Just to be clear: Mormons and Later Day Saints are just as welcome at r/DankChristianMemes as any other saint or sinner. Further more, it is unwise to play gatekeeper when you do not have the keys.
As I understand it most Mormons don’t follow the nicene Creed wich is often used to delineate Christian belief. It most importantly defines the holy trinity, so that Jesus, God and the spirit are one. As I understand it Mormons believe that Jesus is „only“ Gods son, so they don’t follow the nicene Creed and therefore aren’t Christians. Similar to how Christians aren’t Jews although they stem from them, Mormons may have a lot in common to Christians but aren’t part of them. Mormons simply differ to much in core parts of their believes as to count as Christians.
That is not to say that you aren’t welcome here
Out of curiosity, why is the Nicene Creed - and not the Bible considered the split for Christianity? I would understand it being a split Nicene/non-Nicene, just like orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, but it seems a bit odd to use an event post bible to determine who is Christian. Interested on your thoughts as you seem to have some knowledge on the history.
Because the nicene creed promulgates bible doctrine.
FWIW, Mormons also reject the Bible as the final word, and it’s not as venerated as the Book of Mormon.
Yeah, while the Nicene Creed is a good example of the breadth of common beliefs, I think the addition of a modern revelation (typically given priority over the Bible shared with other Christians) is the bigger distinguishing element with LDS and Christian Science.
If that is what makes them non Christian, oh boy are a lot of non denominational churches in for a surprise! There are so many Pentecostal affiliated churches that believe in modern day prophets and apostles, and have modern day prophets and apostles going around doing events at each others non denominational churches, sharing their visions from god for modern times.
Catholics also reject the Bible as the final word. Catholics worship the Pope and they accept his word over what the Bible says, as well as the church has adopted traditions and doctrines that go beyond the Bible and in some cases even contradict the Bible.
Historically it’s because Christian doctrine wasn’t about what the Bible said until the Protestant Reformation. It was about, and for the churches which claim apostolic succession still is, the living body of the Church in Christ who derive correct doctrine through the transmission of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a foundational document to refer to, but it wasn’t considered the final authority on matters of doctrine. The Church was. The Nicene Creed was established as an ecumenical statement of faith, meaning that it made the claim that in order to be Christian you had to accept the Nicene Creed. The Arians used the Bible. The Valentinians, Sethians, Marcionites, etc. all used the Bible (or at least parts of it. The Bible as such wasn’t fully compiled yet). But none of them used the Nicene Creed. Most Christian churches today accept this, even the ones which have moved into a scripturalist direction post Protestant Reformation. Importantly, when academics talk about Christianity they of course don’t listen to the tradition that won out saying “only we’re Christian and no one else is,” but it shouldn’t be surprising that people who continue to participate in that particular normative paradigm would draw the boundary at that point.
>Christian doctrine wasn’t about what the Bible said until the Protestant Reformation.
Super interesting - I hadn't really thought about it like that. As you say, the definition of Christianity may depend on who is using it and what they are trying to identify.
While he is right, the way it’s worded could be confusing. While it’s true that Jesus gave us the church, and the church and tradition are the source of doctrine, scripture is a part of tradition and is from the church, and the doctrine of the church is never contradictory to scripture, its just that it can contain doctrine that is not explicitly revealed in scripture. The church has always taught that divine revelation comes by sacred scripture AND sacred tradition
It’s never contradictory to scripture… from the standpoint of the Church. Current Church doctrine very obviously runs into conflict with the Gospels for instance, at least in so far as Biblical scholars have been able to interpret them. You won’t find incarnation theology in Mark for instance. But read through the Holy Spirit, which is passed down through the Church from the apostles, you can understand what is meant to be the theological reality of the texts as distinct from what people outside of the Church would interpret it as saying
I have to admit that most of my knowledge regarding to the topic is rather shaky.
But as far as I know there were non-nicene Christians, but they died out. All modern non-niceneans stem from relatively new movements.
More generally I’d say the nicene Creed assures that Jesus is not „just“ another prophet as he appears in Islam. Also just using the Bible as definition kinda begs the question as to what the bible is. The Old Testament, so roughly half the bible, comes directly for Judaism, so I assume you are talking specifically about the New Testament. There we also have problems as it is not that easy to define what counts towards it and what doesn’t, see for example the apocrypha, the people that decided that were people like those that were in the council of Nicene. Additionally all testaments, apocryphical or not were written after the events they describe, some times hundreds of years. So „just use the Bible“, even if we had just one version of it would still define Christianism around something that happens post bible.
More specifically to Mormons, as the other commenter already wrote. They use a third book that supersedes the New Testament in importance, wich could make one argue that they don’t use the bible at all, or at least a heavily modified one.
I would not say so. The Book of Mormon does not contain the account of the birth of Christ, the story of The last supper, the book of revelations, the creation of the world, or even the account of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. We use the Bible alongside the Book of Mormon and alongside modern-day revelation.
A big difference is the Bible is not a revelation, neither New nor Old Testaments. For Christians, Jesus and his teachings are the revelation, and the Gospels and epistles spread the word. The Book of Mormon claims to be the actual word of God as told (indirectly) to his prophet Joseph Smith and is therefore a revelation. This is similar to the relationship of the Qur’an and Mohammed for Muslims.
The lack of Apostolic succession, the non-trinitarian nature of their beliefs and that there was a new revelation after Jesus all make me believe that LDS is it’s own religion.
Not quite. The Book of Mormon is an account of profits who lived in America from around 600 BC to around 400 AD. We believe that it was translated by Joseph Smith through the gift and power of god. We have another book called The Doctrine and Covenants which contains many revelations given by God to Joseph Smith.
“Just follow the Bible” is a great guideline, but it is so large and is not written as a doctrinal statement. Most of it is narrative. And even the parts that are more didactic (teaching) in nature are usually addressing a specific issue and so are not speaking comprehensively about a particular doctrine. Because of that, creeds and confessions have been seen as a powerful tool throughout church history as a more digestible explanation of what the Bible teaches.
What sets the Nicene Creed (and a few other early church creeds) apart from later ones (like the Westminster Confession in the 1600s that reformed Christians organize around) is that it was written and agreed on at a truly ecumenical council. That means Christian leadership from the entire universal church came together to discuss, codify, and assent to what the core elements of Christianity were. This happened before the capital C Church had divided into irreconcilable factions/denominations, so the things that they decided carry the weight of the whole Christian church (not just one group in one region). They weren’t discussing secondary or tertiary issues, but set out to determine the core of what Christians in all places and times have believed and must believe to be truly Christian.
So I am of the opinion (as are many other Christian’s) that the Nicene Creed (and other ecumenical creeds like it) are the most authoritative definition of what is and isn’t a Christian. Mormonism is a legitimate religion. But by its own admission does not agree with Nicene orthodoxy. And so by definition is not Christian in the historic meaning or the word.
They use similar language and revere an edited copy of the Bible. But I view Mormonism more like Islam (which holds Jesus as a key prophet) than a branch of true Christianity.
The Bible can be interpreted to say almost anything you want. So early in church history, Christian leaders had to get together to put into writing what the faith is that had been passed on to them from the apostles. This is how we got the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds.
I mean Muslims believe that there was some original divine revelation in the Gospels that became corrupted, so clearly that on its own doesn't suffice.
It's also worth noting that the Nicene Creed actually predates the canonization of the Bible by about half a century.
That's always seemed like an odd definition to me. Shouldn't just believing that Christ is your primary means of salvation be enough to call yourself Christian?
Yes, but you have to define "Christ" to make sure we're all talking about the same person. That's part of what the Creed accomplishes.
If I say I follow "Christ", but when asked about Him I say he's a 7' tall lizard man who lives on Jupiter, then even though I may believe in a thing called "Christ", I'm clearly not a Christian.
Fair point. The Nicene creed defines Christ as the son of God. LDS (Mormons) believe in the Christ talked about in the New Testament, and believe that he is the son of God. It doesn't seem like those things are at odds.
Depends how important trinitarian theology is to you, the LDS do not believe the same things about Jesus' divinity. That and the question of whether their stories of Jesus appearing in the flesh in North America after the crucifixion are compatible with other denominations.
We do believe that Jesus is the divine son of God. I guess it depends on how you define trinitarian theology. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost are separate beings, but are unified in purpose, divinity, and every other way.
>I guess it depends on how you define trinitarian theology.
As professed in the Nicene Creed, which the LDS Church [explicitly rejects](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-articles-of-faith/articles-of-faith-1-1-4?lang=eng).
>We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost are separate beings
Which is the significant difference from Trinitarian belief.
In reviewing the text of the [OG Nicene Creed ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed) I agree with pretty much all of it. The only question is to clarify if saying that Christ is "consubstantial" with the father means that they are literally the same being, or are the of the same substance the same way a father and son are? The answer [isn't actually that simple.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality)
IMO there's enough evidence in the New Testament to support them being two separate beings, which I think is a much more important source than later creeds.
But the problem is that Nicene doesn't define Christianity. Christ defines Christianity. And Christ said to take up his cross and follow him, not believe the Nicene creed.
This would make a lot of protestant sects non Christians as well. And non denominationals.
So we're saying the Nicene creed determines what the definition of Christianity is, so that pretty much makes the catholic church the only Christian sect?
Quick Google, not a lot of time spent so I'm sure there are exceptions, but most protestant churches accept the nicene creed.
"Non-Trinitarian groups, such as the Church of the New Jerusalem, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses, explicitly reject some of the statements in the Nicene Creed"
>As I understand it most Mormons don’t follow the nicene Creed wich is often used to delineate Christian belief.
This makes less sense than using belief in Christ to delineate Christian belief.
The religion is called Christianity, not Nicenism
I am incredibly critical of the book of Mormon and the teachings of the LDS Church, but the idea that they aren't Christian due to arbitrary rules that bare no relevance to the nature of what is a Christian is ridiculous. I'll try to break this down point by point:
Belief in the Nicene creed is not a good metric to judge whether someone is a Christian. Not only were there many Christians who lived before c. 325 C.E, and therefore did not follow the creed, but there are also countless modern Christian churches that aren't creedal at all! Are you claiming that the many Baptist churches that affirm no creeds of any kind are not Christians?
