Are Mormons Christian?

[Renew Deal]

I ask because I'm wondering if Romney is going to be the first non-Christian major party nominee. It is my understanding that the Bible is not the holy book for Mormons. Does this mean Mormons are not Christians or that they are heretics (in the view of bible believing Christians)?

[FarLeftFist]

1. in the same way David Koresh was Christian.

[Kablooie]

2. Was Jesus Christian?

[A HERETIC I AM]

6. If you want to fluster a fundamentalist, ask them that very question.

And the answer is of course, No, he wasn't.

He was born, raised and died a Jew - or at least according to the stories written about him.

However, I share the opinion that the person "Jesus who is the Christ" is a completely made up motif, a rehash of the "Savior God" myth that has existed for centuries before his supposed advent.

Be that as it is, just ask the most ardent Bible believer you know if Jesus was a Christian. Then tell them he wasn't and stand back.

[lonestarnot]

12. This belongs in the religous forum. No Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was the son of God. So what

else you got there?

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. LOL

"No Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was the son of God. So what else you got there?"

What else I got?

Jesus is a totally made up figure, OK? He never existed. No more than Apollo, Horus, Mithra or the dozens of other savior god-men that predate him. If you reject the story of Apollo and the others yet actually believe a person named Jesus was born by divine intervention, was killed and then came back to life and bodily rose into the sky, and has the ability to give you entrance into eternal paradise if you telepathically tell him you accept him as your savior because an ancient rib-woman ate a magical fruit after being verbally prompted by a serpent and that act condemned all of humankind to eternal torment unless they do that telepathy thing...........



OK...I'll stop.


BTW, I was raised Christian.

Then I grew up.

[lonestarnot]

22. To each his own and I say that one day your knees will bow, like it or not. So you have fun now.

[white_wolf]

26. I love how Christians resort to threats of eternal damnation when their beliefs are challenged.

I've heard these words before and I still find the concept laughable. Any God that is pity enough to condemn people to hell for being unwilling to cast aside reason for blind faith, is not a god worth worshiping.

[lonestarnot]

33. Did I say eternal damnation? No I did not. Now when you get back to politics and save the

religious bullshit discussion, we can discuss, as I have not bothered to read half of what you've said. Maybe you put the words on the thread for someone else's benefit.

[RetroLounge]

230. Looking for the LIKE button!

RL

[TBF]

265. I agree. nt

[MarkCharles]

267. Me too, well worth the read! n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

34. Thank you.

This is one of the reasons I rejected the philosophy of the faith I was brought up under in the first place.

Any so called "God" that would require the beings that it supposedly created to suspend their ability for critical thought merely to placate it own hubris is no god worthy of worship.

[grantcart]

224. not that it is that germaine to the main point of the point but 'heretic'

isn't supposed to mean someone that rejects faith.

Heresy in its classical meaning is someone who takes a part of the faith and over emphasizes it until it distorts the faith. That is why the Chruch was so concerned about heretics, they would take something that everyone considered true but gave it too much emphasis.

For example believing that the world was soon to end and that you didn't have to work or take care of personal responsibilities was held by some and the Church had to confront that.

If you are rejecting the faith that your were brought up with then that would be Apostasy, not Heresy.

[A HERETIC I AM]

231. Thanks, but trust me, I KNOW the definition of "Heretic"

"from Greek hairetikos, 'to choose', "

One who holds opinions contrary to established doctrine or teachings.

I am a Heretic because I speak. I say things contrary to established and accepted thinking.

The fact that I have engaged in heresy in the past has nothing to do with my user name nor does it have anything to do with why I am now Atheist.

But I agree that I am also an Apostate. And I am proud of it.

[grantcart]

234. And that is the most common understanding of the word

But thru the ages it was aimed not at someone who rejected faith but exagerated one aspect of faith.

I also am an Apostate, but still have affection for all of those Presbyterians. I mean its not MY fault that the Holy Spirit doesn't cloud my eyes so that I can see that the Bible actually doesn't support the Virgin birth, et al.

Not only that because I descend from the President of the Mormon Church they consider me Apostate even though I never held the Mormon faith, but I have nothing but animus for them.

[joeglow3]

35. I love how non-Christians seek out attention by posting comments like...

"BTW, I was raised Christian.

Then I grew up. "

I see your point as well, but if you are intellectual honest, you have to also admit MANY people seek to offend just for the attention.

[white_wolf]

42. I actually didn't post that.

However, I do agree that some people will say stuff like that just to piss people off. The main reason I replied to lonestarnot, was because I've heard phrases like his before and they always came with implied threats of "convert or burn forever." Lonestarnot, may not have meant it that way, but everytime I have heard it, that is what was meant.

[A HERETIC I AM]

58. I wrote that as a means to show a personal historical context.

I wrote that because I was indeed, raised in a Christian household. I was raised Episcopalian. I attended church regularly until I was about 16 when I got the balls to start refusing to go to church.

I don't seek attention. The frequency of my posts on this board on this subject bear that out.
Go back to the old DU religion forum and search for posts by me. You won't find many, and you won't find hardly ANY after about 2004.


But hey, you're right. Many do like to offend.

I just don't give a fuck if someone wants to believe there is an invisible man that lives in the sky. I don't give a fuck if someone needs to think that they need to be saved from eternal torment by that man. Just don't think you can tell me there is or that someday I will know there is and expect to get away Scot free.

It's bollocks. Always has been. Always will be.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful".

Attributed to Seneca the Younger, Roman Philosopher.

[riderinthestorm]

68. I'm stealing your last quote if you don't mind, as a sig line. Brilliant. nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

73. You're welcome to it. I used it on the old DU for years.

Here's one of my threads from the old site and the quote, among a couple of others, is at the bottom;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1968786

[undeterred]

37. Threats of eternal damnation are the most effective tool organized religion has

going for it.

[Renew Deal]

43. I'm pretty sure that pointing that out is a sin

[undeterred]

56. All the fun people will be in hell.

[Ecumenist]

41. I didn't read that as damnation, White Wolf....

More like no matter what you think right now, one day, you will believe and bow...

[white_wolf]

45. Perhaps I misread him then. It is very possible.

As I said above, though, I've heard Christans say that a lot and they have always made it clear that that if I was forced to bow, I'd burn. Granted, I wend to a Fundamentalist school so they tended to be judgmental assholes.

[Ecumenist]

57. Oh God, you too? I went to a fundie Christian school in the 70's and saw these types for what

they were then, lying hypocritical, racists creeps that had NOTHING to do with God or Jesus, despite what they said. I'm still a Christian but I walk my own path because I neither believed their bullshit nor bought it. Because a black woman, (girl at the time), I was not afarid to call them on it at every turn.

[Bluenorthwest]

133. The other poster is referencing a specific Scripture, in Romans 14. The full passage

of course indicates that this use of that Scripture is not fitting with the actual teaching.

10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.


The teaching is: Let us not judge one another any more. Thus, using it to say 'God will judge you' is the opposite of the teaching.

[A HERETIC I AM]

215. Of course it's a damnation.

See my post #209 for why it is.

That I would be damned to eternal torment unless I believe is EXACTLY what is meant.

It is a nasty, presumptuous condemnation cloaked in a sickly sweet little "Oh yes...you'll believe all right - someday.


And if I don't then? What happens?

[Ecumenist]

216. I suppose it's all perception. I honestly don't think it was meant as a declaration

of damnation. I have been exposed to creepy "christians" who was forever damning this person and that with liberal stripings of racism and hatred too but there are people who are different from so religious types. I am a believer but I walk my own path.

[A HERETIC I AM]

219. Anyone that tells me "Someday your knees will bow" has a very specific idea in mind.

And that idea is that his god is real and my not buying it will lead to me having to bow before some super entity.

And if I refuse?

Because refusal is not just likely, but assured, in my case....then what?

As I said, it is cloaked language. I've seen it all my life. It might be meant in the most endearing, sweetest context possible, but it is loaded language and it deserves to be shown for what it is.

Purchase of an intellectually primitive philosophical concept.

[A HERETIC I AM]

49. Sorry pal, but no, I won't.

If I am wrong and the stories in that bronze age book are true, then I will ask that baby killing, murderous, dickhead of a super being why he was such a prick for all those centuries. Couldn't he AT LEAST left Malaria out of the mix?

If you are a Christian and you believe the god of Abraham and Isaac to be a real thing, then you believe in a god that is clearly incompetent and in no way deserves to be revered.

Your little wavy smily is just about the most condescending thing I have seen on this website in quite a while.

Look. If your faith makes you a better person - makes you MORE charitable, more loving, more caring then hey...I am all for it.

But as your post clearly shows to me, belief in the god of Abraham does little more than teach people new and improved ways to hate their fellow man. And before you go off on me again, I know you didn't say you hated me. But you don't like the opinion I hold of your god. And the distance from that to burning me at the stake can be measured on a stopwatch. History has proven this time and time again.

As Chris rock said....

"That Train's never late!"

I'll leave you with this, because arguing with people like you on a subject like this is something I wore out on the internet 15 years ago;

[lonestarnot]

66. Wow. You wasted a bunch of effort there. Did you have fun? Your opinion of my God is not valuable

to me, sorry. So we are about of the same opinion. Can we carry on now?

[A HERETIC I AM]

71. Yup. Same opinion.

We're both wrong.

[Hepburn]

100. Not me...

...and I don't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny either!

[Zhade]

120. If your god actually existed, I'd tell him to fuck himself for demanding people "bow down".

Fortunately, that will never be tested, since all evidence suggests he does not.

[treestar]

148. I kind of get this attitude but

because other humans have said things of God does not necessarily mean God is that way. People need to think it through for themselves as opposed to rejecting God because of the asshole humans who claimed to "own" God.

What I see on the thread is a lot of justifiable anger at humans who tried to use religion to control other people - but that the person may not have really thought for themselves what a good God would be.

[Zhade]

170. I don't reject mythology because of others' interpretations, but because of the lack of evidence.

NT!

[Warren DeMontague]

126. You must really consider the circus

well it just might be your kind of zoo.

[waddirum]

169. holy shit

I'm a long time deadhead, but I've never seen this video. Hilarious! An 80s Huey Lewis looking Bobbie.

[Warren DeMontague]

172. Isn't that classic?

I used to drink in that bar, once upon a time.

