Mormonism and Christianity

[MisterSwig]

For whatever reason, the Roman emperors always seemed to choose the most theologically absurd of the available alternatives to impose on Christians.

I don't think this is true. I recall, from the research I did for my articles on Christianity, that Constantius, for example, was an Arian (anti-trinitarian) who brutalized and banished the Athanasians (trinitarians).

Also, I think that many of the emperors chose the most popular theology--not the most absurd one--because they wanted to avoid being assassinated.

[MisterSwig]

No, I'm not saying that at all. All that I'm saying that the category "Christian" encompasses a substantially wider variety of views than merely those commonly found today. For example, I think that the legions of early Christians who denied the Trinity were genuine Christians, just as today's Baptists and Catholics are genuine Christians.

Also, I'm not saying that a Christian must be consistent with Scripture. As anyone who has read the whole New Testament knows, that's completely impossible. The texts are flatly contradictory on more than a few major issues. However, a Christian must regard the New Testament (or the earlier traditions) as authoritative (in some sense).

Does that seem more clear? (You may not agree with it, but that's another matter!)

If we are going to define Christians by their doctrines and beliefs, then I agree with your view here. I tend to go very wide and say that anyone who upholds Christ as their moral ideal is a Christian.

[dianahsieh]

I wrote: "For whatever reason, the Roman emperors always seemed to choose the most theologically absurd of the available alternatives to impose on Christians."

I don't think this is true. I recall, from the research I did for my articles on Christianity, that Constantius, for example, was an Arian (anti-trinitarian) who brutalized and banished the Athanasians (trinitarians).

Um, I really didn't mean that statement to be taken literally, as if it were some kind of absolute rule. That would be silly.

Also, I think that many of the emperors chose the most popular theology--not the most absurd one--because they wanted to avoid being assassinated.

No, that was often not the case. In fact, it couldn't have been since majorities were regional and local, not empire-wide. And exactly how would calling politically-charged councils of bishops to settle doctrine for the whole empire have helped emperors avoid assassination? That doesn't make any sense to me. From the sources I've read, one common motive was a desire to unify the empire (and so halt internal religious strife) by settling contentious matters of doctrine.

If we are going to define Christians by their doctrines and beliefs, then I agree with your view here. I tend to go very wide and say that anyone who upholds Christ as their moral ideal is a Christian.

I think that's too wide. Many atheists uphold Jesus as a moral ideal. They're altruists, but they're not religious. (Or did you mean something more substantial by referring to him as "Christ" rather than "Jesus"?)

Edited April 14, 2007 by dianahsieh

[MisterSwig]

I think that's too wide. Many atheists uphold Jesus as a moral ideal. They're altruists, but they're not religious. (Or did you mean something more substantial by referring to him as "Christ" rather than "Jesus"?)

I'm thinking of deistic Christians, like some of our founding fathers. Though the atheist example is intriguing. Do you have an example of such a person? I'm drawing a blank.

[dianahsieh]

I'm thinking of deistic Christians, like some of our founding fathers. Though the atheist example is intriguing. Do you have an example of such a person? I'm drawing a blank.

While I think you could speak of Christian-influenced (or Muslim-influenced) deists, a deist is someone who accepts the "God of the Philosophers" (i.e. an omniscient omnipotent creator) while rejecting the personal and miracle-making God of the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Bible, the Koran, etc. In other words, it's a kind of religious belief on par with Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc -- so it cannot be a subtype thereof.

As for atheists who regard Jesus as a moral ideal, that would be most secular humanists.

[davidmsc]

I know very little about Bible history and such, but here's my two cents: A Christian is anyone who (a) believes in "God" - a supreme being who caused everything, and ( believes that Jesus is the son of God and accepts that Jesus is the only way to salvation and heaven; in other words, the divinity of Jesus. Based on my limited knowledge of Mormons, they do qualify as Christian in that sense. There are "degrees" of Christianity: baptist, catholic, mormon, etc. All have differing levels of faith in certain aspects of the Bible and certain aspects of Jesus, Mary, etc, but fundamentally they all believe in those two tenets, as far as I know.

And FWIW: generally speaking, most Mormons that I know seem to be much more faithful to their stated beliefs than most Christians (and Jews) that I know. Yes, the level of absurdity that they believe in eclipses much of their fellow Christians, but in terms of day-to-day living and personal integrity, they generally are decent people, and their lifestyle in some ways is more similar to mine (atheist, duh) than other religionists.