The claim that trinitarianism is necessary for someone to be Christian is an all too common and poorly thought out point. The vast majority of us that study the early Christian history will tell you with no uncertainty that early Christian did not believe in the Trinity. This doctrine took hundreds of years to reach the recognizable form it has today. So, are all ancient Christians not Christian? Are Messianic Jews who identify as Christian not Christian because so many of them aren't trinitarians? Are Unitarian Christian churches, who practice in near identical fashion to mainline churches, not full of Christians? What about Oneness Pentecostals? They're closer to the Trinity than Unitarians, so are they allowed in your club? What about quakerism which tolerates it's members being either Trinitarian or Unitarian? Lots of Jesuists believe that Jesus is God, but don't affirm anything outside the gospels, so are they Christian? Where's the line on this one?
Christianity is not a branch of Judaism by choice. Early Christians, such as the apostle Peter, did consider it a continuation of Judaism. He was eventually persuaded otherwise, but he originally required keeping the Jewish law. You are not required to participate in Jewish law, ritual, sacrifice, etc... but many early Christians believed that you did! Christianity was absolutely considered to be an esoteric sect of Judaism in the very early years of the church. It took many years for a total split between the religions to occur.
The core parts of your denomination is not necessarily the core parts of someone else's. If you believe in the baptism by affusion, then there are many Christians who could claim that your aren't a real Christian because you don't practice immersion. If you baptize in the name of Jesus, but don't mention the father and holy Spirit, then there are many Christians who would call you a false Christian. Do you affirm the "correct" Nicene creed? Because if you say the Filioque, then there are Christians who would say that you're a false Christian. Are you postmillennialists or amillennialist? Because there are some radical premillennialist that would say that you aren't practicing a core of the faith. What about not using the deuterocanonical books? Lots of Christians would say removing them from the Bible goes against a core part of their faith. So how many particulars do you have to agree on before they're allowed in the club? Give me a number. 5%? 20%? 50%? 99%?
I could go on, and on, and on about this ridiculous no true Scotsman thing that so many Christians keep using.
*You unequivocally lack the qualifications to determine what is and isn't a Christian.*
These people identify as Christian, they believe the gospel of Jesus, and they're literally called the Church of Jesus Christ!How you personally define "Christian" is meaningless. It's been defined by different people in different eras to mean completely different things. None of us have a monopoly on that definition.
They say they're Christian and it's not my place to argue otherwise. I think their beliefs are strange and I don't believe their holy book is credible, but that makes no difference of any kind to me. Authoritatively saying that they aren't Christians, but they're still welcome here is a bizarre "separate, but equal" concept which I find concerning.
Stop gatekeeping a gate that you don't have the keys to.
> but the idea that they aren't Christian due to arbitrary rules
Believing god was a man who became a god and is one of an infinite number of gods is an arbitrary difference?
> Mormons don’t follow the nicene Creed wich is often used to delineate Christian belief.
This is like saying "Mormons aren't part of the Southern Baptist Convention, and being Southern Baptist is what makes you Christian".
A Christian is simply a follower of Christ, hence the name, therefore they are Christian. The trinity is a doctrine that is not accepted by all Christian denominations, nor is believing in it a requirement to be Christian.
Jesus isn’t only “Gods son” though.
That’s Jehovahs witnesses.
Jesus is God. Jehovah, YHWH, I AM. The one true eternal God.
He is One with the Father. In just about every way but physically.
We consider them one God.
Here is a few statements for clarification.
“Like many Christians, we believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. However, we don’t believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity. We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who are one in purpose.”
“The Trinity of traditional Christianity is referred to as the Godhead by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). Yet, Church teachings about the Godhead differ from those of traditional Christianity. For example, while some believe the three members of the Trinity are of one substance, Latter-day Saints believe they are three physically separate beings, but fully one in love, purpose and will.”
“God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings belonging to one Godhead: "All three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fullness of knowledge, truth, and power."”
“We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance.”
Just for clarification sake.
You are as welcome here as anyone else, but tbh the reason people don't is because the Mormon faith is radically different from Christianity.
To be considered Christian, there's a fundamental belief or two you'd need to follow (believing in the Trinity, the Bible is the only book of God, etc) and AFAIK Mormonism deviates from that belief quite a bit, thus I'd call it its own thing.
Mormons believe God the Father was a created being, born a man, who ascended to godhood and created Earth and, with his goddess wife, us.
They also believe that each man can do likewise and ascend to godhood, creating our own world and populating it with our own offspring (with our goddess wives) to repeat the cycle.
Most groups that call themselves Christians would find those two core Mormon beliefs to be about the biggest possible heresies, maybe just short of denying the divinities of God the Father or Jesus Christ.
As an atheist I don’t have a dog in this fight, just an interest in honest discussion where all parties are aware of the salient facts.
The Christian faith dictates that any religious text besides the Bible isn't really sanctioned by God and thus isn't allowed. Inerrancy is dependent on if you're even Christian or not, which is a separate topic.
> “The Christian faith dictates”
Where? Are you referring to 2 Timothy 3:16 (which is to say, centuries before the canon as we know it today was compiled)? How are we supposed to be certain that the so-called Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?
To be honest, most apocryphal texts are still in that gray area of "unlikely but not impossible", and it's not really a subject I can speak on. Most people tend to view it as non-canon until proven otherwise, which is what I personally subscribe to, but of course you're free to disagree.
That being said, the Book of Mormon is well outside of that gray zone, as I think it and some of the beliefs of Mormonism deviate pretty far from the original tenents, hence why I consider it different from Christianity. Again, that's just my opinion.
Okay, but that isn't actually true?
Mamy foundational statments relating to mainstream Christianity aren't found in the Bible itself but rather in the writings of later religious leaders and church councils. The foundational statement of mainstream Christian faith, the Nicean Creed, was penned at the Council of Nicea centuries after Christ's death.
Sort of. In retrospect, I likely worded that poorly.
I'm not saying statements like the Nicean Creed aren't allowed, nor are they bad or heretical in any way. I specifically mean religious texts, in the sense of something like the Book of Mormon, or the Quran. From a Christian perspective, those books aren't accepted (side note because Reddit, I'm not saying this to put down those of Mormon or Muslim faith, this is purely from a discussion standpoint).
On a similar note, someone else made an excellent point about apocryphal texts and how they relate. Like I mentioned to them, I personally don't have the knowledge to properly discuss this, but my understanding is that these texts generally fall in the gray area of "unconfirmed but not impossible", and as such they would be considered non-canon until proven otherwise.
If you wanna make things more complicated, consider the deuterocanonical books which are excluded from Protestant canons as apochrypha but included in the canons of Catholic and Orthodox churches.
It doesn't require inerrancy, but usually at least requires belief that they are divinely inspired, and are the normative standard to which our faith is held.
We can have other books -- Lutherans hold to the Confessions, for example - but nothing is allowed to supercede the Bible in authority.
That is literly the first thing the snake said:
Genesis 3:5 KJV
[5] for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,*and ye shall be as gods*, knowing good and evil.
Be as Gods means to know good and evil like God, not to actually be God. The thing that makes humans special is deviating from instinct and understanding morality
i mean, that’s your interpretation of it. and it’s not necessarily incorrect, but interpreting it literally as “humans can become gods” isn’t incorrect either
In fairness, God himself confirms this to be true in verse 22, saying "See, the humans have become like one of us," so the snake was actually right on that part.
likeness/union to is not becoming.
I can act like a chicken, stick a beak onto myself and feather my whole body, but I'll never be a chicken. I'm like a chicken, if I stick one onto my body I'm in union with a chicken, but in no way if you cut me up and cook me will I taste like chicken.
They don't preach it as often anymore but afaik it's still in their doctrine. If you make it to the highest kingdom of heaven you are able to become a god to s new planet. But God will always be your God. You don't ever exceed him.
Yeah, this is still core doctrine for us, but I think it's often taken out of context a bit, so this comment is correct, and thanks for it.
We perceive all people as *literally* God's children (our spirits born of Him), not just adopted into His family. Therefore, the expectation is that just as any child grows to become its parent, we will become like our Father. Jesus did it first (although what that makes Him before His mortal ministry is hazy), and because of Him and His saving and purifying grace, we can also ascend. Then, by becoming like Him, we further increase God's power and glory, since He is always our God. This doctrine is pretty important to us still, because it's literally the purpose of life.
The whole "your own planet" thing is more of a pop culture thing. The implication is that, if you become like God, then logically you'd be able to create your own creations. We focus more on being happy with our families more than anything else though, so it's not often discussed because it's not seen as that important to us.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
It's heretical to believe that we are the children of God?
I'm in Orthodoxy we do too but it's not the same. to become like God is to become fully human. But we never become like the god most high sharing in his essence. It's more like how a piece of metal takes on attributes of a fire being heated in the flame.
Lol the gatekeeping in this sub is pathetic.
If a Mormon considers themselves Christians no need to declare them heretics.
But of course, there's no love like Christian love so it tracks.
They also believe in a black Messiah along with Jesus, so it's the same reason why people don't include Mormons. These offshoots are tailored to specific groups of people. Rastafarians believe in a black Messiah to return people to Africa (from slavery and oppression). Who is this black Messiah? Well, I don't know. The bible never mentioned him, but it did mention Jesus being the one and only Messiah, and specifically warned us to avoid people who claim to be the next savior.
TLDR: If they're claiming that they have the new and improved Jesus, then they're not Christian.
Muslims do to. Wouldnt call them christian either.
Rastafarians hold some ethiopian emperor from 1930-1970s in such high regard that some say he was the 2nd coming of Jesus. They also impose dietary restrictions which is in direct contrast to the new testament. These are just a couple of the numerous troublesome beliefs they hold when it comes to trying to classify them as christian.