[waddirum]

177. this video has everything

A goose drinking from Bobby's champagne glass. Mickey in a devils outfit. Phil getting devoured by a bar girl. Pigs and sheep.

I was at the Furthur show in Saratoga this summer, where they opened with "Hell in a Bucket".

[Warren DeMontague]

171. Kneel Before Zod

[MNBrewer]

173. To whom? Mithras?

Or any of the other risen deities?

[eShirl]

181. "one day your knees will bow, like it or not."

sick

[we can do it]

187. I Had a Friend In School with Bowed Legs

is that what caused it?

[cleanhippie]

195. "I say that one day your knees will bow" - KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

Tell you what, YOU have fun.

[Marrah_G]

237. Pathetic and typical

What a sad, scared little person you must be. You can keep your religion based on fear and hate.

[Humanist_Activist]

268. "Your knees will bow"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Typical Christian bigotry.

[Taverner]

281. KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!!

[mmonk]

27. I remember studying the subject around 20 years ago.

While some historians said no, some said yes, there was or could have been. One interesting historian was a Jewish scholar who said the term "son of God" was applied to many different profits and theologians of the time (but it didn't mean actual paternity).

[Warren DeMontague]

128. "Biblical Scholars" all think "he" existed- big surprise, there. Most objective non-Bible historians

won't touch it, because they don't want the mountain of shit. I mean, it's not really a pressing historical matter outside of religious circles, anyway- but the fact is, there's no non-Biblical corroborating evidence of anything resembling the story of Jesus, that hasn't been thoroughly discredited or is of a questionable basis itself.

[eShirl]

201. Not true ("Biblical Scholars" all think "he" existed), some are athiests.

for example,
"Atheist Bible Scholar “Discovers” God’s Wife" http://betterthanesdras.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/atheist-bible-scholar-discovers-gods-wife/

[Warren DeMontague]

233. I think you misunderstood. Actually, for all I know there may be Biblical Scholars who dispute the

literal historic existence of Jesus, but I haven't come across any.

That is not to say there aren't biblical scholars who are Atheists. Many Atheists believe (incorrectly, I think, although until recently I was one of them) that "Jesus" had an objective, historical existence, that "he" was an influential preacher or rabbi, say, from Galilee, an important person, but just a person. And there are even "Christians" (I put that in quotes because I don't want to get into the debate about what is a "real" Christian or not) who do NOT believe that Jesus had an objective historical existence, but that the stories, etc. are pure allegory/metaphor, etc.

My point is only that "biblical scholars" seem to be the folks- and the only folks- in the history business who generally fall on the side of "Jesus had an objective historical existence". Most other historians who look at the question deeply go.. "Gee, that's interesting, if 'he' did, the story has a lot of holes and is oddly lacking objective corroboration".

[Canuckistanian]

50. You chose your DU name well.

And I've been waiting for a reply like this from you!

[A HERETIC I AM]

52. I learned long ago - like back in 2003 - that discretion was the better part of valor.

I am indeed a Heretic, but I have found that playing that part openly on this board is a no-win situation. I have had all these arguments before, with so many people like the above that I don't care to remember them.

At the end of it, it is a pointless exercise to try and explain to someone with deeply held beliefs that when they understand why THEY reject all the thousands of other gods invented by mankind, they will begin to understand why I reject theirs.

Not my original expression, but one I agree with wholeheartedly.

And for the record re: this thread?

YES, Mormons are Christians.

[dionysus]

63. he could have been real. doesn't mean he's a diety. at any rate, he was the first documented hippie

real or not...

[A HERETIC I AM]

70. Unfortunately.....

The documents were written 70+ years AFTER his supposed advent.

And he wasn't the first, not by a long shot.

[dionysus]

75. i challenge you to prove he didn't invent the bong.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. He didn't invent it

but he sure as shit improved it.

[deutsey]

105. I'm more on your side than not, but the reason the gospels were written decades after Jesus lived

was that his original followers believed his return was going to happen at any moment. So why bother writing anything down? That's what some scholars say, anyway.

The early faith communities had oral traditions mostly about his basic teachings, his crucifixion, and resurrection (which is much different than a resuscitation)...that's from what I remember of the New Testament class I took in college.

Obviously, I do believe a person named Jesus existed. I think he was probably a lot different from the "Christ" mythology that emerged around him after his execution, though.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Next you'll be trying to say that Osiris didn't exist. Or Mithras.

Really. Everyone knows these were actual dudes.

[Arugula Latte]

174. One day your knees will bow to Mithras.

And then you'll be sorry.

That is, unless Zeus or Thor zaps your non-believing ass first.

[treestar]

149. In those days, that wouldn't matter

People had better memories and told their stories orally. So not being written down right away doesn't have to mean it never happened. Whereas nowadays we have contemporaneous coverage.

[treestar]

147. Jesus existed - he is a person who lived

Whether he is God is another issue - but he's not a made up figure.

[PassingFair]

189. There is not one iota of actual evidence that he existed.

No record at all.

There is as much evidence for King Arthur as there is for "Jesus Christ".

[cleanhippie]

196. You say that with confidence, as if you had hard evidence to back that up.

You do, right? Have hard evidence to back up your claim that "Jesus was a real person who lived", right?

Please, share it with the rest of us.

[Goblinmonger]

197. BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Thanks for playing though.

Unless there is some evidence for him that cropped up in the past day or so that I didn't hear about.

But, hey, you made the claim, I'm sure you'll prove me wrong with some hard and fast evidence (and don't start with Josephus, please, it would be so disappointing if you did).

[treestar]

204. I thought it was generally known and accepted

But it's interesting that you find it necessary. As I said, it wouldn't mean he was God. But the defensiveness here seems to suggest that if he existed, you'd lose the argument.

[Goblinmonger]

206. Well, you thought wrong

or you need to hang out with people that have more understanding of historical accuracy.

Yeah, if he existed, I'd lose the argument about whether he existed.

So, what's the proof of his existence?

[treestar]

243. Again, why does it matter?

Why do you think he has to be a made up person to characterize your argument as sound?

Wikipedia:

Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher and healer in Judaea,[22] that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[23] Critical Biblical scholars and historians

[Goblinmonger]

251. Oh, the old "Most critical historian" with no citation

I guess I forgot it was that guy that said it.

Seriously, you have anything another than a Wikipedia blurb as to the critical historians that have proof of a historical Jesus?

And it matters because you made the claim that it is just common knowledge that he existed. I challenged you on that claim. If you don't want to support the claims you make, then fine.

[Union Scribe]

222. It is generally accepted.

It's only relatively recently that some atheists decided to end run the whole argument by insisting he never lived. It's a fringe argument.

[A HERETIC I AM]

228. Bollocks.

It might be generally accepted but that doesn't mean it is true.

And if you mean by "relatively recently" you mean "since the earliest days of the cult" then yeah.

It is only a "fringe argument" because the church, in all its forms has held a stranglehold on the debate for centuries and the advent of the internet has allowed more people to communicate about the fact that there is absolutely ZERO credible, verifiable, archeological or historical evidence for him having ever lived.

[Union Scribe]

229. Uh huh.

Look, whatever floats your boat pal. I know how this stupid game goes, I've seen it before. People present what they believe to be credible evidence, someone like you poo poos it, rinse and repeat. Like I said, it's your life, but from this vantage point anyone claiming a monopoly on truth sounds like a zealot to me. It's actually funny how zealots have so much in common.

[A HERETIC I AM]

232. LOL.

And I assure you I know how this stupid game goes as well. And guess who has the upper hand?

The thing is, the "credible evidence" for the existence of Christ has been torn to shreds repeatedly over the centuries, not just recently.

"Like I said, it's your life, but from this vantage point anyone claiming a monopoly on truth sounds like a zealot to me."

Well, several centuries worth of "Believe or we will kill you and your family and everyone you know because we have the monopoly on truth" kind of has a definite effect. Their side has won, so to speak but now that victory is being questioned on its merits in a big way for the first time in history and the believers......well...they just don't like it.

Not one little bit.

The difference between my zealotry and that of believers is that their side threatens me with harm.

I threaten to merely ask they use reason and intellect.

[treestar]

244. Their threatening you doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist

Or that Jesus even agrees with them.

What was it Gandhi said - I like your Christ, but not your Christians. A person may even sincerely try to be a Christian and fail.

Some people like Jesus' doctrines even if they don't believe he is God - Jefferson had an opinion like that.

[Goblinmonger]

239. Generally accepted by Christians perhaps.

And "relatively recently" is just pure bullshit. Josephus was descredited more than "relatively recently" and that is about the only "evidence" there was for a historic Jesus.

But please do present your wonderful evidence. I promise I won't poo-poo it but will look at it critically.

[treestar]

245. The existence of any ancient figure

may have its complications, but it's not a matter of religious belief.

The issue is - why does Jesus have to be a "made up figure" in order to support the concept he wasn't God?

Jim Jones and David Koresh weren't God either - but no one insists that for that to be so, they have to have been imaginary.

[Goblinmonger]

250. But we have independent sources

that verify that Socrates existed. Not so with jesus.

Jesus doesn't have to be a made up figure to not be God. But if he wasn't even a real person, there are certainly some major problems with the mythology of what that person did and their argued divinity. If there was no Jesus, then there was no Jesus that was the son of god. That cuts pretty close to the heart of the matter and why so many people, perhaps you included, take such a visceral reaction to the claim that there is no proof for a historic Jesus. Which there isn't.

And how do you know that Jim Jones and David Koresh weren't God. They have as much proof as Jesus did of the claim. Perhaps more because they actually existed.

[CJCRANE]

271. The physical evidence that Jesus existed

by definition negates the Christian religion...

As we saw when the remains of Jesus and his family were (allegedly) found in Israel recently (within the last 20 or 30 years).

The Bible tells us that Jesus ascended physically to heaven so, paradoxically, physical proof that he existed is the last thing that the Church wants.

[coalition_unwilling]

270. One can decisively reject any notion of Jesus' divinity, but the historical

record is decidedly more ambiguous on whether a historical Jesus of Nazareth existed. I'm fairly certain a "Jesus" is mentioned in Roman, i.e., secular, sources of about the time (maybe a few years after Jesus' death), although I'm no expert. The references to him are made almost in passing, as he existed -- if he existed at all -- on the periphery of the Roman empire and, from the Romans' point of view, was an outlier to Judaism, itself seen as something of a oddity by Roman historians.

