Is Mormonism Christianity?

[PSOL]

Yes, yes they are even with its odd theology of believing that one can possibly become a god to their own world and other Space Opera staples.

They believe that Jesus Christ is their savior (here), they worship Yahweh (here), along with other principles like their social organization and milleniarism that reflects and parallels original Christianity more than other mass denominations. Henotheism on its own means nothing when other so-called Christians forego other planks.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No, but some Mormons could theoretically be Christians in spite of their church.

[RI]

Yes. The LDS Church is, when you get down it, a hodgepodge of updates to early Christian heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism (specifically Christian strains thereof). I firmly consider these to be early branches of the Christian Church, albeit dead-end ones, so it would be strange to consider the LDS Church anything but Christian. I think people, especially evangelicals, tend to view the LDS Church as non-Christian because they've never been otherwise exposed to these early Christian controversies and the differing viewpoints involved.

[DC Al Fine]

Nah, I'd consider them the fourth major Abrahamic religion.

They come onto the scene and teach a very different idea about what the Godhead is and add significant new scriptures. That sounds more similar to the relationship between Christianity and Judaism or Islam and Christianity, rather than say Catholics and Lutherans.

[PSOL]

No, but some Mormons could theoretically be Christians in spite of their church.

Yes. The LDS Church is, when you get down it, a hodgepodge of updates to early Christian heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism (specifically Christian strains thereof). I firmly consider these to be early branches of the Christian Church, albeit dead-end ones, so it would be strange to consider the LDS Church anything but Christian. I think people, especially evangelicals, tend to view the LDS Church as non-Christian because they've never been otherwise exposed to these early Christian controversies and the differing viewpoints involved.

What practices and theological differences do they differ from “Christianity”

[Хahar 🤔]

Nah, I'd consider them the fourth major Abrahamic religion.

They come onto the scene and teach a very different idea about what the Godhead is and add significant new scriptures. That sounds more similar to the relationship between Christianity and Judaism or Islam and Christianity, rather than say Catholics and Lutherans.

This is basically my view, and it's the opinion of most people who really think about this. Some Mormon views on God can be reconciled with those previous non-trinitarian Christian denominations, but plenty are not: the concept of exaltation, for instance, or the notion that God has a wife, which is a fundamental part of Church belief, even if it is almost never mentioned. More than anything, the notion of new divine scripture in addition to the Bible is incompatible with Christianity, in much the same way that belief in the divinely sent Qur'an is incompatible with Christianity.

It fascinates me that there were actually two widespread religious movements in the nineteenth century led by a divine messenger who taught that Jesus traveled to another land after the crucifixion: one in America and one in India. For political reasons the American body politic has seen fit to acknowledge Mormons as Christian, but it's hard to imagine a Pakistan in which Qadianis were recognized as Muslim.

[PSOL]

You’re forgetting about Baha’is

Anyway plenty of other groups have supplementary material or sermons passed on as what to believe and how to be in any given religion. The Book of Mormon is indeed a step up from that, but is it really that far? Wouldn’t everything else such as their social practices and belief code make them more “Christian” than whatever Greek mainstream current is practiced by most?

The arguments against Mormons being Christian sounds like what was used against Protestantism. Going on the flipside to what you said, it’s political more than anything.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No.

Yes. The LDS Church is, when you get down it, a hodgepodge of updates to early Christian heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism (specifically Christian strains thereof). I firmly consider these to be early branches of the Christian Church, albeit dead-end ones, so it would be strange to consider the LDS Church anything but Christian. I think people, especially evangelicals, tend to view the LDS Church as non-Christian because they've never been otherwise exposed to these early Christian controversies and the differing viewpoints involved.

That seems like a strange description as Mormon theology is largely based on an ethnic group that people in those times weren't even aware of living in a continent they also were not aware of. The US-centricness of Mormonism actually strikes me as more akin to old pagans whose belief system was mostly just based around their region rather than the world.

[PSOL]

No.

Yes. The LDS Church is, when you get down it, a hodgepodge of updates to early Christian heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism (specifically Christian strains thereof). I firmly consider these to be early branches of the Christian Church, albeit dead-end ones, so it would be strange to consider the LDS Church anything but Christian. I think people, especially evangelicals, tend to view the LDS Church as non-Christian because they've never been otherwise exposed to these early Christian controversies and the differing viewpoints involved.

That seems like a strange description as Mormon theology is largely based on an ethnic group that people in those times weren't even aware of living in a continent they also were not aware of. The US-centricness of Mormonism actually strikes me as more akin to old pagans whose belief system was mostly just based around their region rather than the world.