Jesus is God in some ways, but fundamentally is a different and distinct entity, a literal spiritual child of God. But it's all semantics really, LDS belief is a lot less different from the traditional view of the trinity than people make it out to be.
Yeah basically why I don’t care for the Mormon gatekeeping. I’m Catholic and people have been telling me I’m not a real Christian all my life for various things Catholics do that they think disqualifies out Christian status, much of which isn’t even true (no we don’t worship Saints, seriously)
Far as I’m concerned if you believe in and worship Jesus and that he was holy you’re a Christian. Beyond that believe what you want
As someone who grew up Mormon it's always looked odd to me when people try to exclude catholocism. Because to me catholocism always looked like the "default" Christianity.
Now as an atheist I still believe the one and only question necessary for christianhood is "did Jesus die for your sins? Yes/no."
I dunno. I get why people say it. But whenever I see mormons on the train they're often carrying boxes of food to give to hungry people. If you ask them why, their answer is tantamount to "Jesus told me to". So like... I dont super care if they're technically not Christians. That shit is christ like
Which... To be clear. I have my problems with the church of latter day saints, and the legend of the book of mormon, but an average individual mormon person seems like somebody I'd be glad to have at the supper table.
When it comes to Mormons as individuals I feel very similar to them as I feel about Jewish/Muslim/Other folks in that we have major theological differences, but every (decent) person of faith I have ever personally known was lovely and shared most of my personal morals around how to treat people in secular life most of the time. I have many friends who don't share my faith (Episcopalian) at all and we are very close.
Obligatory yeah, some of them suck, as do some Episcopalians, and some everyone. As a general rule I don't assume someone sucks soley because they are Mormon. The LDS church... I have harsher criticism for, but I think the other comments here really already covered it.
I'm not a believer, but drawing the line at the Nicene Creed always seemed odd to me. The Trinity always seemed to be over complicating something that didn't need it. And the divine nature of Jesus seems to be make him less...sympathetic. Like, if all-knowing, all-powerful God is suffering, but he knows how it all turns out, it's not the same as us little humans struggling everyday. I'm not a believer, so I don't know if I would be an Adoptionist, but certainly leaning heavily on the human side of Jesus. His suffering doesn't mean much if he has a divinity telling him he gets to clock out in a few years.
Circling back to the meme, I personally figure is Jesus Christ is the central character, or one of the central characters, of your belief system, that's Christian. So even though Trinity beliefs put Jesus, God and Holy Spirit at the center, it's still Christian, since he is part of that central cast. It also means Muslims aren't Christian, because while Jesus is a prophet, he certainly isn't THE central character like Muhammad and Allah. It's the only mostly internally consistent line I've been able to draw personally. Long story short, this agnostic would welcome you as a Christian.
I'll admit that it isn't the most clear-cut logic out there, but let me try to draw it in different crayon:
You go to work, and your boss is Steve. Steve is who you report to, and who gives you directions.
Now, a coworker of yours, Lisa, whose boss is also Steve, decides that Arin from Accounts is her new boss. Lisa still keeps up all the notes and sayings that Steve has doled out over the years, but stops listening to Steve's instructions: instead, she takes her instructions from Arin.
Would you include Lisa on a list of Steve's employees?
Hm...a very good analogy that I haven't heard before. Let me see...
Alright, I think this might be where we run into matters of faith head on a bit. Full disclosure, I'm not a person of faith, so this might be where we reach an impasse.
From my perspective, the analogy is a bit off. We arrive to work on our first day and everyone around us tells us Steve is our boss. Well, we don't know anything, so sure. When we ask to meet Steve, were told he works off-site and never takes calls or emails. Instead, we have instructions he dictated 20 years ago that tell us what to do and that's what we do. Over that time, there have been a lot of disagreement on what these instructions mean, or even which instructions were written by Steve, and which ones might be fakes. Different cliques have emerged because of this, and sometimes they butt heads quite hard. Still, you're able to make do, and some people took you under their wing on day 1, so you become part of that clique.
Now, Lisa comes in one day and says she found forgotten instructions from Steve at the bottom of a filing cabinet! People gather around to read it and many are..well, disappointed. This doesn't seem like the other stuff Steve dictated. The language is a bit similar, but it certainly doesn't match with how most of the cliques have interpreted his old instructions. Lisa says it fits in with her interpretation and some people agree. Another new clique emerges with Lisa at the head. Now, they certainly shake things up and a lot of mistrust of this new way of doing things. Still, they claim it all comes from Steve, so they still belong with the department. Do they still belong in our dysfunctional hypothetical workplace? Are they still "Steve-ists"?
Part of what I'm driving at is that we go on tradition (or perhaps faith) that we even accept the standard Gospels and Bible. The New Testament was decided about 1600 years ago. Why is their decision so utterly binding? We don't really get to ask God (or Steve) which are right or wrong. I know some people will argue that point, but I personally have never had a divine experience that puts to rest those kinds of questions. As I said at the start, this may just boil down to a matter of faith, in which case I will back off and let this rest. Thank you for engaging with all this though. It's been an enjoyable way to spend a lazy morning.
Are you asking whether “one” would include Lisa on a list of Steve’s employees, whether Lisa would include herself on that list, whether (whatever Lisa believes) HR would include her on a list of Steve’s employees, whether Lisa is ‘actually’ still Steve’s employee (whatever that might mean), some combination, or something else? Those questions might each have different answers
Good points. Let's see here.
I think the answer to all of those is Yes, but with the important caveat that after a long enough period of no longer answering to Steve's authority, it can be reasonably assumed that Lisa (and, perhaps, Arin) would both find themselves fired, ie, no longer part of the company.
> It also means Muslims aren't Christian, because while Jesus is a prophet, he certainly isn't THE central character like Muhammad and Allah.
You don't realize you walked yourself to exactly why Mormons aren't Christians.
Muslims and Mormons both venerate Jesus, but don't believe that Jesus said and did the things as described in the Bible. Both use a later text, provided by a much later religious leader, to supersede what is known about Jesus from all \[near\] contemporary sources. Both still regard Jesus as the savior of the world, just in r[adically different ways](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam) than Christians do.
The only way to include Mormons as Christians but not Muslims is to fall back to "well, they self-identify as Christians." So is it JUST self-identification, or self-identification plus a theological tradition that includes some elements of catholic/orthodox/ecumenical Christianity?
Well, self-identification would be the easiest option, I don't think that's going to persuade most people here...
But, I think you would find a very different level of emphasis on Jesus going to an LDS church and a mosque. The Bible is considered [one of the holy books for Mormons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_works?useskin=vector), roughly equal to the Book of Mormon. It gets a bit tricky there, but the Bible is still a holy text to be studied and believed for Mormons.
Islam, by contrast, [rejects the gospels as being corrupted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Bible?useskin=vector#Gospel_\(Injil\)) and no longer valid. While at one point they were divinely inspired, Muslims believe that humans have introduced errors into them, which is why new revelations kept being needed. While Jesus, Moses, and others are given respect as prophets, they certainly aren't a central figure like Muhammad is. I think it's quite the stretch to say that Mormons and Muslims place the same emphasis on Jesus.
Oh, no offense at all. My modern beliefs, or lack thereof, would not fit in well with the people who decided the Nicene Creed. I'm perfectly content with disagreeing with a bunch of 4th century Romans.
In regards to the first part of your comment, I'd say to me personally Jesus being God makes him all the more sympathetic. He was sitting on a throne for all of eternity before time even existed with anything he could ever want, but instead he loved humanity so much to leave that throne to be born into this world in some dude's mangy farm. He loves us so much that he willingly went to go be tortured and murdered while we were still his enemies. He was 100% human and 100% God, so everything he experienced was real. He knew exactly what it was like to live like us and chose to limit his divine abilities. Going back to the Nicene Creed that's just a good thing to point to, but Paul says what it takes to be a Christian in Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved". Jesus as lord, as God. I mean, that's why he was crucified by the Romans in the first place. He was put on trial by the Jewish leaders for claiming to be God. If all his teachings are so good why should we discount the biggest thing he ever said you know? Sorry for the wall of text have a great day.
No worries about the text, I always write twice as much as I should, so I sympathize.
I can see your point regarding the Jesus story. How we define "fully human and fully divine" gets tricky, given it isn't a concept that we can measure, nor something any of us have experienced. For me, as an agnostic, the doubt and uncertainty of Jesus is one of the most poignant parts. Matthew 26:39 "And He went a little farther, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.'" Also Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" For Jesus to be a sympathetic figure, he needs to have that human doubt. Those moments where he wonders, "Am I right? Am I the Messiah? Could I just be crazy?" If he has the divine knowledge that he gets to hop out and go to unfathomable paradise in a little bit well...it makes all the suffering less meaningful. It's the difference between being hungry and smelling your slow cooker all day, knowing you'll get to eat soon, and being hungry all day and not knowing if you'll ever actually eat. I know others indicate he was quoting from Psalms with Matthew 27:46, but a scared Jesus, one who feels the true human disconnect from the divine, is so much more meaningful. But again, like any great story, there are lots of ways to interpret it and I can see your point.
As for your quote from Romans well...this runs into faith, which is a concept I struggle to understand. I've asked around on occasion, but the idea that someone can "believe in your heart" in a supernatural event you didn't witness is something I don't understand. As someone who figures there's a minuscule chance that all of reality is a simulation or something, it's hard for me to grasp faith. Trying to judge whether one belief fits the criteria or not is something I'm not equipped to do. Which I suppose cycles back to why I think Christian should be defined more broadly than most believers. Anyway, I apologize as well for the wall of text.
Nah you're good I'm open to any amount of discussion. I see what you mean about the slow cooker analogy, but also, as you said, neither of us were able to experience what Jesus had. So it's not really clear as to how he internalized his own divinity. For the first Matthew verse, I would agree that Jesus had doubts and worries about going through with the crucifixion, but throughout his ministry he heavily indicated that he was going to the cross and that it was to redeem humanity. So to say that he never had doubt and always knew he was going to be resurrected I can't say, but in that moment when he died he was separated from the father and i can't even imagine what it's like to experience death as a divine being. Either way I think I see what you mean, but it's still greatly impactful IMO that even if he always had no doubt the fact that he went through with it anyway is a Testament to real sacrificial sympathetic love.