Edited April 14, 2007 by softwareNerd
Changed emoticon back to 'b', as the author clearly intended

[Guruite]

I am "officially" a member of the Mormon Church. (Not by current choice, as I follow Objectivism as closely as I know how.)

Yes, Mormons do consider themselves Christians. However, they believe in a somewhat different version of Christ than the rest of Christianity.

I do not think that Mormons should be considered Christians. They believe in many other stories that change the fundamental nature of the Jesus that 'Christians' believe existed.

(I am thinking of a particular passage in the book of Mormon where Jesus demolishes 16 or so towns - 3 Nephi Ch. 9: 2-13)

I believe that Jesus killing people (children, with no sins, especially) changes his character enough to say that 'Book of Mormon Jesus 'is different than 'Bible Jesus.'

Mormons should be considered an offshoot that borrows from the mainstream Christianity and 'makes up/ talks to god' about the rest.

- at least this is how I see it

[LaszloWalrus]

Muslims don't consider the Bible, either part, to be scripture. Their sole holy book is the Koran.

I should have responded to this earlier, but I must have forgotten. D'Kian's statement is not entirely true: Muslims consider the Old and New Testaments to be (in their original forms from God), but they believe that due to human distortion, much of the original message has been lost and replaced with a false message. Thus, God sent down the Koran, which Muslims believe is the literal, undistorted word of God.

Don't most Muslims also consider the Hadith holy?

[ryankiel]

As a real live Mormon (Latter-day Saint) I'd like to give it to you from the horses mouth.

1) Yes, we consider ourselves Christian as far is a Christian is a follower of Christ.

2) No, and we don't really concern ourselves with it.

3) Have a look at www.freecapitalist.com An organization that is about 75% Mormon.

As for our 'strange' doctrines, keep in mind perspective. The current 'Christian' trends (even though there are thousands of splintered denominations) base their doctrines on their individual interpretations of a little book called The Bible (we also adhere to The Bible) However, the source of our doctrine comes from modern revelation. Many of the doctrines we believe have been simply restored.

When I was a Christian, I vehemently denied that Mormons had a right to call themselves Christians, and I stand by that judgement. Having a Mormon aunt, I know a bit about their religion.

A very little bit I'm afraid.

Then you have Mormons...they don't even try. The things described in the Book of Mormon have been conclusively proven to be a load of bullshit. That book describes a civilization that existed in the Americas that, according to all archaeological evidence, never existed at all.

Mormons will just wave their hands and say "well, all traces of its existence were wiped out by God."

Really? I don't think so...

My favorite part of your argument:

If you ever get a chance, watch the South Park episode titled "All About Mormons." Some of its claims are exaggerated, but they're actually pretty accurate.

Your only source for your claims are from a cartoon.

Hm, what else..

Polytheism:

We believe the Father, Son, Holy Ghost are 3 seperate beings, however united in every way in the same purpose and existance. If you wish to interpret this as polytheism, so be it, it's not a concern to us.

The quote from Revelation is a funny little trick anti-mormons use for their argument (as seen in this thread)

1) John was referring specifically to his writings in the 'Book of Revelation'

2) The book was written even before the writings of the apostles, it was placed at the end of the Bible to give it finality which gives this fallacy even more sway.

3) Imagine if the book of John was placed last in the Bible: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be awritten every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. -John 21:25

[DavidOdden]

3) Have a look at www.freecapitalist.com An organization that is about 75% Mormon.

That has no bearing on the question -- unless you're arguing that Christians are a bunch of commies and therefore Mormons aren't properly considered Christians. What evidence do you have that Mormons are properly considered Christians? Do you consider Unitarians, Muslims and Baha'i to be Christians? If not, why not.

[Guruite]

Polytheism:

We believe the Father, Son, Holy Ghost are 3 seperate beings, however united in every way in the same purpose and existance. If you wish to interpret this as polytheism, so be it, it's not a concern to us.

The polytheism could be said to come from that belief. However, the proclamation that told the church that God was once like Man, and Man could become like God implied that God (currently) had a God and that we could be a God, too. This means (as far as I can tell) that there are a great number of these God beings (perhaps an infinite number).

Edited September 2, 2007 by Guruite

[ryankiel]

The polytheism could be said to come from that belief. However, the proclamation that told the church that God was once like Man, and Man could become like God implied that God (currently) had a God and that we could be a God, too. This means (as far as I can tell) that there are a great number of these God beings (perhaps an infinite number).