[Marrah_G]

235. Actually he was a Jew...

[snooper2]

242. Is Jesus Made of Matter?

Can God withstand the intense heat within a supernova?

[SwampG8r]

113. he was the only one ever actually spotted

many have made a claim to being such but he has the only valid claim

[rapmanej]

130. your comment on the "savior god" myth is

100 percent correct.

Marvin Harris wrote a book <[link:http://www.amazon.com/Cows-Pigs-Wars-Witches-Riddles/dp/0679724680|> where in one of the chapters he both dispels the myth that Jesus (and John the Baptist) were somehow unique individuals and that Jesus was somehow a "prince of peace". I don't want to give away too much, but it is a terrific book, and the chapter ends, iirc, with the truth many of us already know, that the Modern Jesus began with Saint Paul, his letters, and travels.

[mmonk]

9. Nope.

[Hepburn]

99. Jesus was a Jew. N/t

[quinnox]

3. don't know and don't care

They do use the Bible but have other books they consider holy too, its mostly a semantics issue.

[provis99]

4. Mormons say they are Christians.

since there is no one who can define what a Christian is, I accept that they are Christians.

[SaintPete]

38. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of the Christ

If you believe that person to be the Jesus of the New Testament, and you actually follow his teachings, then you are a Christian.

So no, Mormons aren't Christian. Mormons are followers of the teachings of Joseph Smith, and the differences in the two teachings are significant.

[jberryhill]

74. But they say they got their teachings from Christ

So apparently your Christ and their Christ disagree.

You contend that your Christ is right and their Christ is wrong.

Fine. But objectively this is one of those puzzles where one guy always lies and the other one always tells the truth, and you have to figure out something by asking them questions.

What I find interesting is that Christians will generally agree that Muslims have the "same God" - the God of Abraham - it's just that the Muslims have a lot of stuff wrong about what that "same God" is on about.

[SaintPete]

80. Not "my" Christ, but I get your point

Its just that the two faiths use the same word, and mean completely different things.

Christians say "Christ" and they mean the eternally perfect, only son of God. God in Human form. 1/3 or the Holy Trinity.

Mormons say "Christ" and they are referring to a human who achieved perfection on Earth, and so was rewarded with a planet to rule.

To Christians, Jesus is God. To Mormons, Jesus was a man. Not at all the same thing.

In fact, Mormons take it a step further...if you follow the teachings of the LDS Prophets (and all that that implies and requires), YOU can be just like Jesus, and get your own planet. You'll be a demi-god.

[jberryhill]

81. I meant the generic "you", not you specifically

As others have pointed out in this thread, I believe the Nicene Creed and approximations thereof is a useful measure of "common denominator Cheistianity".

A broad spectrum of "Christian" denominations, from Roman Catholics to backwoods fundies, use the Nicene Creed as their basic statement of faith.

[Goblinmonger]

198. So you have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian?

Interesting. So the Unitarians aren't Christian (and I'm not talking about the UU fellowships, but the original Unitarians).

[Common Sense Party]

264. You're incorrect in many of your assumptions.

At any rate, your definitions differ from the Mormons' definitions.

[provis99]

77. that's just the tired old "No True Scotsman" argument.

[SaintPete]

78. Not really. it's just a basic syllogism

Christians only follow the teachings of Jesus
Mormons follow the teachings of Joseph Smith
Mormons are not Christians

The most you could say was that my major or minor premise was faulty, but as given, the logic is sound.

[white_wolf]

79. Mormons are just as much Christan as any other group that claims the title.

Unless you can somehow prove that Mormons don't worship Jesus Christ, then they are Christians.

[SaintPete]

84. That makes as much sense as saying that everyone who claims to be a Democrat, IS a Democrat

regardless of whether they actually follow Democratic principles

[Orangepeel]

115. That's a pretty good analogy

Mostly, it is true that all you have to do to "officially" be a democrat is register as one. Also, everybody is always arguing over which particular strain of democratic principles are "true"

[Bluenorthwest]

135. Ah, then you'd need to demonstrate that self indentified Christians follow the teachings

identified as Christ's teachings. Note that Jesus said do not pray in front of others, he said only hypocrites do that, and commanded his followers to pray only at home, alone in their rooms. Yet 'Christians' pray oh the street, in gatherings, in mass media. Jesus told them not to. Jesus said all oaths 'come from evil' yet Christians take oaths right after praying in front of millions.
Jesus said his followers must not judge others. Look at this thread. Jesus said only he without sin can judge, then he refused to judge. Are these 'Christians' judging the souls of others superior to Christ, who refused to do so?
Jesus said many, many things his 'followers' do not care to practice. So they do other things. If your standard is 'they follow the teachings' then there really are no Christians who identify as such, certainly none organized into groups for praying in front of each other.
I know, you will now explain that when Jesus says 'Don't do this, only hypocrites do that' he meant 'do it if your church likes to do it'. And when Paul said 'gays are sinful' that is the unerring Word of God! So if Jesus says 'Don't' you still can if you want to, if Paul says 'they are sinners' they most certainly are sinners.
How does this work, really? Jesus said those who follow him treat all people as they treat him. So a follower who says to another person 'you will suffer or regret your lack of faith' is saying that to Jesus, according to Jesus. A person who implies that they will personally get placed in paradise while others will 'regret' is not following the teachings of Jesus, not in any way. They are doing the opposite of what he taught. The opposite of Christ is anti Christ. So Jesus says 'do not pray in public' and yet his 'followers do the opposite, they pray in public. How are they 'following' Jesus at all?

[SaintPete]

150. Haven't you ever argued a point from an objective POV?

Just because I'm in this debate doesn't mean I have a horse in the race. I just think it's interesting.

You wrote:

"I know, you will now explain that when Jesus says 'Don't do this, only hypocrites do that' he meant 'do it if your church likes to do it'. And when Paul said 'gays are sinful' that is the unerring Word of God! So if Jesus says 'Don't' you still can if you want to, if Paul says 'they are sinners' they most certainly are sinners."

No...I won't be explaining that, lol. Sorry to disappoint you and screw up your preconceptions. My interest here is rhetorical, not theological.

It's the name right? I'm far from self-identifying as a saint, lol, and my name isn't "Pete." I live in St. Petersburg. It's just a nickname, like "Minnesota Fats" or "Indiana" Jones, or calling someone "Brooklyn" because they come from that borough.

[Goblinmonger]

199. Are you a Christian?

Are you ready for the litmus test, because I have some questions for you to see if you are.

[SaintPete]

218. Nope

sorry

[Orangepeel]

114. *only* follow the teachings of Jesus?

Why are there so many letters from Paul in the new testament? What about all the saints Catholics pray to? What about people who believe god talks to Pat Robertson?

So yes, the premise is faulty.

[SaintPete]

132. OK, faulty premise.

I'm sure there's a better way of building the syllogism...

You wrote:

Q. Why are there so many letters from Paul in the new testament?
A. Marcion of Sinope was a early church leader, and the first to produce a definitive canon of Christian Scripture, and he added the writings of Paul to this canon. Previous to Marcion, Paul was respected, but not considered scripture.

Q. What about all the saints Catholics pray to?
A. Good question, the Protestant Reformers wondered the same thing.

Q. What about people who believe god talks to Pat Robertson?
A. Probably the best example of people who call themselves Christians, but don't act like Christians. If the measure is found in the verse: "You shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-16) - then Robertson is definitely not a Christian.

[PassingFair]

190. Who made you the Decider?

Mormons "believe" in Jesus as the Savior.

If they say they are Christians, then they're Christians.

"Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as the literal firstborn Son of God and Messiah, his crucifixion as a conclusion of a sin offering, and subsequent resurrection.[35] However, Latter-day Saints (LDS) reject the ecumenical creeds and definition of the Trinity taught by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion, and Trinitarian Protestantism,[36][37] and hold that the New Testament prophesied both the apostasy from the teachings of Christ and his apostles as well as the restoration of all things prior to the second coming of Christ.[38]"

It's Christianity (Plus)!

[SaintPete]

192. By your logic

Mormons are Christians

Blue Dogs are Democrats

and Republicans are better on the economy

if they say they are, then they are...

[PassingFair]

193. Blue Dogs AREN'T Democrats?

Who knew?

You're not even USING logic.

You are using YOUR dogma.

[SaintPete]

221. In name only

but putting a D by your name doesn't make you a Democrat

[provis99]

210. an atheist could follow the teachings of Jesus.

That doesn't make him a Christian.

And nowhere in the Bible is a Christian defined. There is nothing in the Bible that says to be a Christian, you have to follow the teachings of Jesus.

And frankly, NO one alive follows the teachings of Jesus; so by your definition, there are no such things as Christians.

[SaintPete]

220. "by your definition, there are no such things as Christians"

Okay, I can live with that definition

[PassingFair]

236. Wow. You take the "no true Scotsman" all the way to the altar!

[grantcart]

95. the Church clearly defined what Christianity was with the Nicene Creed

when it drew a line between Christians and gnostic Christians.

Since that time all Christians of all confessions have agreed on that basic definition of Christianity but disagreed on the implications.

Mormons do not accept the Nicene Creed.

[Bluenorthwest]

138. I can take you to some Chruches where the Nicene Creed is not accepted

Sorry. There are not all that many, still some Protestant Churches take NO creed, no teaching that is not in the Scriptures. I spent much time in a Church that rejected all such extra Scriptural creeds and oaths as heresy. Same church did not accept the Trinity and thus the way the Nicene Creed 'separates God' into parts was utterly rejected. Such Churches baptize 'In the Name of Jesus' not 'Father Son etc'.
Those are Christian congregations. Thus 'accepting the Nicene Creed' is not the standard.
Quakers do not hold to Creeds. Jehovah's Witnesses, no Creeds. The Church of the Brethren. Baptists hold no Creeds, there is no official teaching against them nor for them, they say no Creed is the basis of Christian fellowship and also that no Creed is set in stone and unchanging.
It goes on like this.

[grantcart]

156. Just because they don't repeat the Nicene Creed doesn't mean that they don't accept the

the Nicene's Creed Christology and the theology of the Trinity.

Are the Baptists and AnaBaptists saying that the Christ wasn't fully human? Are they saying that he wasn't resurrected.

