. But I'm pretty sure this is still official doctrine.

Putting my foot down again: According to this doctrine, what Mormonism calls "God" is not God at all. God is more than just a glorified human being. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that God is God. Between God and man there is a infinite qualitative abyss. Wipe out that abyss, and there is no conceptual room left for God. I am happy to speak of Jews, Muslims, and at least some Hindus and Buddhists as believing in God. But if a Mormon truly believes this Mormon doctrine--and I'm sure many don't, but if they do--that rules out the possibility that they can believe in God.

This has nothing to do with ethics or politics; this doesn't make Mormons bad people, or unfit to be president. But on a religious level, it is quite crucial.

[ako]

In contrast, a Muslim is not a Christian because they do not follow Christ nor believe that his teachings should be followed; rather, they believe that Mohammed's teachings should be followed.

Muslims don't regard Jesus as God, but they do believe in following him and his teachings. Jesus is one of the major prophet in Islam, and they certainly believe in adhering to what he taught. The thing is, they think everyone else has it wrong, and the have a more accurate idea of what Jesus really said.

Christians in principle are to act in certain ways: loving their neighbors, for example. So we might look at a person who acts lovingly toward his neighbors and say he acts in a Christian manner. Further, we might do this regardless of his professed doctrine. Indeed, we might even use this with respect to someone who explicit rejects Christian doctrine, contrasting his behavior with that of professed Christians.

I would actually be bothered if someone called me Christian in an effort to compliment my behavior. Not hugely (I'd try to look more at the intended meaning of the statement), but it would bother me to have my decisions and qualities attributed to the deity of someone else's beliefs. It goes back to the whole problem of an outsider insisting, "You're not really that; you're actually what I say you are instead!" Which, I suppose goes back to Mormons, and considering the feelings of the people you're attempting to define.

[Hemingway]

Your general point, that Mormons view the God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost in a profoundly different way than non-Mormons

That should read "Your general point, that Mormons view God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost in a profoundly different way than non-Mormons, is entirely accurate."

[Peter Boysen]

On a more serious note though, I think it needs to be addressed that "Christian" as a word without any other bias or presupposition does actually have inherent meaning, which is someone who follows Christ. While doing generally good things like Christ did may qualify one as a Christian on a miniature or immediate level, there is still all the stuff he said about being "THE way, THE truth, etc." While certainly myself or anyone else fails at following Christ on some specific level, being a Christian should involve following everything that Christ espoused, including the exclusivity of it. If one Mormon can sign on and say that Christ, via birth, life, death, and resurrection is the only way to be brought back to favor with God, then he is a Christian, whereas if any mormon (or catholic, or baptist, or satan worshipper) cannot, than they are not Christian in the way that Christ himself used the term.

[Angelika]

I don't think the problem of refusing to call somebody a 'Christian' has that much to do with the fact that people of different confessions tend to believe different things. The problem is more that in our culture many people consider the word 'Christian' as synonymous with 'the good person who is pleasing in God's eye and going to heaven'. So if a Mormon insists on 'being a Christian just like you', the insistance is on 'I'm just as good a person and just as pleasing in God's eyes as you think you are.' and does not really constitute a denial of any dogmatic differences. Thus, in our culture we have a hard time declaring anybody a Non-Christian without being offensive.

[Jos]

Is it Gods all the way down?

Of course not. Don't be silly.

It's Gods all the way Up.

[Robb]

The Religious Society of Friends, like the Latter-Day Saints, come from the Protestant Christian tradition historically and philosophically.

I gotta disagree - the concept of "God" as monotheists of all stripes see it is an omnipotent, eteral being who exists without cause, the "unmoved mover" in a universe of causality, to paraphrase the words of Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle. The Mormons believe that God is an exalted man in an infinite progression of glorified beings that were formerly mere mortals. Philosophically, that's quite different, so say nothing of the subsequent theological/doctrinal issues that flow out of that.

[Robb]

Bah, Toby already said it - that's what I get for trying to comment & work at the same time.

That's... probably not what my top two would look like.

Well, two things: i) I wasn't being serious, and ii) that's why I was careful not to say that they were the top two :)

[Jesurgislac]

burgundy: So derivation is the key for you?

What else? It's not as if we have a little meter to point at people and record their Christianity level, as someone else said upthread. Using the analogy of species, the Abrahamic religions are three closely-related species, so close that some taxonomists disagree whether they are two or three: and each species has multiple sub-species, which can be visually very different but which are genetically very similar.

And while some Quakers certainly do believe in the Trinity, others don't. No idea how many don't: it would be extremely unQuakerly to ask. There's no controversy about it. Quakers do do controversy, but... not over things like what Friends believe.

Robb: I gotta disagree - the concept of "God" as monotheists of all stripes see it is an omnipotent, etneral being who exists without cause, the "unmoved mover" in a universe of causality, to paraphrase the words of Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle.

Except Quaker monotheists. Who are stripeless. ;-)

[McJulie]

I feel okay lumping Mormons, along with Jehovah's Witnesses and some others, in a group called "Christian offshoots." They are distinguished from plain old "Christians" largely by history, and partly by deviation from what I think of as core Christian concepts (the trinity, for example).

One of my great, hopeless dreams is to get the wacky L&J-style premillenial dispensationalists widely regarded as Christian offshoots, rather than plain old Christians.

Also, based on Jesu's posts, I think I am secretly a Quaker. Huh.

[Izzy]

Geds: Although we're still left with Jeffrey Dahmer and the guy who invented those stupid stickers that go at the top of CD cases that just don't come off whatever you do. So Nixon and Crowley are probably top 5 in that list...