Christianity has tons of references to its starting place. Furthermore, one can also say that Christianity has engaged in historical revisionism.

Nothing about Mormonism is out of step with Christianity than its more major deviations of henotheism and its cosmology, and they make it up by behaving more commune-functioning and community oriented than most Christians do now, along with believing in the rules for one to have salvation unlike most American Christians.

[RI]

Some Mormon views on God can be reconciled with those previous non-trinitarian Christian denominations, but plenty are not: the concept of exaltation

Exaltation is not that far removed from the Orthodox concept of theosis, albeit with a far more materialist bent. (inb4 PiT jumps on me for this one)

More than anything, the notion of new divine scripture in addition to the Bible is incompatible with Christianity

The LDS Church is not the only Christian denomination to have additional texts. Christian Science, for example, places Mary Baker Eddy's writing on par with the Bible, and there are some parallels in Seventh-Day Adventism and Swedenborgianism as well. These groups rarely receive the same debate over their status as Christian or not as the LDS Church does. This isn't even mentioning the variable acceptance of the Deuterocanon and the Anagignoskomena among various Christian denominations.

[PSOL]

No.

Yes. The LDS Church is, when you get down it, a hodgepodge of updates to early Christian heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism (specifically Christian strains thereof). I firmly consider these to be early branches of the Christian Church, albeit dead-end ones, so it would be strange to consider the LDS Church anything but Christian. I think people, especially evangelicals, tend to view the LDS Church as non-Christian because they've never been otherwise exposed to these early Christian controversies and the differing viewpoints involved.

That seems like a strange description as Mormon theology is largely based on an ethnic group that people in those times weren't even aware of living in a continent they also were not aware of. The US-centricness of Mormonism actually strikes me as more akin to old pagans whose belief system was mostly just based around their region rather than the world.

Christianity has tons of references to its starting place. Furthermore, one can also say that Christianity has engaged in historical revisionism.

Nothing about Mormonism is out of step with Christianity than its more major deviations of henotheism and its cosmology, and they make it up by behaving more commune-functioning and community oriented than most Christians do now, along with believing in the rules for one to have salvation unlike most American Christians.

Furthermore, the references to the Roman Empire along with the sheer practice and theological importance that the end was coming, in the Revelations, again shows that there is nothing localized about Mormonism than Christianity.

The fact that this section has been mostly downplayed among many Christian denominations, along with the fact that there’s been councils and splits on removing and editing theology like the Councils before and at where Constantine organized one to fit being the chief religion of Rome and that like nobody here would doubt that Protestants—especially independent churches and Congregationalists who really change things over time—makes this just another example of sectarianism.

Mormonism is not like Baha’ism from Islam, Sikhism from Hinduism of Punjab high society, or even Christianity itself from Judaism—it is just another branch of Christianity, one that one can seriously argue is much more closer to what Christianity was like during the time of Jesus than the teachings of most Christian denominations in Europe and the America’s to date.

[PSOL]

 

There is nothing particularly unique or cult-like about Mormonism that can’t be said about most Christian denominations or religions; especially the ones that put a lot of rules and restrictions on its members like Evangelicalism, baptism, and even Catholicism that’s mainly outside the Anglophone and Western European sphere.

[RINO Tom]

Absolutely.

MORmONs had the balls to create Holy Babble Part 2, but this time set on the North American continent.

When you think about it, MORmONism is the first true intercontinental / global cult religion. 

You know, the post of resident anti-religious prick is already taken by John Dule, and he does that job with much more intellectual acumen than you can ever hope to achieve.

Lol, just ignored that joke.  My first ignore in Atlas history.  I feel genuinely sad that he thinks he’s funny.

As for the OP, yes.  They are.

[TDAS04]

I'd say yes, but they're not Protestant.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Some Mormon views on God can be reconciled with those previous non-trinitarian Christian denominations, but plenty are not: the concept of exaltation

Exaltation is not that far removed from the Orthodox concept of theosis, albeit with a far more materialist bent. (inb4 PiT jumps on me for this one)

     Dare I resist my name being invoked?

     The key difference is that theosis maintains a permanent and irrevocable distinction between God and humanity, with the saints approaching Him but forever remaining lesser than Him because God is infinitely greater than us. Theosis does not fundamentally have any real implications for the nature of God, whereas the Mormon doctrine of exaltation carries serious implications that make the Mormon doctrine of God largely unrecognizable to Christians.

     I voted no in the poll and basically agree with the take that it should be considered a separate religion altogether.