No.

So even those that accept only scripture and will say no creeds accept the theological conclusions that are embodied in the Nicene Creed.

Here is how one Baptist minister explains the conundrum to his flock

http://www.fbcgh.net/archives/16

Among these watershed events, though, one must mention the development of the Nicene Creed—both its conception at the First Council of Nicea in AD 325 and its subsequent expansion at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381. The Nicene Creed would come to be the most widely used statement of faith in all the Christian Church throughout time. And its popularity can still be seen today as it is recited or otherwise affirmed in the midst of worship by Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and on and on.

But while the Nicene Creed is embraced by millions of Christians of virtually every denominational tradition, some feel a bit uncomfortable with its wording. Some Christians, particularly of a Baptist or otherwise Evangelical stripe, while wholeheartedly supporting the creed’s declaration of the Trinity, flinch at one of the final lines of the text which reads: “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” To some these words just seem… well… off. Isn’t it our faith that justifies us? Doesn’t the heart-felt repentance and commitment we make to the Lord in prayer get the job done? Isn’t baptism supposed to be merely an outward expression of an inward and preexistent reality?

Those who feel this way often point to passages in the Bible that support what may be called a direct and immediate view of salvation, that is, a view which implies that justification can be had independent of any outward ritual. As the Apostle Paul declares, “with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” (Romans 10:10) And as the Apostle Peter proclaims, we are now living in an age in which, “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved!” (Acts 2:21) With these passages in mind Evangelicals generally and Baptists specifically sometimes just can’t bring themselves to embrace the creed—after all, the Bible is the prime authority in our lives and creeds (whether they be ancient or modern) are merely human documents liable to error.

But this kind of unease is simply unnecessary. While the Bible does indeed affirm that salvation comes through faith and repentance, it also affirms that baptism is the normal and God-ordained arena in which these sentiments find their appropriate expression. In the book of Acts whenever a man comes to faith in the Lord he is baptized immediately. One might say that his conversion and his baptism are thus so closely linked that they form a single, indistinguishable event. Therefore, while faith and repentance can be expressed simply through prayer, in the New Testament at least, they are always expressed through baptism as an acted prayer.

So whether or not the recite the Nicene Creed or not they accept the Holy Trilogy and so on.

Mormons do not.

Jesus was independent of God.

God was a man who became sanctified and got his own world to play with. And so on.

To sum up;

For about four hundred years followers of Christ devolved into various schools of thought. Eventually the understanding of the Christ and the Resurrection came to be understood by two different schools, the traditional and the Gnostics. The Church came together and codified these into the Nicene Creed. Follow the Creed and the basic ideas of the Creed then you are a Christian, if you don't then you may be a follower of Jesus but you are not what the rest of the Church calls 'Christian'.

I try to follow the teachings of the Rabbi Jesus who some think was the Christ. I cannot ascribe to the Nicene Creed. So even though I was made a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church on my 18th birthday and the youngest elder in the history of the Church I do not consider myself a 'Christian'.

This is really basic Christianity 101.

If you accept the Holy Triology, the Virgin Birth (even as a theological analogy and not an actual event) and the Resurrection then you are following the basic tenets of the Nicene Creed whether or not your group acknowledges it or not. Doing so puts you in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Anabaptist, Reformed, Restoration, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian.




Some people might not follow that and call themselves 'Christians'.


Marshall Applewhite believed that he was a descendent of Jesus and took his little sect off our earth to the Comet Hale-Bopp. Marshall thought that he was a Christian because he read the Book of Revelation. He was not.

Individuals may call themselves 'Christian' but if it is to have any meaning there must be boundaries or will include Saint Paul and Marshall Applewhite as the same thing. That definition occurred in 325 AD and whether or not they recite the creed from that council people who follow that understanding all share in that tradition.

Joseph Smith did not follow that. He used the teachings of Jesus to write his own Bible and start his own tradition. Brigham Young followed him. When Young was worried about the flagging faith of the Mormons after they settled around Utah he had a young protege Jedidiah Morgan Grant go around the state and preach fire and damnation. JMG was a big success and when he came back Young made him the first Mayor of Salt Lake City. He picked up some virus (maybe pnumonia) and died within a year. Young raised his son Heber J Grant. Heber J Grant became the second longest serving President of the Mormon Church. When the stock market crashed and the entire church and all of its holdings were about to be foreclosed on HJG started enforcing the 'no polygamy' rule in fact. He went to NYC renegotiated the mortgages held by the Church and saved the Mormon Church.

One hundred thirty years later I told Rick Romney (Mitt Romney's first cousin) in the third grade that I was the direct descendent of JMG and HJG but that after getting a little education every single living member of our family had left the Mormon Church (not true because Senator Bennett is a distant cousin) and he cried.

I googled Rick Romney the other day.

He went into investments and worked for Spieker Properties Inc.

His main project was working on the Bay Meadows Development which included the Bay Meadows Racetrack. Making money from the track that Seabiscuit used to run at. I am sure he tithed his 10% and got and even though the Church is 100% against all forms of gambling I am sure he got some kind of exemption. You can do that when you start your own religion.

[cliffordu]

161. Jesus.

I would bet that Romneys chances are now exactly zero - as soon as the press finds out you met his fucking cousin....lol....

[KamaAina]

280. 100% against all forms of gambling?

LDS members collectively own a sizable chunk of Vegas.

[spin]

260. True, but only after a long and often brutal fight...

and even today those who do not support the concept of The Trinity have good arguments to support their views.

Personally I believe that the argument is interesting but largely irrelevant. I believe a Christian is a person who believes in Jesus and tries to follow his teachings and his wisdom.

[CJCRANE]

272. The other sects were wiped out

so there wasn't much choice in the matter.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Magic 8 Ball says: My sources say no. So I guess not.

[Capitalocracy]

28. I find it amusing that a Magic 8 Ball has "sources".

Well, I was talking to the 9 ball, and he said yes, but the 5 and the 2 said no, so I'm going to go with the majority on this one.

[PassingFair]

200. Are you SURE?

[rhett o rick]

7. Define "christian". nm

[Kablooie]

103. Definition of Christian: Someone who considers them self Christian.

[white_wolf]

8. I would say they are, however...

I can understand how some would be skeptical of that claim. They have beliefs that fall far out of the mainstream of Christian doctrine. Mormons are polytheists. That is probably, the most troubling for more traditional Christians. The Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate gods and that there are other Gods aside from those 3. Also, the doctrine of Exaltation, which is the belief that God was once man and man may become Gods, will likely be troubling for a lot of people.

[Ohio Dem]

10. Do they worship the biblical Christ?

If yes, then they're Christians. If no, then they aren't.

[white_wolf]

13. They do. Their interpertation of him is different than other sects, of course.

[Ohio Dem]

29. I'm not an expert, but that makes them Christian by definition.

At least my definition of Christian. I admit that may not count for much with non-Morman Christians, as I'm not one.

[rhett o rick]

111. Do they concider Jesus the savior? nm

savior

[white_wolf]

112. Yeah they do.

They believe Jesus was the Son of God, believed he died on the cross for the sins of mankind and rose from the dead after 3 days.

[SaintPete]

40. You can say you worship this god or that prophet

but unless you really follow the teachings of that figure, you are not of the faithful.

[Ohio Dem]

59. Yeah, no argument.

That leaves a lot of people who considers themselves Christians in a lurch. Many of them I know don't follow what the Bible says. I don't know, I'm just a humble atheist, so I doubt the Evangelicals who are trying to decide if Romney is a "Christian" will pay much attention to my opinion on this.

For me, though, those that worship Jesus Christ, even if they do it "wrong," are Christians. After all, they think they're doing it "right."

It makes no difference to me whether or not Romney is a "Christian." I'm not going to vote for him either way.

[Goblinmonger]

202. So if I PM you my address, you'll send me all your cash?

Luke 6:30

[SaintPete]

226. When I convert to Christianity I'll let you know

till then? Naaahhhhh....

[provis99]

211. most gods didn't "teach" anything. They simply existed.

you are making a conclusion based on a false assumption.

[SaintPete]

223. Jesus had teachings

Buddha had teachings
Krishna had teachings
Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh had teachings

I don't think its a false assumption

[provis99]

254. Zeus didn't have teachings.

Neither did Jupiter. Or Hermes. Or Odin. Or Haokah. Or Thor. Or Gaia. Or any animist gods. Or Ba'al. Or Astarte. Or Artemis. Or Vammatar. Or Jarilo. Or Sudz. Or Ishtar. Or Isis. Or Anu. Or Mihr. Or Toutatis. Or Taranis. Or Ame-no-Uzume. Or Cinteotl. Or Tohil. Or Cum Hau. Or Sakpata. Or Anyanwu. Or Oxhossi. Or the Oak tree. Or thousands of other gods, who merely represented natural phenomenon or personal characteristics.

You're on pretty thin ice if you're making a broad assertion about the entirety of the pantheon of gods out there.

[SaintPete]

255. Lol. You might have had a point, IF I had actually made the argument you say I made

Last edited Fri Feb 3, 2012, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

but I didn't. I never claimed that "the entirety of the pantheon of gods out there" had some teaching.

My comment (which was clearly stated, not sure how you missed this) was that "you can say you worship this god or that prophet but unless you really follow the teachings of that figure, you are not of the faithful."

Any other arguments you want to pretend I'm making? Let me know so I can go back and cut and paste what I really said and straighten out the discussion, again.

[white_wolf]

274. Buddha isn't a god, though.

He is just a man, Buddhist considered him a great teacher, but none worship him.

[SaintPete]

275. To Buddhists, true

But in the Hindu Puranic texts, Buddha is the 24th of 25 avatars of Vishnu. In some sects, Buddha is the 8th of 9 principle incarnations of Vishnu, situated between Krishna and Kalki (not Kali). Either way, Buddha is the incarnation of God who descended to teach the principles of Ahimsa, or non-violence.

[white_wolf]

278. Good point. I wasn't thinking of the Hindu perspective.

I don't know too much about Hinduism. Every time I try to study it, I get lost in the various sects.

[ZombieHorde]

11. Yes.

They sincerely self identify as Christian, so they're Christian.

One could argue the new revelations edges it toward a new religious movement, but they are still Christian.