Sure, this also implies self interest in the worship and conformance to the precepts of the church. I prefer a God who wants his children to become like him. In worship of God, he is glorified and in our progression we are glorified.

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Corinthians 8:4-5

[dbc]

Mormons believe that God was once a normal, mortal being who lived on another planet and attained God-ship by living a good Mormon life.

ryankiel,

Someone posted the above regarding Mormon belief. Is it accurate? If not, what is incorrect?

Dan

[stephenmallory]

I agree with Diana that religions are, by definition, a constantly changing and contradictory set of dogma's and so that the best way to classify them is to judge their adhearance to whatever scripture they subscribe to.

This makes me think that Mormonism is a type of Buddhism (Or, if you wish, Buddism a type of Mormonism). Buddhists believe that the Buddha was once a man who, through meditation and good deeds, acquired super-natural powers. If the defining, distinguishing characteristic of Mormonism is their belief that God was once a man who became god of this universe through his actions, then any agreement Mormons might have with Christianity or Judaism is secondary.

While their ethical and political beliefs might be much more in line with Judeo-Christianity, their metaphysical beliefs about what makes and shapes universes (I guess that's the plural of 'universe') is identical to what can be found in the sacred texts of buddhism. Does it matter if these two concepts were conceived independently?

Edited September 2, 2007 by stephenmallory

[Guruite]

Correct me if anything in my post is wrong (because there is a good chance that something or everything is)

If Objectivism is a 'closed' system, then shouldn't Christianity be as well?

By this people could add in some non-contradictory doctrines and even disagree among major issues and still call themselves Christian (I am thinking of socialism/capitalism and even Evolution)

However, if core doctrines were changed the religion would not be considered Christianity.

If the above is correct, then I say that Mormonism should not be considered because they do change core doctrines. Depending on who (and when) in Mormonism you ask; Adam was God, Jesus was not conceived by a miracle, Peter's rock did fail, and the New Testament is wrong and needs to be corrected or 'translated'(and has been to an extent, by Joseph Smith).

[Tenure]

Well, I'd say Christianity is not a single-formed system, but a number of interpretations of the same text(s), sometimes including some (like... everything in the OT) and ignoring some choice passages in the other (like Revelations in the NT). It is not really a closed system, because no one ever made a single decision to form it - the Catholic Church arose after the life of Jesus, intepreting his life and the records of it into a religion. Many Christians would argue it isn't about 'religion' but instead a 'relationship', so that the one thing that matters to make you a Christian is: do you believe the only way to Heaven is through Jesus, and do you accept him as your personal saviour?

If you're vague enough about what that means, you can call any Jesus-worshiper a Christian and also claim it to not even be a religion.

I should also mention: I dated a devout Christian for a year and a half, so I'm pretty brushed up on what being-a-Christian means.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Tenure

[LaszloWalrus]

Correct me if anything in my post is wrong (because there is a good chance that something or everything is)

If Objectivism is a 'closed' system, then shouldn't Christianity be as well?

I don't think so. Christianity is not an integrated set of beliefs for which one offers reasons, but a loose collection of dogmas organized around the central tenet that Jesus is the son of God and God himself.

[Guruite]

Hmm, Yeah it sounds like I was off. I thought a little about this post and decided that Christianity couldn't really be a closed system because Jesus (Christianity) didn't write any of the current accepted doctrines of the major religions. It was all other people, and current interpretation of those texts that make Christianity.

(but yes I think that the points made above are correct)

If you're vague enough about what that means, you can call any Jesus-worshiper a Christian and also claim it to not even be a religion.

Well, then I would call Mormonism Christianity according to the above definition.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Guruite

[ryankiel]

ryankiel,

Someone posted the above regarding Mormon belief. Is it accurate? If not, what is incorrect?

Dan

The doctrine of exaltation is one we hold true, however there is not great detail and depth. Exaltation is the idea that the children of God, grow up, and grow up to become like God, just as a child can grow up to be a parent themselves.

Many of typical protestant churches can't fathom this idea as they have been taught and trained that if they just have faith, they may have the hope someday of blowing trumpets and praising God for eternity.

We see God as loving and rather than receiving his glory from masses of bootlickers, he receives his glory by seeing his children grow up to become like him.

[DavidOdden]

The doctrine of exaltation is one we hold true, however there is not great detail and depth. Exaltation is the idea that the children of God, grow up, and grow up to become like God, just as a child can grow up to be a parent themselves.