[Skill and Chance]

Yes.  They still preach the divinity and salvation of Christ.  The extra stuff is basically irrelevant. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyone who worships Jesus Christ is a Christian, period. Some might be heretics (that's not for me to say, obviously), but they're Christian nonetheless.

[PSOL]

Some Mormon views on God can be reconciled with those previous non-trinitarian Christian denominations, but plenty are not: the concept of exaltation

Exaltation is not that far removed from the Orthodox concept of theosis, albeit with a far more materialist bent. (inb4 PiT jumps on me for this one)

     Dare I resist my name being invoked?

     The key difference is that theosis maintains a permanent and irrevocable distinction between God and humanity, with the saints approaching Him but forever remaining lesser than Him because God is infinitely greater than us. Theosis does not fundamentally have any real implications for the nature of God, whereas the Mormon doctrine of exaltation carries serious implications that make the Mormon doctrine of God largely unrecognizable to Christians.

     I voted no in the poll and basically agree with the take that it should be considered a separate religion altogether.

Could you please explain the concept of exaltation and how that differs from mainstream Christianity?

[Former President tack50]

I'd say yes, but it's certainly an open question. They worship Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour, but their traditions are quite different from most other Christian groups.

I guess "Lean Christian" is the appropiate marker.

Absolutely.

MORmONs had the balls to create Holy Babble Part 2, but this time set on the North American continent.

When you think about it, MORmONism is the first true intercontinental / global cult religion.  

You know, the post of resident anti-religious prick is already taken by John Dule, and he does that job with much more intellectual acumen than you can ever hope to achieve.

You should be thankful you missed the era when "Greatest I am" was posting here

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd say yes, but it's certainly an open question. They worship Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour, but their traditions are quite different from most other Christian groups.

I guess "Lean Christian" is the appropiate marker.

Absolutely.

MORmONs had the balls to create Holy Babble Part 2, but this time set on the North American continent.

When you think about it, MORmONism is the first true intercontinental / global cult religion.  

You know, the post of resident anti-religious prick is already taken by John Dule, and he does that job with much more intellectual acumen than you can ever hope to achieve.

You should be thankful you missed the era when "Greatest I am" was posting here

I wish I could have missed that troll. That said, he so obviously was trolling with his pseudo-Gnostic BS that I didn't find him nearly as aggravating as color1 who kept arguing that not only was Exodus historical, but it happened during the XVIIIth dynasty.  I think color1 was sincere, but the chronology just doesn't work.  If Exodus is even partially historically accurate, there's no way for it to have happened as early as the XVIIIth Dynasty.  The XXth might work, but it's most likely that that Exodus is historically inspired mythology.

[RI]

Some Mormon views on God can be reconciled with those previous non-trinitarian Christian denominations, but plenty are not: the concept of exaltation

Exaltation is not that far removed from the Orthodox concept of theosis, albeit with a far more materialist bent. (inb4 PiT jumps on me for this one)

     Dare I resist my name being invoked?

     The key difference is that theosis maintains a permanent and irrevocable distinction between God and humanity, with the saints approaching Him but forever remaining lesser than Him because God is infinitely greater than us. Theosis does not fundamentally have any real implications for the nature of God, whereas the Mormon doctrine of exaltation carries serious implications that make the Mormon doctrine of God largely unrecognizable to Christians.

     I voted no in the poll and basically agree with the take that it should be considered a separate religion altogether.

Could you please explain the concept of exaltation and how that differs from mainstream Christianity?

In order to understand the difference, it would help to understand the fundamental differences in cosmology and soteriology the LDS Church has with the rest of Christianity. The LDS Church has a Gnostic view on God the Father: he is a subcreation of a previous creator (somewhat akin to a non-evil demiurge in Gnosticism) who was himself elevated from manhood at some point prior to creating and governing the Earth as its deity (who is also a completely separate entity from God the Son). The LDS Church teaches that those who follow their teachings and live righteous lives will one day themselves be "exalted" to become God the Father of their own world as its deity ("As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be."), where your righteous will is now divine and sovereign, and that this cycle continues from the eternal past into the eternal future, improving with each iteration. There is no one true "beginning" or "end" in Mormonism; as stated in the LDS hymn "If You Could Hie to Kolob":

Do you think that you could ever,
through all eternity,
find out the generation
where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning,
where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation,
where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,
“No man has found ‘pure space,’
nor seen the outside curtains,
where nothing has a place.”

The works of God continue,
and worlds and lives abound;
improvement and progression
have one eternal round.