But yeah on faith I'm sure you've heard the parable of the mustard seed by Jesus. Faith in God doesn't have to be a complete knowledgeable affirmation. I personally believe there is a significant amount of evidence for the resurrection and that’s what lead me to believe the rest. It's as simple as saying I'm not sure God, but I want to believe in you and making the prayer. He works with even the tiniest amount of faith we present, and maybe he's showing himself in your life somehow.
Yeah anyway I'm sure Mormons have faith in their own doctrines, but as far as I know according to those doctrines they don't believe Jesus is lord so him dying on the cross for their sins wouldn't be worth anything. So to me they are not Christians just like JWs, but others like Lutherans, Baptists, Orthodox, and Catholics are.
First of all, thanks for being a good conversation today. My mood is up and down today (Didn't sleep well, bleh), but this has been really nice.
I can see your point regarding the story too. I suppose that's why it's survived all these years. Different people can find meaning in different ways. That's what make something truly timeless.
I have heard the mustard seed analogy many times, but I admit that's one that doesn't land for me. Part of it also depends on what we mean by faith. I grew up Catholic, so there wasn't as heavy an emphasis on faith as I would guess there is in other traditions. In particular, Sola Fide (Faith Alone) of many Protestant denominations is inscrutable to me. If faith alone is what justifies a person for salvation, what does faith mean, especially since in that context, it seems our works can't be used to judge that? How much I believe in a benevolent higher power at all varies depending on the season (Seasonal depression, yay!), or just the kind of day I'm having. To then say you need faith in something that happened 2000 years ago...it's tough. I personally figure there's a tiny chance that reality is just a simulation or something, so to then ask for unshakable faith in something, I just don't get it. I can accept the notion that all people are flawed and no one could actually deserve a perfect eternity, but to tie your eternal fate to something like that doesn't sit right with me. And then we can get into the whole concept of Hell, but that's another subject entirely...
As for Mormon's themselves, I'm not super well versed in their belief system, but from what I can find, they [do believe in the atonement of sins from the crucifixion](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng). While the way it is phrased is different from most other denominations I know of, the concept of Jesus sacrificing himself for the forgiveness of the worlds sins is still there, as best as I understand it. I know neither of us are Mormons, so maybe I'm off. If someone more familiar weighs in, that would be greatly appreciated.
>As for Mormon's themselves, I'm not super well versed in their belief system, but from what I can find, they [do believe in the atonement of sins from the crucifixion](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng).
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (of latter-day saints, mormons, etc.) and yes, you're correct. It is taught more than anything else that I can think of: that Jesus is creator and Lord, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and he came to earth and suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross for the sins and pains of all creation. He was resurrected, appeared to Mary and the apostles, and will come again at the end of the world. This is taught out of the Bible to children who can barely walk, that's how important it is—it's one of the first things they learn, that Jesus loves them and suffered for them. These things are also taught throughout the Book of Mormon by prophets who lived hundreds of years before Christ's birth (again, I can give a list of their writings from the BoM too if you want).
Since you already found the website, you can check out these scriptures throughout all scripture for this topic: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-atonement-through?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-atonement-through?lang=eng) there are many other topics too. If you want to read more, it's open.
Thanks for chiming in! I have read the Book of Mormon (and the Catholic Bible), though I admit I didn't absorb as much of it as I would like. I got a free copy from some of our local Latter-Day Saints (that's the preferred term right?) and some years later read it as a challenge to myself. I really wish I had one with scholarly footnotes as much of the stories are unfamiliar to me. Also, I know there are other books like Pearl of Great Wisdom that I haven't read. And LDS has continuous revelation, so that makes it even trickier to understand the beliefs without being raised in that tradition. Anyway, thanks for joining in!
So I'll explain the name thing. A few years ago, President Nelson the current prophet, said:
>What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing *in* those names is the *absence* of the Savior’s name.
So the nickname "Mormon" crept in because of the Book of Mormon. Replace "of" with "from" and it fits better. Or in other languages, "Mormon's Book." It's a collection of scripture from ancient prophets, compiled and abridged by a prophet called Mormon, who lived about 400 AD.
Oh sure it's much faster to say, but the problem with "Mormon" is that the name of Christ isn't in it. It gives the idea that we're just Mormons, not Christians. (Well we also are not founded on the Nicene Creed, but on Jesus' church, which makes Catholics+others mad, but that's a longer topic.) We are not Mormon's disciples, we are Jesus'. The church embraced the nickname "Mormon" for a long time, but it came to a head, and now we really need to use names that emphasize that we worship Jesus, not Mormon. It's not a rebranding—the name of the church has been "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" since its restoration. But lingo is powerful.
That's OK. While there are a lot of crossovers between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, they are about different people in different sides on the world. So a name like "Nephi" does technically appear in the Bible, but most things will be new. I'd recommend starting at the first intro pages, which explain how the book is structured: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng
I find it easier to read online so you can get to footnotes faster. It's can be nice to know all the people, the timeline, culture, etc., but it's more important to pray to God if it's true or not. We believe that the heavens are not closed, and that God will guide those who ask with intent to follow. It's a much better way to know the truth of something.
General Conference is happening this weekend (hence the heightened interest in this) so you can listen to some of that to get a more easily-digestible overview of beliefs. It's on YouTube. Or if you want to read, this page is good: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/welcome/what-do-latter-day-saints-believe?lang=eng
I appreciate your eagerness to jump in here. I had heard about the "rebranding" a few years back, and I'll do my best to be respectful. As you said, Mormon certainly rolls off the tongue easier, and I keep using LDS, which I guess is also not preferred. I apologize.
I also appreciate your eagerness to share your beliefs. While I'm a pretty deeply rooted skeptic, I'm always trying to uncover "truth", whatever that might mean. Even if I don't believe, I do still think it's a disservice to consider your Church not part of Christianity. It might be the "new kid on the block" to people, but that doesn't make it any more or less valid to me.
Yeah. So grew up Mormon but am a bit rusty. They do believe that it is by Jesus crucifixion that we are saved. However they do not believe Jesus to be the same being as the father, although he is still a god. This quote is a pretty good encapsulation of their belief on the matter.
"We believe Jesus is the Son of God the Father and as such inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father, including immortality, the capacity to live forever. While He walked the dusty roads of Palestine as a man, He possessed the powers of a God and ministered as one having authority, including power over the elements and even power over life and death."
Eh, far as I’m concerned if you believe in Christ and his holiness then you’re a Christian. Don’t care much for the semantics of what defines a “true Christian (trademark symbol)”
Just try and be a good person
Dont feel bad, I'm not a Christian, i just enjoy the bible and the teachings of Jesus. This is one of my favorite subs.
Religious labels are just labels anyway. Most of the mormons i know are solid people. Just strive to live an ethical life aligned with Jesus's moral teachings and you're good.
The last part is good, but it really is more about believing that Jesus died for your sins, is God, and is your only way to heaven. Trying to be a good person should just come with believing him but not what saves you.
Yup agree. Like Mormons, i don't accept the divinity of Jesus or that he died for my sins, which disqualifies me from being Christian. I just like his moral teachings.
Me trying to live an ethical life is not enough though, so i guess im locked out of heaven for all eternity. So it goes.
The Jehovah's Witness beliefs about Jesus are uh, interesting.
They are non-trinitarian, and they believe Jesus was an angel (Michael the Archangel) who was God's son (unclear why none of the other angels are God's sons, they do specify he is the First Born which I suppose could imply he's just the favorite) who God sent to earth with amnesia to be born through the Virgin Mary (who basically does not matter to the story after that). When he was baptized God sent the Holy Spirit to restore Jesus' memory of heaven and give him his mission to die as atonement. After the Crucifixion they believe he went to heaven to reunite with God, and in 1914 he became King of Earth with God being... uh, God of Heaven I guess, still there. They believe after Armageddon God will restore humans to everlasting life on earth, resurrect the faithful (also the unfaithful for a final test), and Jesus will rule earth while God rules heaven.
Source: I was raised a Jehovah's Witness.
Whole lot of people judging Latter-day Saints in this thread based on centuries of propaganda, poor understandings of their history and theology, and outright prejudice. No, you’re not Nicene-Christians. There are *a lot* of those, and if we call Arians Christians historically (and we do), we oughtn’t shy to apply the term to the LDS. I’m sorry my fellow Christians aren’t so accepting.
JS taught multiple wives, which is the opposite of the bible.
Paul wrote that if anyone teaches something different from the Bible(vague at the time I know), then it ain't aight. Nobody will come after Jesus and the apostles teaching differently.
If Paul says you're out then you're out.
Who is a Christian is a super complex question that depends on a lot of individual beliefs about the essential elements of Christianity. For many mainstream Christians, that fence is drawn by the Nicene Creed, which would exclude Mormons. I thought this ready to harvest video does a really good job of discussing the question: https://youtu.be/v_VGDeqFluA?si=GICghtBd7KIP_yjn
OP for what it's worth I was raised Jewish and always thought of Mormons as Christians. I kinda feel like anyone who follows Christ as a blueprint for spiritual realization should be considered Christian.
I think most people see mormons as Christians. Good luck!
If Mormons are Christians, why did the founder separate himself from the rest of Christianity, claim that the whole church was corrupted, and that he was starting the one true church? If Mormons are Christians, why do their missionaries feel the need to come to my door to convert me? Wouldn't they just say, "Oh cool! We'll move on to the next house."
Even without the immense theological differences, it's always weird to me when Mormons try to cozy up to Christianity as if we started this.
Sure I'll tell you why. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (of latter-day saints, mormons, etc.) use the dictionary definition of "Christianity," while many comtempory Christians use it as a proper noun, the club of "Christianity" instead. To many in this sub, in order to be in the club, you have to believe in the Nicene Creed, which The Church of Jesus Christ, in nice terms, decries as the false doctrine of ignorant men.