[lonestarnot]

14. They talk out of both sides. They follow that Joseph Smith dude, book of mormon and they

think they can be God too or something like that? And since Christ himself said no one comes to the Father but through me, welp you decide, I'm not their judge and jury, but I still think they are a cult. Snort

[onenote]

16. What's your feeling about Mo Udall?

Cultist?

[lonestarnot]

20. Cult member liberal yes.

[white_wolf]

18. What's the difference between a cult and a religion?

I mean aside from the fact that you agree with one and not the other? The beliefs of the LDS are silly, but no more silly than the beliefs of the rest of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

[lonestarnot]

44. No,

I would not choose silly. Sorry. They think they would not chose silly. One day I shall know. For now I can only be certain of what I have chosen, not anyone else's choice. I do not condemn them, nor do I condone them. This is America. We have religion, we have freedom from it. Religion will not fit into your ven diagram. The difference between religion and religion is faith. And faith is what I have. I will not condemn you for having none. Nope. Will not.

[cpwm17]

85. No one can choose what they actually believe

If one attempts to "choose" to believe anything, their belief can't be honest. It's self deception.

It's impossible for me to choose to believe in any religion. All religions are obviously not true to me. Any attempt for me to believe in any religion would be guaranteed to fail. The brain I'm born with can't believe in what the brain I'm born with determines to be obviously false. I have no free-will in the matter.

[hughee99]

97. The public relations department. n/t

[Orangepeel]

116. A few hundred years.

[Arugula Latte]

249. Following Jesus makes people cultists too.

It's the cult of Jesus.

[Nye Bevan]

15. The full name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".

The subtitle of the "Book of Mormon" is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

Mormons celebrate Christmas.

So yes, they are Christian. But it's a pretty weird branch of Christianity. No alcohol, no tea or coffee, and of course you have to wear that silly underwear. Masturbation is very much frowned upon; "bishops" will quiz youngsters on whether they have "a problem with masturbation".

This website http://www.exmormon.org/ is full of fascinating information from former (recovering) Mormons, and shows how seriously strange that religion is.

[Skinner]

19. My rule of thumb:

A person is whatever religion they say they are.

Mormons are Christian.

[highplainsdem]

21. FYI, Andrew Sullivan posted three blogs with differing opinions on this last October. Links:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/reviving-the-are-mormons-christian-debate.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/are-mormons-christians.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/are-mormons-christians-ctd.html

[undeterred]

23. The fundamentalists I know do not consider either Catholics or Mormons to be Christian...

And they don't think most mainstream protestants are either, although they aren't as desperately offensive.

I guess it all depends who is defining "Christian".

[Nye Bevan]

25. Anyone who claims that a Catholic is not a Christian

is clearly an idiot.

[undeterred]

31. Well, there are a lot of idiots in religious circles.

And there are a lot of people who say that their way to God is the only way to be a true Christian.

So, for example, people who are members of an Assembly of God Church are not going to view a Roman Catholic as a real Christian and probably the reverse is also true.

[Ecumenist]

48. Thank you, Nye Bevan. I always get upset when people say things like "I was Catholic,

now I'm Christian."

[white_wolf]

61. I'll never understand how the original form of Christianity became regarded as false

by the same people who wouldn't have a holy book if it wasn't for the Catholics.

[Ecumenist]

65. You're absolutely right. My husband is Catholic, well he's Catholic AND Lutheran...long story

He's Bohemian Czech. I've never understood that mindset.

[Bluenorthwest]

139. Some would say the 'original form' is found in the Acts of the Apostles long prior to

Rome hearing the 'news' at all. The original form is not Roman, it is from Judea. While Catholics are taught that Peter is 'the rock' the church was made on, Protestant teachings tell us that Jesus did not use the same form of the word 'Petra' for Peter as he did for the foundation of his Church. He said 'You are Peter, a pebble, I will build my church on a boulder.' So he did not say 'you are the rock' he said 'you are so not the rock it is not funny'.
Just saying. Only Catholics see RCC as 'original'. The Copts take particular issue with that concept, as they say they hid the Holy Family on their flight to Egypt, no less. They were in before the bell, the first. First church to make Sanctuaries in Jerusalem? Armenian Church. Not Roman. Armenian.
So that 'original' claim is like saying 'we created the hot dog'. The place across town says the same thing.

[Poiuyt]

102. You're right. There are Christians, and then there are "Christians."

Fundamentalists look down their noses at anyone who hasn't accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. It isn't enough to just follow the teachings of Jesus (you also have to have a lot of hatred in your heart for Muslims, gays, and Hilary Clinton).

[Nikia]

106. There's Fundamentalist Catholics that don't believe that non Catholics are Christian

This was the official position of the Roman Catholic Church for a long time.
In my opinion neither Fundamentalist Christians, Catholics, or the 4th century Church Fathers own Christianity.

[NashvilleLefty]

24. well, according to my Sunday School teachers "Christian" means

"Christ-like". I have read the various Gospels of Christ's teachings, and I haven't found one denomination that was actually "Christ-like".

So, judging by that definition - no, Mormons are NOT Christian. Baptists are NOT Christian. Catholics are NOT Christian. Etc., etc.

In my experience, the only people who exhibited "Christ-like" traits were those who rejected all so-called "Christian" religions.

I find it strange that those who emphasize having a "personal relationship with God" are those who tell you what that relationship should be.

But maybe that's just me.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. That depends on your definition of the word "Christian"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

^snip^


Nevertheless, the LDS Church differs from the many other churches within Christianity, and many people do not accept the LDS Church as part of Christianity.[77] The faith itself views other modern Christian faiths as having departed from true Christianity[78] via a general apostasy and that it is a restoration of 1st century Christianity and the only true and authorized Christian church.[79] Differences between the LDS Church and most of traditional Christianity include disagreement with aspects of the Nicene Creed, belief in a unique theory of human salvation that includes three heavens (referred to as "degrees of glory&quot ,[80] a doctrine of "exaltation" which includes the ability of humans to become gods and goddesses in the afterlife,[81] a dietary code called the Word of Wisdom, and unique sacramental ceremonies performed privately in LDS temples, such as the Endowment and sealing ceremonies.

Officially, major Christian denominations view the LDS Church as standing apart from creedal Christianity,[82] a point the LDS Church itself does not dispute.[83] From the perspective of Christians who agree with creeds, the most significant area of departure is the rejection by the LDS Church of certain parts of ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene Creed, which defines the predominant view of the Christian God as a Trinity of three separate persons with "one purpose or goal". LDS Church theology includes the belief in a "Godhead" composed of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate Persons who share a unity of Purpose or Will; however, they are viewed as three distinct Beings making one Godhead. Other significant differences relate to the church's acceptance of additional scripture, doctrine, and practices beyond what is found in the Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox versions of the Bible.

[grantcart]

125. One billion Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians all agree that 'Christian' is defined

by the articles of the Nicene Creed in 325.

See # 96 below.

[Bluenorthwest]

140. Except for those who do not. Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, the Church of

the Brethern. Baptists hold no Creeds and hold that no Creed defines the fellowship, also that no Creed is a perfected thing.
Also not in the tank for Creeds, the Disciples of Christ, the Churches of Christ, and many small Protestant denominations and congregations. Unitarians also use no Creeds.
The Creeds are not the Standard, as many Christians reject those Creeds and some of the teachings in the Creeds as well.

[grantcart]

158. Incorrect see # 156 above

[quaker bill]

256. He is actually correct

At least as far as modern Quakers are concerned, there is no requirement among us for any member to subscribe to any portion of the Nicene Creed. Non-creedal means no creed. Among our Members are Christian, Budhist, Wiccan, and Secular Humanist Friends (and varieties of other things). Some would not call us Christian, and I am pretty sure we would be fine with that. The Friends Testimonies to Peace, Simplicity, Integrity, and Equality were originally derived from Christ's teachings as reported in the Bible, but apparently many need not study the Bible to get there.

[grantcart]

259. Still incorrect

If one Catholic doesn't believe in the virgin birth or resurrection does that mean, by your logic, that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in resurrection?

The Quakers didn't just drop out of the heavens, they have a very specific evolution, in the larger tradition of the Anabaptists.

Learn more about the movement of Anabaptists here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists



While some Quaker Fellowships have become Universalist in manner those exceptions don't define the historical movement. Quakers did have a defined confessional basis

Quakers have always had doctrines, some of which have been codified declarations of faith, confessions or theological texts. Due in part to the emphasis on reliance on the immediate guidance of the Spirit, diverse statements of "faith and practice" and diverse understandings of the "leading of the Spirit" have always existed among Friends - for example Letter to the Governor of Barbados (George Fox, 1671),[25] An Apology for the True Christian Divinity (Robert Barclay, 1678),[26] A Catechism and Confession of Faith (Robert Barclay, 1690),[27] The Testimony of the Society of Friends on the Continent of America (adopted jointly by all orthodox yearly meetings in USA, 1830),[28] Richmond Declaration of Faith (Adopted by Five Years Meeting, 1887),[29] Essential Truths (Rufus Jones and James Wood, adopted by Five Years Meeting, 1922).[30] As a public statement of faith today, each yearly meeting publishes its own Book of Discipline - that expresses discipleship within the experience of Friends in that yearly meeting.

So if some contemporary Quakers no longer hold the tenets that came from the general historical movement originally defined by the Nicene Creed that doesn't mean that the Quakers didn't come from that movement, it simply means that some Quakers have moved outside the historical definitions of Christians and are Quakers who follow more closely the tradition of the Universalists.

Now whether or not that is a single person, large minority or a plurality of Quakers is not relevent to the question of the historical norm of what is a Christian, however the attached article indicates that the Quakers you speak of are less than 10% of practicing Quakers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

[quaker bill]

261. A very intellectual response

Get back with me when you have spent 25 years reading the original source material, and have clerked a Quaker meeting for 10. True, unprogrammed Friends represent a small fraction of those who term themselves Quaker. Most calling themselves Quaker are in Kenya and are rather fundamentalist in a way that would challenge Jerry Falwell to keep up. Calling them anything other than Christian would be quite the insult.

It is also true that Fox, Barclay, Pennington, Fell, Penn and a great many others among the "Valiant 60" spent a great deal of time on the Quaker Christian apology, in an attempt to have fewer of us jailed, beaten, and executed. Then there was James Nayler riding into London on a donkey....