Mainstream Christianity is quite far from this cosmology. Mainstream Christianity holds that there exists one Creator who exists outside time, who began the universe at one specific point and will end it at another. This eternal Creator exists as one unified substance with three separate persons: God the Father, God the Word ("born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made"), and God the Spirit. Rather than being God the Father's offspring with a separate essence (who is nonetheless above humanity, akin to Arianism) as in LDS cosmology, Jesus is God the Word putting on human flesh and living as both human and divine simultaneously.

By this "hypostatic union", Jesus is able to both take on and redeem the sins of mankind and allow them the ability to live in the presence of the sinless God the Father outside of time in heaven. Thus the end goal of the human soul in mainstream Christianity is eternal communion with the one Creator in heaven. Eastern Orthodoxy elaborates on this in ways which other branches of Christianity don't really talk about (but which aren't outright rejected either), through the concept of theosis. Theosis posits a still deeper union with God wherein humanity may participate in one aspect of God-- His "energies" (that is, His actions and effects on the universe)-- while not actually becoming God or taking on his uncreated and unique "essence". You are still subservient to the will of God, which is sovereign, but you may join in its carrying out.

Simply put, in the LDS Church, you can become as the one who created you. In mainstream Christianity, you can never reach this height and can, at best, be in deep communion with your creator and participate in His actions, but you will never be as Him.

[PSOL]

Ah, so we’re talking about the Henotheism in Mormon cosmology

In order to understand the difference, it would help to understand the fundamental differences in cosmology and soteriology the LDS Church has with the rest of Christianity. The LDS Church has a Gnostic view on God the Father: he is a subcreation of a previous creator (somewhat akin to a non-evil demiurge in Gnosticism) who was himself elevated from manhood at some point prior to creating and governing the Earth as its deity (who is also a completely separate entity from God the Son). The LDS Church teaches that those who follow their teachings and live righteous lives will one day themselves be "exalted" to become God the Father of their own world as its deity ("As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be."), where your righteous will is now divine and sovereign, and that this cycle continues from the eternal past into the eternal future, improving with each iteration. There is no one true "beginning" or "end" in Mormonism; as stated in the LDS hymn "If You Could Hie to Kolob":

Do you think that you could ever,
through all eternity,
find out the generation
where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning,
where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation,
where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,
“No man has found ‘pure space,’
nor seen the outside curtains,
where nothing has a place.”

The works of God continue,
and worlds and lives abound;
improvement and progression
have one eternal round.

Gnosticism itself was a major influence on early Christian as it spread across the Roman Empire, no? There were tons of separate sects with similar theology until a sort of standardization occurred during the council of Nicaea, no?

Mainstream Christianity is quite far from this cosmology. Mainstream Christianity holds that there exists one Creator who exists outside time, who began the universe at one specific point and will end it at another. This eternal Creator exists as one unified substance with three separate persons: God the Father, God the Word ("born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made"), and God the Spirit. Rather than being God the Father's offspring with a separate essence (who is nonetheless above humanity, akin to Arianism) as in LDS cosmology, Jesus is God the Word putting on human flesh and living as both human and divine simultaneously.

Can the triple view of god be seen as what makes one a “Christian” given that early Christianity didn’t emphasize this until later standardization and interaction with Greek philosophy? What about with the Nestorian and eastern Christian denominations like Coptics who I believe reject the triple designation of god?

By this "hypostatic union", Jesus is able to both take on and redeem the sins of mankind and allow them the ability to live in the presence of the sinless God the Father outside of time in heaven. Thus the end goal of the human soul in mainstream Christianity is eternal communion with the one Creator in heaven. Eastern Orthodoxy elaborates on this in ways which other branches of Christianity don't really talk about (but which aren't outright rejected either), through the concept of theosis. Theosis posits a still deeper union with God wherein humanity may participate in one aspect of God-- His "energies" (that is, His actions and effects on the universe)-- while not actually becoming God or taking on his uncreated and unique "essence". You are still subservient to the will of God, which is sovereign, but you may join in its carrying out.

Simply put, in the LDS Church, you can become as the one who created you. In mainstream Christianity, you can never reach this height and can, at best, be in deep communion with your creator and participate in His actions, but you will never be as Him.

The henotheism and the ability to be a godhead is quite a major deviation, but does its cosmology really separate them away as a different religion entirely. What with the relatively later derived view of god as three—the Lord, the Father, and the Son—not viewed at the time of its popularization as heretical to Christianity itself?