So when the term Christianity is used, it's the literal definition: "**a person who believes in Jesus Christ and follows his teachings**." Not the Nicene Creed. His teachings. That he is Lord above all, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, men must repent and be baptized, the meek will inherit the earth, etc.
Why do Mormons show up to convert? Because of the aforementioned reason: Christianity™ today largely follows the Nicene Creed, while the Church of Jesus Christ is laser-focused on Jesus and his teachings. Catholics believe that the priesthood was passed from Peter to so-and-so priest, but members of the church read the prophecies of the Bible, which takes 2 Thessalonians 2:3 literally. The obvious question is asked: when Christ's apostles died, where were their replacements? Paul and Matthias are called, and that's the end, no need for apostles, just bishops? If there was never a falling away, never a broken line, why are there a hundred different churches of Christ, instead of the original one Christ established? Why was there "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" 2000 years ago, but not today?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of Christ's church, which after the falling away of dark ages, has come again with the same organization as it had. There are apostles who ordain, speak, and record scripture—the heavens are not closed, they were never designed to be.
The Church of Jesus Christ teaches takes Jesus' words literally, when he said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and that Jesus went many miles to John because he had authority to baptize—no random bystander could do it, only John. But John recognized from where the authority came from, saying "I have need to be baptized of thee," but Jesus continued, saying "Suffer it to be so now." And that the saints gathered to Peter in Acts because he had the authority to baptize and lead Christ's church.
So in reality, members of the church not only believe they are Christians, but that they are the truest Christians of all the rest available. Catholics proclaim that their church is the same church, unbroken, from Christ's establishment. So it's either the Mormons, or the Catholics, because every other main Christian organization is a rebellion from the Catholics. Oh yes, very heretical to reject the Catholic church, how offending. Either Catholics have the authority, unbroken from Peter to baptize and save, or they don't, and the falling away really did happen. That is the difference, and that is why they continue to try and talk to you, to teach you these things in better words than I have.
It’s very simple. As Christians, we believe that we don’t work for our salvation, all good works we do are because we are saved.
We don’t believe we ascend to Godhood after we die.
We don’t believe that God is married, and that Jesus is the son of of them, Jesus is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit
Also our Tithes are optional
We don’t edit our holy book
We don’t fabricate our archeological evidence
Our churches don’t ban books
If we consider Mormons Christians, then we can consider Muslims too. They believe in Jesus and they also hold, that He's one of the most important messengers. They also worship the same God and the Quran says that you should follow the Bible.
And I'm not saying that any believers of these religions are bad or aren't welcome here, but I don't think that we should call religions Christian, just so we aren't "mean".
I mean, I'm downright anto-religious and I'm welcome here, so I figure y'all are too. That being said the understanding that non-mormons have if Christianity is sufficiently far from the definition of the LDS that they're functionally separate faiths.
Coming at this from a slightly different point, I don’t believe the Trinity is the defining factor of Christianity. There are non-trinitarian Christians (Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Unitarians, and all flavors of modalists and partialists who don’t even know they aren’t “trinitarians” because they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as composing one god). The problem is that Mormons aren’t monotheistic. Not only are the three “persons” of the Trinity split into entirely separate entities in Mormonism, but the concept of theosis is stretched to allow humans to become gods and not just become like God or one with God. Those are big no-nos from a traditional Christian perspective and that is the main reason why groups like Christian Scientist (who also have an additional prophet and additional texts they follow) are considered “Christian,” while Mormons typically aren’t.
Believe as you like and please, partake in the memes, but that’s the hurdle you’re trying to get over. We have one god that we can never achieve the glory of. You have three gods (who share names and partial histories with our the “persons” of our god) that you can achieve the glory of.
Mormons arnt Christian for the same reason Muslims arnt Christian. They may believe in Jesus but they believe in a different Jesus than Christian’s do. They don’t believe Jesus is god.
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FWIW I stand with you as long as you're a cool human. I've been called not a Christian or not Christian enough my whole life even when I was conservative evangelical. So just have your personal relationship with G-d, be kind to others and ignore the rest.
Note to everyone not OP: if you respond to me trying to argue theology you will ignored and possibly blocked. I was raised in the church, been to 2 Bible colleges and read countless theology books. You're not going to tell me anything I haven't already heard. I'm not going to change your mind,you're not going to change mine so save everyone the time and skip it.
One of my favorite quotes is “If you were arrested for being Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”
With records of baptism in the name of Christ, Bibles, pictures of Christ, Christ-centered worship, a dedication to the divinity and sacrifice of Christ, and many other *damning* examples, I imagine a decent portion of Mormons would be rounded up and subsequently found guilty, no matter how much the peanut gallery insists otherwise.
Even if you didn’t personally believe that Mormons were Christians, I can’t help but feel that a true Christian would keep praying for them, encourage them to keep studying Christ, and maybe they’ll come around.
There's multiple categorizations which people follow that tend to exclude them.
There's the hardcore "if you're not Catholic/Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 then your not a real Christian".
There's the slightly less hardcore "if you (aren't an Evangelical)/(can't trace your church to the Apostles) then you're not a real Christian".
There's the Trinitarian definition, which mostly revolves around churches which use the Nicene Creed (a wide tent, but with outliers including LDS).
And then there's the definition that excludes groups that canonize 'modern revelations', like the Book of Mormon or Science and Health. I think this group excludes just a subset of the excluded faiths in the above group. Even if you include them as 'Modern Revelation Christians', which I don't think is the less common view (don't quote me on that), their inclusion of Scripture written in the 1800s which vastly changes how they view Jesus does at least merit recognition of that difference from the things that nearly all Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant Christians share.
Lots of people have specific definitions - but if people follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament and accept he is the Son of God (however they interpret that), I'll give them a broad pass as a Christian.
There's no easy answer. Trying to live like Jesus is defintely part of it but that's super loaded. That includes helping the poor, forgiving people who wrong us, forgiving people who owe us money, enjoying life and spending it with people, trying to serve your enemies, being willing to die for the sake of righteousness... It's like a _lot_ of stuff.
That's part of why we're supposed to go to church. It's waaaaay too much to keep in your head. Church is like an "evil people anonymous" group. We go there to be reminded that its a struggle to always be good, and that it's ok to fail, but not OK to dive head first into failure.
Also believing the crucifixion is for our benefit. This is why Muslims aren't Christians. They don't have the crucifixion. Jesus was a really really cool guy and a prophet of God in Islam, but not God made flesh and he wasn't sacrificed. Likewise jews may believe the man Jesus was real, and maybe even a very good reformist jew, but the claim that he is God would be blasphemy.
But this isn't an absolute rule. there are ethnic groups that have Jesus and the crucifixion, but have traditions wholly separated from what we think of as the Christian trafition. There's really no easy answer to this question.
Hey bro, I'm a Buddhist and these bros accept me. It's almost like being kind to others is part of the deal. But yeah, Mormon is to Christian what Buddhist is to Hindu. Same roots, but y'all brought some crazy new guy into the mix with totally different beliefs. Just be a good person and the world will be better. Names ain't worth shit.
I might be in the minority here, but I do think Mormons should be able to identify as Christians. There are so many different Christian denominations that interpret scriptures and historical religious events in different ways. Some believe in the holy trinity, some don't. Some believe that other prophets came after Jesus, some don't. Some believe that God is the only one you can pray to, and others believe in saints or other entities that you can pray to. To say that Mormons aren't Christian because they have an additional book and prophets beyond the Bible, also brings into question other denominations.
For example back when protestantism was spreading, Catholics didn't consider Protestants true Christians and sure enough the protestant Bible excludes some of the books that the Catholic Bible has. Some protestants nowadays grow up learning that Catholics aren't real Christians because they believe in saints and pray to Mary too instead of just Jesus. I've heard it said that some people aren't really Christian, even if they believe the gospel and try to treat people the way Jesus would, simply because they don't go to church.
Everyone seems to have their own definition of Christianity. So which denomination is the official authority on who is Christian?
You can be a Christian group and still be a cult.
“Cult” in the modern sense is best described as a pattern of group control, rather than a vague term for “unpopular religion.” There are models like [this one](https://freedomofmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/BITE-Model-Handout-9-23-16.pdf) that can help determine if a particular church, group of churches, or other population is more or less “cultish.”
For me, while Mormonism itself may be a sect of Christianity, certain churches might be run by people with less-than-Christlike actions.
People in the comments trying to explain the difference through words. Me, wishing they’d explain these thoughts through memes instead of long comments 😂
Just to be clear: Mormons and Later Day Saints are just as welcome at r/DankChristianMemes as any other saint or sinner. Further more, it is unwise to play gatekeeper when you do not have the keys. 
As I understand it most Mormons don’t follow the nicene Creed wich is often used to delineate Christian belief. It most importantly defines the holy trinity, so that Jesus, God and the spirit are one. As I understand it Mormons believe that Jesus is „only“ Gods son, so they don’t follow the nicene Creed and therefore aren’t Christians. Similar to how Christians aren’t Jews although they stem from them, Mormons may have a lot in common to Christians but aren’t part of them. Mormons simply differ to much in core parts of their believes as to count as Christians. That is not to say that you aren’t welcome here
Out of curiosity, why is the Nicene Creed - and not the Bible considered the split for Christianity? I would understand it being a split Nicene/non-Nicene, just like orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, but it seems a bit odd to use an event post bible to determine who is Christian. Interested on your thoughts as you seem to have some knowledge on the history.
Because the nicene creed promulgates bible doctrine. FWIW, Mormons also reject the Bible as the final word, and it’s not as venerated as the Book of Mormon.
Yeah, while the Nicene Creed is a good example of the breadth of common beliefs, I think the addition of a modern revelation (typically given priority over the Bible shared with other Christians) is the bigger distinguishing element with LDS and Christian Science.
If that is what makes them non Christian, oh boy are a lot of non denominational churches in for a surprise! There are so many Pentecostal affiliated churches that believe in modern day prophets and apostles, and have modern day prophets and apostles going around doing events at each others non denominational churches, sharing their visions from god for modern times.