One should not confuse this for something other than what it was.

[Motown_Johnny]

141. Most of those one billion have no idea

what the Nicene Creed is. Most will define a Christian as someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


If you read my post you will see that I point out that the LDS stands apart from creedal Christianity.


It is clear what your definition of Christianity is but not everyone will agree with it. The truth be told I do agree with you but I think we are in the minority.

[grantcart]

160. Answered in detail in # 156

Not my definition but the historical definition that has become universally accepted for 1700 years.

They might not know what the Nicene Creed is (but most in fact will have said it in worship)

They will know the Christology and Theology of the Holy Trinity which the Creed codified.

Virgin Birth, Resurrection and Holy Trinity. Basically if you follow that you are following the Nicene Creed.

[Nevernose]

32. In fact, they consider themselves Protestants (as such things go)

Not technically, but for all intents and purposes. I asked one of my students who is goes to seminary before school and is gearing up for his mission,and he went and asked his bishop. This is what was reported to me just last week.

[white_wolf]

39. They don't consider themselves Protestants.

They consider themselves outside the Catholic V protestant debate and see themselves as the restoration of Christ's true church. They are restorationists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29

[Nevernose]

46. I said "for all intents and purposes"

We could split Christity's hairs all day, but most people split them into two groups: the Protestant tradition and the Catholic tradition. And in that narrow spectrum, they consider themselves Protestants.

Interesting reading, though -- I'll make sure and ask about it tomorrow morning. I wonder how many people don't know any LDS at all?

[white_wolf]

54. It probably depends a lot on where you live.

My brother's whole family is Mormon and he is really big into so I know a lot about it. I don't know any Mormons outside his family and the one's I've met when I went to his church.

[metalbot]

108. I don't think Mormon's consider themselves Protestants at all...

I know a fair number of Mormons, and have chatted many times with Mormon missionaries. I frequently invite the missionaries in for water (or soda when they will take it), and I've always enjoyed talking to them.

They essentially argue that as the disciples of Christ died, that doctrine was lost, and that the doctrine has been restored in the Book of Mormon. They do, however, use the KJV as the primary source for the New Testament, so in that sense they share a religious book that is commonly Protestant. From a doctrine perspective, I think they are much closer to the Catholic Church than most Protestant Churches. They have a position (Prophet) that is roughly the equivalent to the Papacy, and an organized Church roughly patterned after the Catholic Church. They preach clearly a salvation of both faith and deeds. They consider the priesthood to be a sacrament. From a theological perspective, they don't differ from the Catholic Church and more than they do most Protestant Churches.

[gopiscrap]

36. No these secret underwear wearing folks

are not Christians

[Goblinmonger]

203. What about the silly-hat-wearing Pope? n/t

[kestrel91316]

47. I have a friend who is a fundie christian (yeah, you read that right),

and he is EXTREMELY wary of Romney because of his Mormonism. I made sure to tell him things to increase his concerns when we lunched yesterday. Heeheehee.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

51. Yes

Shouldn't a group be considered christian if they proclaim themselves to be christian and follow the teachings of Christ?

[MuseRider]

53. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Yes they are Christian and celebrate Jesus and his teachings. I know, I was one once upon a time.

Good people for the most part but their rules are strict and you must follow. No real allowance for independent thought so wackiness rules the day. Also bigotry as is well known.

[Cleita]

82. That's what I thought.

Why would they call themselves the Church of Christ if they weren't Christian. I once went to Mormon Sunday school for awhile because some of the neighborhood kids took me and I remember a lot of Jesus being taught there.

[Digit]

55. It depends on perspective

Personally, I don't care what religion you are or aren't; if you believe or don't believe, because that is your right.

I can say that my older brother and his entire family became born again Christians and he told me that their beliefs follow that Mormons are considered a cult and therefore are not christian, and Catholics are not christian since they worship images of the Mother Mary and such.

He doesn't talk to his heathen sister (me) since I am not of the same belief system. It has been 14 years now.

[Ecumenist]

62. Digit, this Christian loves you just the way you are.. I'm not God and cannot judge you

anymore than I can create something out of nothing....Heathens make the world interesting!

[rocktivity]

60. I define a religion based on the teachings or worship of Christ

as Christian.

As I understand Mormonism, Christ does not play a "central" role.


rocktivity

[PassingFair]

93. Of course he does.

"As I understand Mormonism, Christ does not play a "central" role."

You have no understanding of Mormonism AT ALL if that is what you think.


http://mormonbeliefs.org/

snip>
“The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Mormons believe in the same path to eternal life that the Savior taught while on the earth. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ enables believers to progress in following the Savior and in becoming more like Him. It is the prerequisite for all positive action and the pathway to genuine spiritual growth. It implies belief in the perfect attributes of the Savior: His omniscience, mercy, justice, and sovereignty. <unsnip

I love this "they aren't Christian" thread....

Vomited out by people who know absolutely nothing about Mormons.

Mormons believe everything other Christians believe, AND THEN SOME.

[BrentWil]

64. Allow people to define themselves...

Do they call themselves Christians? You have your answer.

[MadHound]

67. Don't care, really don't care.

His belief in a magic sky being is just as irrational as the Pope's belief, or Pat Robertson, or Billy Graham, or. . .

[Sgent]

69. Define Christian

For various values of Christian....

That being said, almost all protestant, catholic, orthodox, and evangelical protestant forms of Christianity believe the Nicene Creed -- Mormon's do not.

[Bluenorthwest]

142. Most accept that Creed, others do not and some reject all Creeds as idols of a sort.

Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, the Church of the Brethern. Baptists hold no Creeds and hold that no Creed defines the fellowship, also that no Creed is a perfected thing.
Also not in the tank for Creeds, the Disciples of Christ, the Churches of Christ, and many small Protestant denominations and congregations. Unitarians also use no Creeds.
So if no Creed excludes Mormons it also excludes Quakers. The Creeds are not accepted in all forms of Christianity at all, and are required standards fewer forms still.

[Sgent]

166. Unitarians

are many things, but even they wouldn't consider themselves Christian (at least the ones I know).

[Jack Sprat]

72. Very much so.

They simply believe that this guy (name I can't recall) was visited by Jesus in the USA and received some new tablets or message that non-Mormons don't believe happened. I think the guy's name was Joseph Smith in the 19th century west. Nobody knows since none of us were there at the time. Whose to say?

[Morning Dew]

76. Kick

[jwirr]

83. Look the issue is about the definition of God. Jesus plays a minor role in Mormonism just like Islam

defines him as a prophet but not a (Triune) God. I do not think we would be calling someone in Islam a Christian - in fact they would not want us to. Likewise the Jews define God differently and they also do not want to be identified as Christian.

Why is everyone so determined to push the Mormons into Christianity. I see why the Mormons want in - it helps their outreach. But to ask Christians to say that Mormons are Christians is no different than asking them to say Judaism or Islam is Christianity. If we do not recognize this we are missing the point.

[white_wolf]

87. You are wrong.

Jesus is not viewed as a prophet in Mormonism. He is viewed as the Son of God and savior of mankind. He is not viewed as part of the Trinity, because Mormons reject the Trinity. Jesus is considered a God equal to the Father and in fact, Mormons equate Jesus with the God of the Old Testament.

[jwirr]

88. That is what I said it is the definition. I did not say the Mormons defined Jesus as a prophet I

said that Islam defines him that way.

[PassingFair]

94. You just said that "Jesus plays a minor role in Mormonism just like Islam".

Mormons view Jesus Christ as their Savior.

http://mormonbeliefs.org/

[jwirr]

183. The just was referring to the phrase "a minor role".

[provis99]

212. Muslims consider Christians to be Muslims who have been led astray.

Bet you're suprised to know that other people think you're a Muslim.

[jwirr]

253. Not sure what you are talking about but they have every right to say that since their religion does

not subscribe to Christian theology. I am also not sure why I am being attacked here since all I was doing was trying to point out the difference between Mormon theology and Christian theology. I am not recommending either one. Just a general definition.

[SaintPete]

86. If Joe Leiberman can claim to be a Democrat

then I guess Mormons can claim to be Christians.

[etherealtruth]

89. Heck if I know

By who's standards ...definitions ... I dunno

[SomethingFishy]

90. Are Christians Christian?

Because they don't seem to follow the "holy book" either.

[flamingdem]

91. ICK

Romney is speaking. Ick.

[Skwid]

92. Maybe a few are. Of the roughly one billion humans who claim to be Christians, about 2 hundred

and six actually are. Most of them would throw stones at Jesus if he came back (which of course he won't having been dead for 2100 years). This collection of mini-essays (not my own but I give them big props) pretty much sums up the inconvenient truth: http://www.godisimaginary.com

[grantcart]

96. Mormons do not fit the orthodox definition of Christianity and cannot be considered 'Christians', so

the answer is 'no'.

While many assume, including people in this thread, that as long as you believe something in Jesus that you can call yourself a Christian, the movement which now numbers about a billion people has a clearly established orthodoxy and Christology.

That definition was established in the 4th century as different sects had difficulty reconciling the Trilogy and the nature of Christ wider interpretations were made and two fundamental and competing schools were established, Confessional Christianity and Gnostic Christians. The former were better organized, had a more integrated systematic theology and a larger group and they organized Church Councils to develop a consensus of what Christ was, and the basic tenets of the faith which eventually became the Nicene Creed. Gnostics were left out and cut off from mass and eventually withered and died away.

To simply say that the Mormons are Christians because they believe in Jesus doesn't make much sense because the Muslims also believe in Jesus, the virgin birth and so on but would not be considered Christians.

In some

If you call Mormons Christians it corrupts the meaning of 'Christianity' until it has little meaning.

I think that the most accurate description is that "Mormons are a Christ related sect that operate outside of the Nicene Creed", or you could even build a case that Mormons are indeed NeoGnostics, in fact there are a lot of similiarities. If you cannot call Gnostics 'Christian' then it makes sense to use the same standard on Mormons.