I’m not sure how Mormons respond to such criticism, but a way I see out of this is that you can’t be “Him” as in the godhead of humanity “here”, which can be argued as not breaking the rule that there can only be one god in Christianity, just that there can’t be more than one “here” where god shared the Book of Mormon. The question now becomes where in the Bible does it prohibit such a thing?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Gnosticism itself was a major influence on early Christian as it spread across the Roman Empire, no? There were tons of separate sects with similar theology until a sort of standardization occurred during the council of Nicaea, no?

     Gnosticism was regarded as a major heresy even in the earliest days of Christianity. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote extensively about Gnostics and the efforts to oppose their teachings, and he is noted as having been favorable to the Arian camp in his career.

Can the triple view of god be seen as what makes one a “Christian” given that early Christianity didn’t emphasize this until later standardization and interaction with Greek philosophy? What about with the Nestorian and eastern Christian denominations like Coptics who I believe reject the triple designation of god?

     Nestorians and Copts are both Trinitarian, adhering to the Nicene Creed. One might argue that the Nestorians falsify the spirit of the Creed, but they definitely affirm belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is no real case to be made that Copts are non-Trinitarian.

     Trinitarianism is reflected in some of the earliest patristic texts, from figures such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin the Martyr, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Nicaea was convoked because Arius's rejection of Christ's pre-eternal existence and the support he received in doing so scandalized the Church. With that said, while Nicaea is the first council to be deemed ecumenical in character, it was by no means the first council convoked to condemn false doctrines, and quite a few doctrines were already deemed heresies prior to then. Contrary to what many believe, it wasn't just a free-for-all before then, where one could worship Jesus and believe literally anything else and be accepted as a Christian.

The henotheism and the ability to be a godhead is quite a major deviation, but does its cosmology really separate them away as a different religion entirely. What with the relatively later derived view of god as three—the Lord, the Father, and the Son—not viewed at the time of its popularization as heretical to Christianity itself?

I’m not sure how Mormons respond to such criticism, but a way I see out of this is that you can’t be “Him” as in the godhead of humanity “here”, which can be argued as not breaking the rule that there can only be one god in Christianity, just that there can’t be more than one “here” where god shared the Book of Mormon. The question now becomes where in the Bible does it prohibit such a thing?

     The major Bible verse that is used to rebut Mormon henotheism is Isaiah 43:10: ' “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. '

     I am sure Mormons do have some explanation of why their doctrines do not contradict this, and I am curious to hear what that might be.

[RI]

The major Bible verse that is used to rebut Mormon henotheism is Isaiah 43:10: ' “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. '

     I am sure Mormons do have some explanation of why their doctrines do not contradict this, and I am curious to hear what that might be.

I've seen a few attempts to get around this. One is by invoking the LDS concept of premortal existence wherein all souls are co-eternal with their creator. If all souls have existed eternally, then they must have existed simultaneously and thus any iteration of God is co-eternal in existence with its previous generation. Thus no God was formed before our God and no God formed after as they were all formed at the same "time", but not exalted at the same time.

[PSOL]

My lack of deep knowledge of early Christian history is obvious, and while I am not knowledgeable about the early Christian church—in fact made the mistake of applying Copts and Nestorians as not being trinitarian—I’d still like to ask a few question for the purpose of schooling myself further

     The major Bible verse that is used to rebut Mormon henotheism is Isaiah 43:10: ' “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. '

     I am sure Mormons do have some explanation of why their doctrines do not contradict this, and I am curious to hear what that might be.

Given that Mormons have a different cosmology derived from the Bible, and while I don’t know what their apologetics look like, I do see an out here. What is there to deny that in this passage, God was only referring to the people of Earth?

The major Bible verse that is used to rebut Mormon henotheism is Isaiah 43:10: ' “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. '

     I am sure Mormons do have some explanation of why their doctrines do not contradict this, and I am curious to hear what that might be.

I've seen a few attempts to get around this. One is by invoking the LDS concept of premortal existence wherein all souls are co-eternal with their creator. If all souls have existed eternally, then they must have existed simultaneously and thus any iteration of God is co-eternal in existence with its previous generation. Thus no God was formed before our God and no God formed after as they were all formed at the same "time", but not exalted at the same time.

The crux of my perception that Mormons are Christian is that they resemble to what I believe are early Christian theology and rites, both heterodox and archaic.

Is there any historical evidence that is present to defend that any early church leader espoused such a view as described by Dr. RI—either accepted by mainstream leaders or by heresies in its early history. If not, and thus being a modern invention, then I concede that Mormonism exceeds what would be considered my personal limit on what is to be considered Christianity based on the following points; the concept of Exaltation, premortal existence, and on a lesser point the supplementary material synchronizing with the previous points.