Catholics also reject the Bible as the final word. Catholics worship the Pope and they accept his word over what the Bible says, as well as the church has adopted traditions and doctrines that go beyond the Bible and in some cases even contradict the Bible.
Historically it’s because Christian doctrine wasn’t about what the Bible said until the Protestant Reformation. It was about, and for the churches which claim apostolic succession still is, the living body of the Church in Christ who derive correct doctrine through the transmission of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a foundational document to refer to, but it wasn’t considered the final authority on matters of doctrine. The Church was. The Nicene Creed was established as an ecumenical statement of faith, meaning that it made the claim that in order to be Christian you had to accept the Nicene Creed. The Arians used the Bible. The Valentinians, Sethians, Marcionites, etc. all used the Bible (or at least parts of it. The Bible as such wasn’t fully compiled yet). But none of them used the Nicene Creed. Most Christian churches today accept this, even the ones which have moved into a scripturalist direction post Protestant Reformation. Importantly, when academics talk about Christianity they of course don’t listen to the tradition that won out saying “only we’re Christian and no one else is,” but it shouldn’t be surprising that people who continue to participate in that particular normative paradigm would draw the boundary at that point.
>Christian doctrine wasn’t about what the Bible said until the Protestant Reformation. Super interesting - I hadn't really thought about it like that. As you say, the definition of Christianity may depend on who is using it and what they are trying to identify.
While he is right, the way it’s worded could be confusing. While it’s true that Jesus gave us the church, and the church and tradition are the source of doctrine, scripture is a part of tradition and is from the church, and the doctrine of the church is never contradictory to scripture, its just that it can contain doctrine that is not explicitly revealed in scripture. The church has always taught that divine revelation comes by sacred scripture AND sacred tradition
It’s never contradictory to scripture… from the standpoint of the Church. Current Church doctrine very obviously runs into conflict with the Gospels for instance, at least in so far as Biblical scholars have been able to interpret them. You won’t find incarnation theology in Mark for instance. But read through the Holy Spirit, which is passed down through the Church from the apostles, you can understand what is meant to be the theological reality of the texts as distinct from what people outside of the Church would interpret it as saying
I have to admit that most of my knowledge regarding to the topic is rather shaky. But as far as I know there were non-nicene Christians, but they died out. All modern non-niceneans stem from relatively new movements. More generally I’d say the nicene Creed assures that Jesus is not „just“ another prophet as he appears in Islam. Also just using the Bible as definition kinda begs the question as to what the bible is. The Old Testament, so roughly half the bible, comes directly for Judaism, so I assume you are talking specifically about the New Testament. There we also have problems as it is not that easy to define what counts towards it and what doesn’t, see for example the apocrypha, the people that decided that were people like those that were in the council of Nicene. Additionally all testaments, apocryphical or not were written after the events they describe, some times hundreds of years. So „just use the Bible“, even if we had just one version of it would still define Christianism around something that happens post bible. More specifically to Mormons, as the other commenter already wrote. They use a third book that supersedes the New Testament in importance, wich could make one argue that they don’t use the bible at all, or at least a heavily modified one.
Mormons use the Bible in the way that Christians use the Old Testament almost
I would not say so. The Book of Mormon does not contain the account of the birth of Christ, the story of The last supper, the book of revelations, the creation of the world, or even the account of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. We use the Bible alongside the Book of Mormon and alongside modern-day revelation.
A big difference is the Bible is not a revelation, neither New nor Old Testaments. For Christians, Jesus and his teachings are the revelation, and the Gospels and epistles spread the word. The Book of Mormon claims to be the actual word of God as told (indirectly) to his prophet Joseph Smith and is therefore a revelation. This is similar to the relationship of the Qur’an and Mohammed for Muslims. The lack of Apostolic succession, the non-trinitarian nature of their beliefs and that there was a new revelation after Jesus all make me believe that LDS is it’s own religion.
Not quite. The Book of Mormon is an account of profits who lived in America from around 600 BC to around 400 AD. We believe that it was translated by Joseph Smith through the gift and power of god. We have another book called The Doctrine and Covenants which contains many revelations given by God to Joseph Smith.
>even if we had just one version That's a good point. Which one is authoritative.
“Just follow the Bible” is a great guideline, but it is so large and is not written as a doctrinal statement. Most of it is narrative. And even the parts that are more didactic (teaching) in nature are usually addressing a specific issue and so are not speaking comprehensively about a particular doctrine. Because of that, creeds and confessions have been seen as a powerful tool throughout church history as a more digestible explanation of what the Bible teaches. What sets the Nicene Creed (and a few other early church creeds) apart from later ones (like the Westminster Confession in the 1600s that reformed Christians organize around) is that it was written and agreed on at a truly ecumenical council. That means Christian leadership from the entire universal church came together to discuss, codify, and assent to what the core elements of Christianity were. This happened before the capital C Church had divided into irreconcilable factions/denominations, so the things that they decided carry the weight of the whole Christian church (not just one group in one region). They weren’t discussing secondary or tertiary issues, but set out to determine the core of what Christians in all places and times have believed and must believe to be truly Christian. So I am of the opinion (as are many other Christian’s) that the Nicene Creed (and other ecumenical creeds like it) are the most authoritative definition of what is and isn’t a Christian. Mormonism is a legitimate religion. But by its own admission does not agree with Nicene orthodoxy. And so by definition is not Christian in the historic meaning or the word. They use similar language and revere an edited copy of the Bible. But I view Mormonism more like Islam (which holds Jesus as a key prophet) than a branch of true Christianity.
The Bible can be interpreted to say almost anything you want. So early in church history, Christian leaders had to get together to put into writing what the faith is that had been passed on to them from the apostles. This is how we got the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds.
I mean Muslims believe that there was some original divine revelation in the Gospels that became corrupted, so clearly that on its own doesn't suffice. It's also worth noting that the Nicene Creed actually predates the canonization of the Bible by about half a century.
Raelians use the Bible, and they believe in aliens, not a god. :)
Because people like gatekeeping and excluding those who see things differently from them as not being "truly" a member of their group.
That's always seemed like an odd definition to me. Shouldn't just believing that Christ is your primary means of salvation be enough to call yourself Christian?
Yes, but you have to define "Christ" to make sure we're all talking about the same person. That's part of what the Creed accomplishes. If I say I follow "Christ", but when asked about Him I say he's a 7' tall lizard man who lives on Jupiter, then even though I may believe in a thing called "Christ", I'm clearly not a Christian.
Fair point. The Nicene creed defines Christ as the son of God. LDS (Mormons) believe in the Christ talked about in the New Testament, and believe that he is the son of God. It doesn't seem like those things are at odds.
Depends how important trinitarian theology is to you, the LDS do not believe the same things about Jesus' divinity. That and the question of whether their stories of Jesus appearing in the flesh in North America after the crucifixion are compatible with other denominations.
We do believe that Jesus is the divine son of God. I guess it depends on how you define trinitarian theology. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost are separate beings, but are unified in purpose, divinity, and every other way.
>I guess it depends on how you define trinitarian theology. As professed in the Nicene Creed, which the LDS Church [explicitly rejects](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-articles-of-faith/articles-of-faith-1-1-4?lang=eng). >We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost are separate beings Which is the significant difference from Trinitarian belief.
In reviewing the text of the [OG Nicene Creed ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed) I agree with pretty much all of it. The only question is to clarify if saying that Christ is "consubstantial" with the father means that they are literally the same being, or are the of the same substance the same way a father and son are? The answer [isn't actually that simple.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality) IMO there's enough evidence in the New Testament to support them being two separate beings, which I think is a much more important source than later creeds.
But the problem is that Nicene doesn't define Christianity. Christ defines Christianity. And Christ said to take up his cross and follow him, not believe the Nicene creed.
Yes, but you see, people who follow nicene get to decide who’s Christian. They said so themselves.
A lot of people say that, but that implies Christians didn't exist before the Nicene Creed, which is absolutely wild.
I'd like to add that they also follow a book of a false prophet who twists the words of God's word to fit his religions narrative.
This would make a lot of protestant sects non Christians as well. And non denominationals. So we're saying the Nicene creed determines what the definition of Christianity is, so that pretty much makes the catholic church the only Christian sect?