I find your response distresingly dishonest. Let me remind you of the question. Specifically, with bold to draw your attention to the most important pare, "Mormons believe that God was once a normal, mortal being who lived on another planet and attained God-ship by living a good Mormon life." That planet is Kolob (hence the Lords of Kobol in BG, thanks to a Mormon writer for the series). The doctrine of exaltation is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the doctrine dictated by the founder of the church in the Book of Abraham is entirely incompatible with Christianity, which is why the "we consider ourselves Christian" argument has no sway.

[ryankiel]

I find your response distresingly dishonest. Let me remind you of the question. Specifically, with bold to draw your attention to the most important pare, "Mormons believe that God was once a normal, mortal being who lived on another planet and attained God-ship by living a good Mormon life." That planet is Kolob (hence the Lords of Kobol in BG, thanks to a Mormon writer for the series). The doctrine of exaltation is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the doctrine dictated by the founder of the church in the Book of Abraham is entirely incompatible with Christianity, which is why the "we consider ourselves Christian" argument has no sway.

The post I made was deleted Odden, if you want to know the LDS doctrine of Exaltation and our beliefs as to where God came from and the nature of God just PM me

[pvtmorriscsa]

Howdy All,

Professor Odden thanks for the heads up on the god is an alien thing, oh and the Battlestar Cracklaktica tie in. I just could not figure out for the life of me the where they got the whole “Lords of Kobol” thing. The majority of the mythology and religion of BSG is shown in more of a pagan way, with a huge flavoring of the Hellenes I never would have even come close to guessing the mormon connection. The more I think about it though, in comparison with my very dim memories of reading the book of mormon the more I can see the parallels.

I didn’t know about the mormon/extraterrestrial teachings, I must have missed that part when I read it, that or I have used the memory space for something more useful. Thanks for the heads up I am going to research that. It sure trumps what I had when the missionaries show up at my front door.

Usually when the lds show up at my door; I start with something like, “Wasn’t Joseph Smith, something of a con man? Didn’t he use “magic” stones rolling around in his hat to “divine” the location of treasure?” The normal counter to that is something to the affect that there has been a gross mischaracterization on the part of historians.

Next I would counter with, “Did the angel Moroni, lead Joseph Smith to the location of ancient buried gold plates written in a foreign language, that he could only read with ruby lensed glasses also provided by said angel?” As you might have guessed by this point I am often snickering, because the usual response to this is a somewhat guffawed affirmative.

Now normally I would inflict the coup de grace; something along the lines of “You are serious? Magic glasses you have to be kidding?” That is usually enough to get them to leave. However once I assimilate the new information in regards to the whole god is from another planet concept, I am sure I will be able to get even the most recalcitrant missionary to scurry and mark me off the list with the alien/god questions.

Oh and for further reference jehovah’s witnesses are much easier to scare off. One of their fundamental beliefs is that only 144,000 people will get to heaven. If one asks, “How many people have been in your church?”, and follows it with “How do I guarantee that I get into heaven?” the rest is easy. Their arguments fall apart from pure mathematics.

Oh and to answer the questions in the original post.

1. Yes, mormons think of themselves as christians. If you ask any mormon they will confirm this.

2. It depends; some of the more “liberal” denominations don’t agree with the mormons, but think of the as christians, whereas the more “conservative” types see them as a cult. I predict this will cause Romney problems with the GOP base.

3. I would posit that mormonism is best described as an off shoot cult of christianity.

Rob

[Guruite]

I think (again I could be wrong) the whole 'God is an Alien with superman powers' comes from the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the Pearl of Great Price

"6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth;

7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim." (D&C 130 6-8)

The Urim and Thummim were the stones that you mentioned above.

(I do not remember it being mentioned in the Book of Mormon)

[DavidOdden]

See the official church page here. They quote The Prophet, pp. 345-46, as claiming "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did".

The problem here is if you say "Smith was just a lying jackass and we don't believe him", then you have to reject the entire foundation of Mormonics. I suspect that he was a lying jackass, since he claims to be able to read "reformed Egyptian" (what a hoot) and he claims that American Indians are really Jewish immigrants, a claim that has no support at all other than a brief scene in Blazing Saddles.

[Tenure]

...and he claims that American Indians are really Jewish immigrants, a claim that has no support at all other than a brief scene in Blazing Saddles.

Oh my god, I never understood that scene until now!

Haha.

Those crazy Mormons.