Nicene Creed here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed


Gnostic Christians here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Christianity

By the early 4th century, gnostics are kicked out the church and officially forbidden to meet, by the mid 4th century their books are widely banned and by the late 4th century Gnosticism carries a death penalty in the Roman empire. The Sethian Gnostics, Archontic Gnostics, Basilidean Gnostics, Valentinian Gnostics, and Manicheans seem to be the only schools of Christian Gnostics to survive into the 4th century. St. Augustine of Hippo claimed to be a Manichean early in life, but later to have rejected it, and thus was a Church Father who was at one point a gnostic. Likewise, the late 3rd-early 4th century theologian Lactantius has sometimes been thought of as being influenced enough by Gnosticism to be a Gnostic father, but this is by no means clear.

[Nikia]

104. Those intolerant Church Fathers don't own Christianity any more than Roman Catholics do

If Mormons say they are Christian. If someone holds unorthodox Christian beliefs but say they are Christian, they are Christian.
Some of the "Church Fathers" may have had good intentions in keeping the Church together, but for the most part it was about intolerance and power. This tradition of intolerance brought many deaths of other Christians. Although some Reformation denominations were equally intolerant, it helped bring about greater freedom within Christianity and religious freedom in general. You could be a Christian without agreeing with Church leadership.

[grantcart]

123. History owns the word

Its not just the 'Church Fathers'.

The Nicene Creed is repeated by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches on a regular basis in regular liturgic worship.

About 1 billion followers agree on this basic definition of what a Christian is, and include it in their regular worship services.

It is not about some ambiguous undefined belief.

At about the same time they defined what was in the Bible and what was out.

No one goes around arguing what should be in the bible or what should not. (Except academic arguments that the Book of Revelation is so universally misunderstood it should have been left out - and very nearly was at the time.)

Except the Mormons who believe that the book of Mormon is "Another Testament" about Jesus Christ.

For the record my father's grand uncle was the second longest serving President of the Mormon Church.

My great great great grandfather was first Mayor of Salt Lake City.

I attended Princeton Theological Seminary.

I admire the Rabbi Jesus but I do not accept the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection as a historical event.

Therefore even if I accept all of the ethical and moral teachings of the Sermon of the Mount (which almost certainly never happened) I could not ever be considered a 'Christian' because I don't accept the basic tenets of the Nicene creed. No wafers and wine for me.

[Bluenorthwest]

146. You are incorrect that the Nicene Creed is the accepted Standard. Many Protestant

Churches reject all Creeds, many more simply do not teach them. You keep posting this Creed as the standard, and it is not. Are Quakers Christians? No Nicene Creed for them. Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, the Church of the Brethern. Baptists hold no Creeds and hold that no Creed defines the fellowship, also that no Creed is a perfected thing.
Also not holding to Creeds, the Disciples of Christ, the Churches of Christ, and many small Protestant denominations and congregations. Unitarians also use no Creeds.
Not one time in my entire youth did I hear any Creed recited in any church. Not once. Baptists are the largest denomination in the US, and they do not recite nor teach the Nicene Creed.

[Critters2]

185. Most Unitarians don't claim to be Christian.

I attended a Baptist seminary. While Baptists don't use the creeds in worship, they can tell you they agree with what the orthodox ones say. Same with Disciples. They know that the concepts in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds are in agreement with what most in their denominations believe.

[metalbot]

109. Christ related sect of what?

"Mormons are a Christ related sect that operate outside of the Nicene Creed"

A sect of what?

A sect means a subsection. You can't really say "A subsections of religions who believe something about Christ" unless you're going to equate the LDS Church to the Mormon or Bahai faiths. Mormon beliefs are far closer to Christian beliefs than any other religion. So if you're going to argue that they are a sect of Christians, I'd agree. But the underlying common denominator is belief and worship in Christ, and as a subset of those people, I think they've got a clear right to call themselves Christian.

[grantcart]

124. Well that would be an argument depending upon your point of view

From a strictly academic point of view it would be a Neo Gnostic Sect.

[Hepburn]

98. Christians mostly are not christian...

...so why would a Mormon be chrisitian?

[limpyhobbler]

101. I've known alot of Mormons, always thought they were Christians. Never asked and don't give a shit.

on edit:
That's not to dismiss the point from the OP though, It's an interesting question. He certainly will be the first Mormon nominee. Yay.

[marlakay]

107. No but they use Jesus to sound more mainstream

And I think newer members don't know the whole truth of their faith.

[Critters2]

110. I agree. I dated a Mormon in college. Learned a lot. Jesus plays almost no role in Mormonism.

They get saved by their own actions, not by anything Jesus did. Really. Ask a Mormon if they're Christian, and their uniform response is "Our church is called 'the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". Beyond that, they don't have a clue.

[marlakay]

184. My best friend when I was in 6th and 7th grade

was a Mormon. I went to meetings for kids with her with cute sounding names for each group. It was so long ago I don't remember why I stopped going, I think because she moved but I enjoyed it and might have joined if she stayed.

They do know how to keep kids having fun.

Then as I got older one of my daughters good friends was in a mormon family. And now years later our neighbors across from us are mormons.

So from these experiences in my life I have come to know what type of people they are. Generally they are nice, good people, but Christians, I don't think so.

[Lex]

117. More importantly, the fundies and evangelicals and social cons DON'T think so.

So they will stay home in November.

[akbacchus_BC]

119. No, never underestimate them, they want President Obama to be gone

and they will come out in droves for the repub. Never be complacent, get the vote out and vote Democrat!

[Lex]

121. My voting actions have never been based on what the fundies do.

Obama will win the middle more so than Mittens will, and thus Obama will win. I will vote regardless.

[akbacchus_BC]

122. I never said that you do!

[akbacchus_BC]

118. To the best of my ability and from reading the Bible, Mormons are Christians

Not because they in a different life style it should mean they are not Christians.

Live and let live, we all make choices regarding religion.

Romney is a Christian! No way he will get the nomination but stranger things happen in the US re politics. An unknown (Sarah Palin) was able to take centre stage in the Republican stage and induced her hatred and the rethugs loved her. They still want her to throw her cap in, wish she would! Then President Obama would win in a landslide!

[JCMach1]

131. No, because they believe in a non-canonical 'revealed' Prophet and non-canonical texts

They are no more Christian than Muslims are...

As a Muslim would say, they are people of the book... However, that doesn't make them Christian. Jews also fall into the same category.

I say that having ancestors that were some of the earliest Mormons. It may even be that the Romneys could be some distant relation, or other.

I knew my Great Great Grandmother who converted (she lived to be 108). She was the first in her family to convert before they eventually took off to Missouri and then Utah. She had a falling-out with the church when my Great Great Grandfather brought home a second wife. She forced him to divorce her. When I knew her, she was pretty much a lapsed-Mormon.

I also knew my Great Grandmother and her sisters. My Great Grandmother completely rejected Mormonism, but my Great Aunts and Uncles remained in the church. They were some of the kindest and nicest people you would ever want to meet as a child. I loved them dearly. In terms of living like a Christian, they (at least) were doing it.

[Ganja Ninja]

134. In practice probably a lot more Christian then the people that say they aren't.

Evangelicals for example.

[MineralMan]

136. Well, this went well.

Questions like yours are not possible to answer, since there isn't really a universal definition of what a Christian is. Christianity is host to thousands of denominations, each of which believes that it is the one that truly understands what Christianity is. New denominations are constantly splitting off from older ones, often over very minor doctrinal issues.

Christianity is not one thing. It is not a hundred things. It is whatever a believer thinks it is.

As for candidates for the presidency, most have been Christians, at least by their own definition. There's some question about a couple of them, but none have ever actually said they were not Christian, as far as I know. Since Christianity, in one form or another, is the dominant religious belief in this country, it's difficult to conceive of an admitted non-Christian winning the Presidency.

So, is Romney a Christian? Well, if he claims to be, I can't argue with him on that point. Lacking an objective definition of Christianity, I'd have no grounds to argue with him. His politics? Oh, yes, I can argue with him on that.

[Romulox]

137. If Mormons believe they need intercession by someone OTHER than Christ

in order to secure "salvation", then they are not "Christians"; merely revering Christ isn't enough, as Muslims (who don't define themselves as "Christian" despite venerating Jesus) demonstrate.

It's as simple as that.

[white_wolf]

143. Mormons don't belelive in the intercession of anyone but Jesus.

They don't merely venerate Jesus, they worship him as the savior. Joseph Smith is viewed as a prophet, nothing more, nothing less.

[Romulox]

152. No. Mormons believe that Joseph Smith's prophecy ALTER the previous covenant.

Just as Muslims believe that Mohammed established a different covenant with Allah.

"They don't merely venerate Jesus, they worship him as the savior. Joseph Smith is viewed as a prophet, nothing more, nothing less."

Christians believe Christ's ascension fulfilled all prophecy; there is no logical room for a "prophet" to come to tell us about what already has happened. It's not internally coherent.

Again, I'm not religious, but I understand the basic theology of Mormonism.

[white_wolf]

154. No, Mormons beleive Joseph Smith restored the orginal covenant.

Mormons believe that after the death of the Apostles, the original teachings of Jesus were lost and God choose Smith to restore those teachings. With all the disagreements amongst Christan sects, the Mormons claim makes as much sense as any, which admittedly is very little, in my mind..

[Romulox]

164. The "original" covenant was with Adam. Mormons believe the covenant made by Jesus

was flawed from the beginning.

As a matter of theology, it simply cannot be explained how one third of the godhead (Christ) was unable to establish a legitimate church on earth whereas a conman from Ohio was able to do so in the 1800s. The implicit assertion is that the covenant made by Jesus was insufficient to establish his church, and only Joseph Smith has been able to do so (for some unexplainable reason.)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


LDS Church members believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. was called by God to restore the true teachings of Jesus Christ

According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the Great Apostasy started not long after Jesus' ascension[14] and continued until Joseph Smith's First Vision in 1820. To Latter-day Saints, the Great Apostasy is marked by:

the difficulty of the Apostles to keep early Christians from distorting Jesus' teachings and to prevent the followers from dividing into different ideological groups;[15]
the persecution and martyrdom of the church's Apostles;[16]
the loss of leaders with Priesthood authority to administer the church and its ordinances;[17]
the lack of continuous revelation to instruct the leaders and guide the church;[14] and
the corruption of Christian doctrine by Greek or other allegedly pagan philosophies such as Neo-Platonism, Platonic realism, Aristotleanism and Asceticism.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

[Common Sense Party]

273. You are correct.

[treestar]

144. Yes, they believe in Christ

It would be fundamentalists who would claim the are "Not Christians." Fundamentalists would say that also of Catholics or Unitarians or anyone who does not subscribe to their own doctrine.