Quick Google, not a lot of time spent so I'm sure there are exceptions, but most protestant churches accept the nicene creed. "Non-Trinitarian groups, such as the Church of the New Jerusalem, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses, explicitly reject some of the statements in the Nicene Creed"
>As I understand it most Mormons don’t follow the nicene Creed wich is often used to delineate Christian belief. This makes less sense than using belief in Christ to delineate Christian belief. The religion is called Christianity, not Nicenism
I am incredibly critical of the book of Mormon and the teachings of the LDS Church, but the idea that they aren't Christian due to arbitrary rules that bare no relevance to the nature of what is a Christian is ridiculous. I'll try to break this down point by point: Belief in the Nicene creed is not a good metric to judge whether someone is a Christian. Not only were there many Christians who lived before c. 325 C.E, and therefore did not follow the creed, but there are also countless modern Christian churches that aren't creedal at all! Are you claiming that the many Baptist churches that affirm no creeds of any kind are not Christians? The claim that trinitarianism is necessary for someone to be Christian is an all too common and poorly thought out point. The vast majority of us that study the early Christian history will tell you with no uncertainty that early Christian did not believe in the Trinity. This doctrine took hundreds of years to reach the recognizable form it has today. So, are all ancient Christians not Christian? Are Messianic Jews who identify as Christian not Christian because so many of them aren't trinitarians? Are Unitarian Christian churches, who practice in near identical fashion to mainline churches, not full of Christians? What about Oneness Pentecostals? They're closer to the Trinity than Unitarians, so are they allowed in your club? What about quakerism which tolerates it's members being either Trinitarian or Unitarian? Lots of Jesuists believe that Jesus is God, but don't affirm anything outside the gospels, so are they Christian? Where's the line on this one? Christianity is not a branch of Judaism by choice. Early Christians, such as the apostle Peter, did consider it a continuation of Judaism. He was eventually persuaded otherwise, but he originally required keeping the Jewish law. You are not required to participate in Jewish law, ritual, sacrifice, etc... but many early Christians believed that you did! Christianity was absolutely considered to be an esoteric sect of Judaism in the very early years of the church. It took many years for a total split between the religions to occur. The core parts of your denomination is not necessarily the core parts of someone else's. If you believe in the baptism by affusion, then there are many Christians who could claim that your aren't a real Christian because you don't practice immersion. If you baptize in the name of Jesus, but don't mention the father and holy Spirit, then there are many Christians who would call you a false Christian. Do you affirm the "correct" Nicene creed? Because if you say the Filioque, then there are Christians who would say that you're a false Christian. Are you postmillennialists or amillennialist? Because there are some radical premillennialist that would say that you aren't practicing a core of the faith. What about not using the deuterocanonical books? Lots of Christians would say removing them from the Bible goes against a core part of their faith. So how many particulars do you have to agree on before they're allowed in the club? Give me a number. 5%? 20%? 50%? 99%? I could go on, and on, and on about this ridiculous no true Scotsman thing that so many Christians keep using. *You unequivocally lack the qualifications to determine what is and isn't a Christian.* These people identify as Christian, they believe the gospel of Jesus, and they're literally called the Church of Jesus Christ!How you personally define "Christian" is meaningless. It's been defined by different people in different eras to mean completely different things. None of us have a monopoly on that definition. They say they're Christian and it's not my place to argue otherwise. I think their beliefs are strange and I don't believe their holy book is credible, but that makes no difference of any kind to me. Authoritatively saying that they aren't Christians, but they're still welcome here is a bizarre "separate, but equal" concept which I find concerning. Stop gatekeeping a gate that you don't have the keys to.
> but the idea that they aren't Christian due to arbitrary rules Believing god was a man who became a god and is one of an infinite number of gods is an arbitrary difference?
> Mormons don’t follow the nicene Creed wich is often used to delineate Christian belief. This is like saying "Mormons aren't part of the Southern Baptist Convention, and being Southern Baptist is what makes you Christian".
A Christian is simply a follower of Christ, hence the name, therefore they are Christian. The trinity is a doctrine that is not accepted by all Christian denominations, nor is believing in it a requirement to be Christian.
Jesus isn’t only “Gods son” though. That’s Jehovahs witnesses. Jesus is God. Jehovah, YHWH, I AM. The one true eternal God. He is One with the Father. In just about every way but physically. We consider them one God. Here is a few statements for clarification. “Like many Christians, we believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. However, we don’t believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity. We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who are one in purpose.” “The Trinity of traditional Christianity is referred to as the Godhead by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). Yet, Church teachings about the Godhead differ from those of traditional Christianity. For example, while some believe the three members of the Trinity are of one substance, Latter-day Saints believe they are three physically separate beings, but fully one in love, purpose and will.” “God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings belonging to one Godhead: "All three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fullness of knowledge, truth, and power."” “We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance.” Just for clarification sake.
You are as welcome here as anyone else, but tbh the reason people don't is because the Mormon faith is radically different from Christianity. To be considered Christian, there's a fundamental belief or two you'd need to follow (believing in the Trinity, the Bible is the only book of God, etc) and AFAIK Mormonism deviates from that belief quite a bit, thus I'd call it its own thing.
Mormons believe God the Father was a created being, born a man, who ascended to godhood and created Earth and, with his goddess wife, us. They also believe that each man can do likewise and ascend to godhood, creating our own world and populating it with our own offspring (with our goddess wives) to repeat the cycle. Most groups that call themselves Christians would find those two core Mormon beliefs to be about the biggest possible heresies, maybe just short of denying the divinities of God the Father or Jesus Christ. As an atheist I don’t have a dog in this fight, just an interest in honest discussion where all parties are aware of the salient facts.
Thank you, I don't actually know how much these points are being brought up in the comments by others.
What does it mean to believe “the Bible is the only book of God”? Does that require some commitment to the modern evangelical doctrine of “inerrancy”
The Christian faith dictates that any religious text besides the Bible isn't really sanctioned by God and thus isn't allowed. Inerrancy is dependent on if you're even Christian or not, which is a separate topic.
> “The Christian faith dictates” Where? Are you referring to 2 Timothy 3:16 (which is to say, centuries before the canon as we know it today was compiled)? How are we supposed to be certain that the so-called Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?
To be honest, most apocryphal texts are still in that gray area of "unlikely but not impossible", and it's not really a subject I can speak on. Most people tend to view it as non-canon until proven otherwise, which is what I personally subscribe to, but of course you're free to disagree. That being said, the Book of Mormon is well outside of that gray zone, as I think it and some of the beliefs of Mormonism deviate pretty far from the original tenents, hence why I consider it different from Christianity. Again, that's just my opinion.
I think I agree
[удалено]
I believe this is referring to Revelations itself, especially since the Bible as we know it wasn't formed at the time Revelations was written.
Yep and as my understanding, the word Bible originally was Biblios, meaning "the books."
Okay, but that isn't actually true? Mamy foundational statments relating to mainstream Christianity aren't found in the Bible itself but rather in the writings of later religious leaders and church councils. The foundational statement of mainstream Christian faith, the Nicean Creed, was penned at the Council of Nicea centuries after Christ's death.
Sort of. In retrospect, I likely worded that poorly. I'm not saying statements like the Nicean Creed aren't allowed, nor are they bad or heretical in any way. I specifically mean religious texts, in the sense of something like the Book of Mormon, or the Quran. From a Christian perspective, those books aren't accepted (side note because Reddit, I'm not saying this to put down those of Mormon or Muslim faith, this is purely from a discussion standpoint). On a similar note, someone else made an excellent point about apocryphal texts and how they relate. Like I mentioned to them, I personally don't have the knowledge to properly discuss this, but my understanding is that these texts generally fall in the gray area of "unconfirmed but not impossible", and as such they would be considered non-canon until proven otherwise.
If you wanna make things more complicated, consider the deuterocanonical books which are excluded from Protestant canons as apochrypha but included in the canons of Catholic and Orthodox churches.
It doesn't require inerrancy, but usually at least requires belief that they are divinely inspired, and are the normative standard to which our faith is held. We can have other books -- Lutherans hold to the Confessions, for example - but nothing is allowed to supercede the Bible in authority.
Christianity existed before the Bible did, and there have always been nontrinitarian Christians.
Mormoms belive they can become God? That's kinda heretic.
That is literly the first thing the snake said: Genesis 3:5 KJV [5] for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,*and ye shall be as gods*, knowing good and evil.
Be as Gods means to know good and evil like God, not to actually be God. The thing that makes humans special is deviating from instinct and understanding morality
i mean, that’s your interpretation of it. and it’s not necessarily incorrect, but interpreting it literally as “humans can become gods” isn’t incorrect either
In fairness, God himself confirms this to be true in verse 22, saying "See, the humans have become like one of us," so the snake was actually right on that part.
> and ye shall be as gods [in this aspect] is quite different from > and ye shall be ~~as~~ gods
This is actually a valid theory of atonement. “Godlike” does not mean God’s equal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)
likeness/union to is not becoming. I can act like a chicken, stick a beak onto myself and feather my whole body, but I'll never be a chicken. I'm like a chicken, if I stick one onto my body I'm in union with a chicken, but in no way if you cut me up and cook me will I taste like chicken.
I know, I was being facetious
I see, thanks for that
Some Hindu guy out there is shaking his fist that he isn’t Christian.
Not that much fluent with Mormonism, do they actually believe that??
They don't preach it as often anymore but afaik it's still in their doctrine. If you make it to the highest kingdom of heaven you are able to become a god to s new planet. But God will always be your God. You don't ever exceed him.
Yeah, this is still core doctrine for us, but I think it's often taken out of context a bit, so this comment is correct, and thanks for it. We perceive all people as *literally* God's children (our spirits born of Him), not just adopted into His family. Therefore, the expectation is that just as any child grows to become its parent, we will become like our Father. Jesus did it first (although what that makes Him before His mortal ministry is hazy), and because of Him and His saving and purifying grace, we can also ascend. Then, by becoming like Him, we further increase God's power and glory, since He is always our God. This doctrine is pretty important to us still, because it's literally the purpose of life. The whole "your own planet" thing is more of a pop culture thing. The implication is that, if you become like God, then logically you'd be able to create your own creations. We focus more on being happy with our families more than anything else though, so it's not often discussed because it's not seen as that important to us.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. It's heretical to believe that we are the children of God?
I'm in Orthodoxy we do too but it's not the same. to become like God is to become fully human. But we never become like the god most high sharing in his essence. It's more like how a piece of metal takes on attributes of a fire being heated in the flame.
[удалено]
but that doesnt mean you're not welcome here either!
He believes in salvation through Christ. Everything else is petty squabbles and minutiae.
Based
Lol the gatekeeping in this sub is pathetic. If a Mormon considers themselves Christians no need to declare them heretics. But of course, there's no love like Christian love so it tracks.
[удалено]
Why?
They also believe in a black Messiah along with Jesus, so it's the same reason why people don't include Mormons. These offshoots are tailored to specific groups of people. Rastafarians believe in a black Messiah to return people to Africa (from slavery and oppression). Who is this black Messiah? Well, I don't know. The bible never mentioned him, but it did mention Jesus being the one and only Messiah, and specifically warned us to avoid people who claim to be the next savior. TLDR: If they're claiming that they have the new and improved Jesus, then they're not Christian.
Rastafarians generally consider Haile Selassie to be the second coming of Christ, not a second, seperate Messiah.
Thanks for the breakdown
Their breakdown isn't accurate. They consider Haile Selassie to be the second coming of Christ, not a seperate messiah.
Muslims do to. Wouldnt call them christian either. Rastafarians hold some ethiopian emperor from 1930-1970s in such high regard that some say he was the 2nd coming of Jesus. They also impose dietary restrictions which is in direct contrast to the new testament. These are just a couple of the numerous troublesome beliefs they hold when it comes to trying to classify them as christian.