I know waaaay too much about serial killers to agree there. But I'm prepared to argue Nixon, on the grounds that screwing over a whole country or three *might* actually be worse than killing a couple people. I mean, I don't agree, but I see the logic.

But Crowley? The guy was less evil than Occult Poser Guy: his generation's equivalent of Marilyn Manson, not Charles.

Admittedly, he claimed to be the Antichrist. He also claimed to be a good poet.

[Robb]

One of my great, hopeless dreams is to get the wacky L&J-style premillenial dispensationalists widely regarded as Christian offshoots, rather than plain old Christians.

I think as far as most folks here are concerned, they already are.

[Izzy]

Geds: Although we're still left with Jeffrey Dahmer and the guy who invented those stupid stickers that go at the top of CD cases that just don't come off whatever you do. So Nixon and Crowley are probably top 5 in that list...

I know waaaay too much about serial killers to agree there. But I'm prepared to argue Nixon, on the grounds that screwing over a whole country or three *might* actually be worse than killing a couple people. I mean, I don't agree, but I see the logic.

But Crowley? The guy was less evil than Occult Poser Guy: his generation's equivalent of Marilyn Manson, not Charles.

Admittedly, he claimed to be the Antichrist. He also claimed to be a good poet.

[burgundy]

What else? It's not as if we have a little meter to point at people and record their Christianity level, as someone else said upthread.

I'm still figuring out my own metrics, so I'm not going to push any on someone else. But I'm not sure that using species analogies is really the best thing to do, because cultural evolution and biological evolution are so fundamentally different. The metrics I tend toward have more to do with covenantal relationships, or maybe mechanisms of revelation... basically things that are within the religion in question, rather than outside-observer traits like derivation. But I don't think I'd be able to defend mine in a real analysis.

[A Kennedy]

But Crowley? The guy was less evil than Occult Poser Guy: his generation's equivalent of Marilyn Manson, not Charles.

Clearly. That was why, you know, it was a joke.

[Dash]

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?

Hi, everybody! If you'll forgive a first-time poster a minor point, Crowley wasn't Quaker, but Plymouth Brethren (Exclusive). You know, the Plymouth Brethren--founded by John Nelson Darby, aka Rapture Boy, and thus responsible, at some small remove, for the Left Behind series.

(Former Plymouth Brethren, myself, and when I was growing up, those of us who knew about him took a perverse kind of pride in ol' Aleister. Local boy makes bad.)

[ericblair]

The first rule of classifying things is to figure out what you're classifying them for. If you don't do that, you'll never get anywhere. Which is fine too, as long as you know that.

Since we're talking about Romney and his pander-fest "let's all forget about this pesky doctrine stuff and go beat up on the little atheist guy in the back" speech, we're classifying religions per American political landscape. Specifically, we're concerned about what the major mass of Southern protestants think of Mormonism. We're not too concerned about what Mormons think of Mormonism, since that wasn't the basis of the speech.

And in that context, it looks like the target audience views Mormons as heretics at best, and nothing's changed from that speech. You can't erase decades of Republican Protestant exceptionalism overnight even if you find it politically convenient. You can't just decide one day that now ecumenism is now a great thing instead of the tool of the Enemy. So lotsa luck to Romney, that looked like one stupid strategy.

[Vendor Xeno]

I actually had this exact debate with several friends some months ago. It was our conclusion, which a lot of people here seem to have determined as well, that a break down in 'which religion you belong to' occurs when a fundamental new focus appears, such as a major prophet or, more importantly, a dogmatic series of holy texts. For instance, while Calvinists and Catholics may not see eye to eye on too much, it boils down, essentially, to their interpretation of the same base set of sacred texts, god(s), prophets, and so forth. This difference is distinct from the Jewish / Catholic (Christian) division in that the latter has added on and developed a substantial body of belief which extends outside of the scope of the former (and also given up some of the former belief base.)

Mormons have done exactly the same thing. They have taken a preexisting body of faith and added substantially on to it, in the form of dogma, a host of sacred texts, seperate temples, new prophets and so forth. To merely lump themselves in as 'Christian' would be inaccurate. Th4e origional debate began, in fact, based on Mormons we knew introducing themselves not as 'Mormon', but merely as 'Christian'. Only through conversation was it revealed that they were, in fact, 'Christian plus', and it struck many of us as dishonest, an attempt (as per the last post about Romney) to gain inclusion among the 'more popular kids.' "Hey, we're all Christians here, right guys? Right? Guys?"

Now, in the most technical sense of the word, they are right. Mormons, in that they believe in the divinity of Christ, are 'Christians'. But by that definition, so are Subgenii. We believe that Christ is the divine savior of humanity, but since we aren't technically part of humanity, he doesn't matter much to us. To simply refer to myself as Christian would be an intentional misrepresentation, since in no way, shape or form do I embrace holy texts, dogmas or groups of prophets recognized as Christian. My entire belief system is askew from theirs, sharing only that loose notion of Christ's nature.

And there's no reason Mormons being distinguished from Christians should be seen as offensive to anyone on either side. We can define the distinction, so merely pointing it out is no more offensive that openly admitting that humanity has 'men' AND 'women'. From where I sit, and this is the part Mormons can take offense to, it seems like many Mormons are trying to covertly gain inclusion into a more popular social base by intentionally playing down their religious distinctions. They 'take offense' when this lie of omission is exposed in hopes of shaming those who notice it into silence. I can't immediately see another possible reason why Mormons would take offense for being referred to as a faith seperate from 'Christianity'.