[Romulox]

153. Muslims believe in Christ. nt

[treestar]

155. They think he's a prophet, right?

They don't believe he is God, though.

[Romulox]

162. Mormons do not believe that Jesus is god, either.

Mormons are constrained by the language of the Book of Mormon to regard the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "one", but to Mormons, this "oneness" does not have the same meaning as within traditional Christianity. Modern Mormons regard God as plural.[50] They regard God the Father as the biblical god Elohim, and they believe that the Son, a distinct being, is both Jesus and the biblical god Jehovah.[51] The two of them, together with the Holy Spirit, are believed to form a heavenly counsel which Mormons call the "Godhead". They are "one" in the sense of being lovingly united in purpose or will, a view sometimes called social trinitarianism.[52] Unlike traditional Christians, modern Mormons do not regard the Father and the Son as co-equal; rather, they generally regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.[53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity

[white_wolf]

165. Mormons beleive Jesus is a a god.

Mormons view Jesus as the same God spoken of in the Old Testament. God the Father's role in Mormonism is a something I've never really understood, though. If Jesus is the God of the Old Testament and savior of mankind, what role does the Father play?

[Romulox]

168. It's a confused theology, imo.

"Mormons view Jesus as the same God spoken of in the Old Testament. God the Father's role in Mormonism is a something I've never really understood, though. If Jesus is the God of the Old Testament and savior of mankind, what role does the Father play?"

My understanding is that Mormons believe we are all potentially "gods", and therefore we must also be essentially co-equal with "the Father".

[PassingFair]

191. As opposed to all of the other "non-confused" theologies?

Cause the others make SO much sense!

"According to this doctrine, there is only one God in three persons. Each person is God whole and entire. They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds". But, while distinct in their relations with one another, they are one in all else. The whole work of creation and grace is a single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.[4]

Trinitarianism (one deity/three persons) contrasts with Christian non-Trinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity/two persons), Unitarianism (one deity/one person), the Oneness or Modalism belief, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' view that the Godhead is a council of three deities, perfectly united in purpose and will, but nevertheless separate and distinct individuals.[5]"

[HopeHoops]

145. They are self-proclaimed Christians and view Jesus as the primary figure, HOWEVER,...

It's what I would personally consider to be a cult. Just as with the many flavors of Christians, Mormons have their own sects with variances in beliefs. Frankly, most people who I've encountered who flaunt their devotion to their own sect of Christianity behave in a way that would make Jesus shake his head in disbelief if not outright slap them across the head to knock some sense into them.

I really don't give a shit what religion someone is, if any. It has no bearing on their suitability to lead the country. Romney's just a stuffed shirt asshole. That is just what he is and it has nothing to do with his religious association to Mormons.

[provis99]

213. a cult is merely an unpopular sect.

Look at all the bizarre and crazy beliefs that Catholics have, and they are the "mainstream".

[HopeHoops]

241. One could argue that they're a cult as well.

[Yo_Mama]

151. Who cares, really?

This is a question that should not arise in politics.

[SaintPete]

157. Oh yeah!

Seems I remember reading that somewhere:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=112&const=06_art_06

[Yo_Mama]

167. You read my mind, er, Constitution

There's no need to invent a religious test where our law and our custom forbid it.

At the risk of sounding like the Salamander, historically there have been many attacks on a US candidate's religion, and historically the electorate has ignored them. I seem to recall a lot of yipyap over our current president's church in the last election.

Jefferson was accused of atheism:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1920636

Andrew Jackson was accused of everything. Absolutely everything. He was guilty of a lot of it.

Grover Cleveland was accused of not living by religion, and certainly wasn't following the social norms of the time:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#2.4

Kennedy was widely suspected of Catholicism, on remarkably strong grounds, but won anyway.

When times are bad or issues are pressing, the electorate worries about a candidate's proposed policies, and this has been consistently true.

[SaintPete]

178. Your comments about Kennedy and Jackson crack me up

"widely suspected of Catholicism" indeed. Was that by Protestants, or by other Catholics?

[Yo_Mama]

180. Well, let's just say

that the Protestants didn't want to be ruled by the Pope, and the Catholics didn't either, so while the Protestants were voting on Kennedy's promises of independence, the Catholics were probably voting in some psychological security due to the grave matters.

This country is not a country of prigs, and really never has been. The reason we put that in the Constitution is that people had seen how badly it had worked out in other countries, and they were right.

[PassingFair]

159. "Sojourners' Forum on Faith, Values and Poverty." Remember that fiasco?

http://production.sojo.net/blogs/2007/06/05/transcript-presidential-forum-faith-values-and-poverty

Disgusting religious test of DEMOCRATIC candidates,
...had to be done to "disprove" that Obama wasn't
a "muslin".

Horrible moment in politics.

Check out the comments section. Most were quite
taken with the christ-like John Edwards.

[Yo_Mama]

248. Yes, I do, and I was in fact thinking about it when I responded

Life is hard enough. We do not need to go down this route. I found the faith-forums of that election absolutely disgusting, both in a religious sense and in a political sense.

One of the few things the founders got absolutely right from the beginning was the separation of personal religion from public life, and I see no reason to throw that away now.

Halfway through it I would have voted for anyone who responded to a question about prayer with a "It's none of your goddamned business!"

[PassingFair]

252. Amen

I Mean Ramen

[Jennicut]

246. Exactly. Romney's political views are far worse they any religion

he partakes in. Far worse.

[Yo_Mama]

247. Yeah - we're trying to elect a President

Not a Priest-in-Chief.

It's the political agenda that I care about.

[closeupready]

163. Not in the traditional sense, since they'd have to accept concepts like the Trinity.

Additionally, let me point out the obvious with regard to whether they are Protestants -

I think the term "Protestant" itself was coined by Catholic surrogates to indicate that, basically, they are protesting against certain provisions of Catholic dogma, i.e., most of the basics of what the Catholic church teaches is correct, but the frosting is all wrong, something like that.

Since Mormons reject some of the most settled aspects of Christianity that are two millenia old, it's hard to consider them Christian in the way one would consider Lutherans as Christian.

[Arugula Latte]

175. Lol. This entire thread is hilarious.

It points out how absolutely stupid and ridiculous religion is.

[SaintPete]

179. To each their own

doesn't make it stupid, just not your style...

[PassingFair]

207. Apostate! Heretic! Heathen!

"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."

-Emo Phillips

[Union Scribe]

227. No, it points out how absolutely stupid and ridiculous

online discussions of religion are. This thread should be condemned and pushed into a ravine by a bulldozer.

[helderheid]

182. I'm not Mormon, but I do live in Utah. Mormons do consider themselves to be Christians. n/t

[libodem]

186. Exact

It's called: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, thus LDS. Mormon is a nickname.

[Lex]

188. The evangelicals, fundies, and teabaggers won't go for it

no matter what you call it. Which is a good thing.

[demosincebirth]

194. Did you ever go though the Book of Morman? Pretty wierd stuff in there. Thats what they believe,

unless you are gullible, their teachings are not Christian. They want so much to be accepted.

[Goblinmonger]

205. Yeah, but the "real" bible isn't full of wierd (sic) stuff.

THAT book makes a fuck-ton of sense.

[PassingFair]

208. Hey! There's nothing "wierd" about Christianity!!1!

[siligut]

257. They want to be accepted as the Chosen People

Mormons are anything but humble. The Book of Mormon is full of "facts" that are proven to be false. The Smithsonian has issued a statement to them, telling them to stop sending the Book of Mormon as an adjunct to archaeological history.

The Smithsonian Institution issues a standard reply to requests for their opinion regarding the Book of Mormon as an archaeological or scientific guide.[23] Prior to 1998, the statement denied any evidence for pre-Columbian contact between Old and New Worlds: "Certainly there was no contact with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East." In 1998, the Smithsonian began issuing a shorter letter without the detailed response found in the first letter, and limited its comment to briefly deny any use of the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide by the institution.[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Smithsonian_Institution_statement_on_the_Book_of_Mormon

Yes this is from Wiki but you can find it elsewhere, and I am surprised it is even there as Mormons have been known to alter Wiki to support their own beliefs.

[provis99]

214. so where do we put Christian Jews? yes, they exist.

http://jewsforjesus.org/

religion means whatever it wants to mean.

[GoneOffShore]

217. In the same way that Scientology is a religion.

Manufactured, Cargo-cultism.

[Union Scribe]

225. Lol. DU theology class is in session.

Why the hell is this thread full of the worst of the religion forum in GD? Didn't we build a wall around that place?

[PassingFair]

238. Apparently a section of the wall crumbled in DU3!

Who let the dogs out?

[Goblinmonger]

240. DU3 lets you hide threads, you know.

Nobody's holding a gun to your head making you come in here and post.

[mick063]

262. Interesting thread

A lot of wrong has been done, by humans, in the name of Christ. On the other hand, there has been an incredible amount of good done in his name as well.

If you believe that humans should abide by prinicples of "good" as opposed to "evil", then a strong case can be made for following the teachings of Christianity. On the other hand, I can't see a good argument that can justify that Christianity has a monopoly on morality. For many, the concept of being morally correct is of greater importance than the route one has chosen to get there. Put me in that category. I know a good neighbor when I live next to one.

In my mind, there isn't much grey area with respect to good verse evil. I personally believe that people inherently know the difference and those that don't have been historically rejected with the test of time.

[Common Sense Party]

263. Some are, some aren't--like any Christian religion.

And like many atheists or non-religionists.

They're "Christian" in the sense that they live good lives and more or less follow many of the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ. They're kind to others, giving, charitable, non-judgmental, humble and forgiving. They serve and sacrifice and try to make the world a better place.

To do that, you can be Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, Republican or Democrat. If you try to follow Christ, you can claim to be a Christian. If you don't, you shouldn't make that claim.

[Major Hogwash]

266. IBTL

[Evasporque]

269. Mormonism is to Christianity as....

Windows is to Vista

[SaintPete]

277. I think you mean the reverse, but I get ya

Does that make Macs Buddhists?

[Taverner]

276. Yes. A Christian is anyone who tries to emulate Christ.

[Posteritatis]

279. They define themselves as much. The entirety of the rest of the discussion is about Scotsmen. (nt)