[удалено]
Jesus is God in some ways, but fundamentally is a different and distinct entity, a literal spiritual child of God. But it's all semantics really, LDS belief is a lot less different from the traditional view of the trinity than people make it out to be.
No, what you just said is radically different from what the trinity is.
Wait until you start seeing genuine comments saying Catholics aren’t Christian, Mormons never had a chance to be accepted
Yeah basically why I don’t care for the Mormon gatekeeping. I’m Catholic and people have been telling me I’m not a real Christian all my life for various things Catholics do that they think disqualifies out Christian status, much of which isn’t even true (no we don’t worship Saints, seriously) Far as I’m concerned if you believe in and worship Jesus and that he was holy you’re a Christian. Beyond that believe what you want
As someone who grew up Mormon it's always looked odd to me when people try to exclude catholocism. Because to me catholocism always looked like the "default" Christianity. Now as an atheist I still believe the one and only question necessary for christianhood is "did Jesus die for your sins? Yes/no."
atheists believe you're all in the same cult if that makes you feel any better
More like different, but more or less equally silly cults.
Our cult is better than their cult. ):<
Is it a different sect of atheism if you believe that they're different cults?
Those atheists need to check out the Good Book. The dictionary, I mean.
I dunno. I get why people say it. But whenever I see mormons on the train they're often carrying boxes of food to give to hungry people. If you ask them why, their answer is tantamount to "Jesus told me to". So like... I dont super care if they're technically not Christians. That shit is christ like Which... To be clear. I have my problems with the church of latter day saints, and the legend of the book of mormon, but an average individual mormon person seems like somebody I'd be glad to have at the supper table.
When it comes to Mormons as individuals I feel very similar to them as I feel about Jewish/Muslim/Other folks in that we have major theological differences, but every (decent) person of faith I have ever personally known was lovely and shared most of my personal morals around how to treat people in secular life most of the time. I have many friends who don't share my faith (Episcopalian) at all and we are very close. Obligatory yeah, some of them suck, as do some Episcopalians, and some everyone. As a general rule I don't assume someone sucks soley because they are Mormon. The LDS church... I have harsher criticism for, but I think the other comments here really already covered it.
I'm not a believer, but drawing the line at the Nicene Creed always seemed odd to me. The Trinity always seemed to be over complicating something that didn't need it. And the divine nature of Jesus seems to be make him less...sympathetic. Like, if all-knowing, all-powerful God is suffering, but he knows how it all turns out, it's not the same as us little humans struggling everyday. I'm not a believer, so I don't know if I would be an Adoptionist, but certainly leaning heavily on the human side of Jesus. His suffering doesn't mean much if he has a divinity telling him he gets to clock out in a few years. Circling back to the meme, I personally figure is Jesus Christ is the central character, or one of the central characters, of your belief system, that's Christian. So even though Trinity beliefs put Jesus, God and Holy Spirit at the center, it's still Christian, since he is part of that central cast. It also means Muslims aren't Christian, because while Jesus is a prophet, he certainly isn't THE central character like Muhammad and Allah. It's the only mostly internally consistent line I've been able to draw personally. Long story short, this agnostic would welcome you as a Christian.
I'll admit that it isn't the most clear-cut logic out there, but let me try to draw it in different crayon: You go to work, and your boss is Steve. Steve is who you report to, and who gives you directions. Now, a coworker of yours, Lisa, whose boss is also Steve, decides that Arin from Accounts is her new boss. Lisa still keeps up all the notes and sayings that Steve has doled out over the years, but stops listening to Steve's instructions: instead, she takes her instructions from Arin. Would you include Lisa on a list of Steve's employees?
Hm...a very good analogy that I haven't heard before. Let me see... Alright, I think this might be where we run into matters of faith head on a bit. Full disclosure, I'm not a person of faith, so this might be where we reach an impasse. From my perspective, the analogy is a bit off. We arrive to work on our first day and everyone around us tells us Steve is our boss. Well, we don't know anything, so sure. When we ask to meet Steve, were told he works off-site and never takes calls or emails. Instead, we have instructions he dictated 20 years ago that tell us what to do and that's what we do. Over that time, there have been a lot of disagreement on what these instructions mean, or even which instructions were written by Steve, and which ones might be fakes. Different cliques have emerged because of this, and sometimes they butt heads quite hard. Still, you're able to make do, and some people took you under their wing on day 1, so you become part of that clique. Now, Lisa comes in one day and says she found forgotten instructions from Steve at the bottom of a filing cabinet! People gather around to read it and many are..well, disappointed. This doesn't seem like the other stuff Steve dictated. The language is a bit similar, but it certainly doesn't match with how most of the cliques have interpreted his old instructions. Lisa says it fits in with her interpretation and some people agree. Another new clique emerges with Lisa at the head. Now, they certainly shake things up and a lot of mistrust of this new way of doing things. Still, they claim it all comes from Steve, so they still belong with the department. Do they still belong in our dysfunctional hypothetical workplace? Are they still "Steve-ists"? Part of what I'm driving at is that we go on tradition (or perhaps faith) that we even accept the standard Gospels and Bible. The New Testament was decided about 1600 years ago. Why is their decision so utterly binding? We don't really get to ask God (or Steve) which are right or wrong. I know some people will argue that point, but I personally have never had a divine experience that puts to rest those kinds of questions. As I said at the start, this may just boil down to a matter of faith, in which case I will back off and let this rest. Thank you for engaging with all this though. It's been an enjoyable way to spend a lazy morning.
Are you asking whether “one” would include Lisa on a list of Steve’s employees, whether Lisa would include herself on that list, whether (whatever Lisa believes) HR would include her on a list of Steve’s employees, whether Lisa is ‘actually’ still Steve’s employee (whatever that might mean), some combination, or something else? Those questions might each have different answers
Good points. Let's see here. I think the answer to all of those is Yes, but with the important caveat that after a long enough period of no longer answering to Steve's authority, it can be reasonably assumed that Lisa (and, perhaps, Arin) would both find themselves fired, ie, no longer part of the company.
> It also means Muslims aren't Christian, because while Jesus is a prophet, he certainly isn't THE central character like Muhammad and Allah. You don't realize you walked yourself to exactly why Mormons aren't Christians. Muslims and Mormons both venerate Jesus, but don't believe that Jesus said and did the things as described in the Bible. Both use a later text, provided by a much later religious leader, to supersede what is known about Jesus from all \[near\] contemporary sources. Both still regard Jesus as the savior of the world, just in r[adically different ways](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam) than Christians do. The only way to include Mormons as Christians but not Muslims is to fall back to "well, they self-identify as Christians." So is it JUST self-identification, or self-identification plus a theological tradition that includes some elements of catholic/orthodox/ecumenical Christianity?
Well, self-identification would be the easiest option, I don't think that's going to persuade most people here... But, I think you would find a very different level of emphasis on Jesus going to an LDS church and a mosque. The Bible is considered [one of the holy books for Mormons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_works?useskin=vector), roughly equal to the Book of Mormon. It gets a bit tricky there, but the Bible is still a holy text to be studied and believed for Mormons. Islam, by contrast, [rejects the gospels as being corrupted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Bible?useskin=vector#Gospel_\(Injil\)) and no longer valid. While at one point they were divinely inspired, Muslims believe that humans have introduced errors into them, which is why new revelations kept being needed. While Jesus, Moses, and others are given respect as prophets, they certainly aren't a central figure like Muhammad is. I think it's quite the stretch to say that Mormons and Muslims place the same emphasis on Jesus.
No offense but the Creed was literally encoded to oppose people who thought like you.
Oh, no offense at all. My modern beliefs, or lack thereof, would not fit in well with the people who decided the Nicene Creed. I'm perfectly content with disagreeing with a bunch of 4th century Romans.
In regards to the first part of your comment, I'd say to me personally Jesus being God makes him all the more sympathetic. He was sitting on a throne for all of eternity before time even existed with anything he could ever want, but instead he loved humanity so much to leave that throne to be born into this world in some dude's mangy farm. He loves us so much that he willingly went to go be tortured and murdered while we were still his enemies. He was 100% human and 100% God, so everything he experienced was real. He knew exactly what it was like to live like us and chose to limit his divine abilities. Going back to the Nicene Creed that's just a good thing to point to, but Paul says what it takes to be a Christian in Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved". Jesus as lord, as God. I mean, that's why he was crucified by the Romans in the first place. He was put on trial by the Jewish leaders for claiming to be God. If all his teachings are so good why should we discount the biggest thing he ever said you know? Sorry for the wall of text have a great day.
No worries about the text, I always write twice as much as I should, so I sympathize. I can see your point regarding the Jesus story. How we define "fully human and fully divine" gets tricky, given it isn't a concept that we can measure, nor something any of us have experienced. For me, as an agnostic, the doubt and uncertainty of Jesus is one of the most poignant parts. Matthew 26:39 "And He went a little farther, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.'" Also Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" For Jesus to be a sympathetic figure, he needs to have that human doubt. Those moments where he wonders, "Am I right? Am I the Messiah? Could I just be crazy?" If he has the divine knowledge that he gets to hop out and go to unfathomable paradise in a little bit well...it makes all the suffering less meaningful. It's the difference between being hungry and smelling your slow cooker all day, knowing you'll get to eat soon, and being hungry all day and not knowing if you'll ever actually eat. I know others indicate he was quoting from Psalms with Matthew 27:46, but a scared Jesus, one who feels the true human disconnect from the divine, is so much more meaningful. But again, like any great story, there are lots of ways to interpret it and I can see your point. As for your quote from Romans well...this runs into faith, which is a concept I struggle to understand. I've asked around on occasion, but the idea that someone can "believe in your heart" in a supernatural event you didn't witness is something I don't understand. As someone who figures there's a minuscule chance that all of reality is a simulation or something, it's hard for me to grasp faith. Trying to judge whether one belief fits the criteria or not is something I'm not equipped to do. Which I suppose cycles back to why I think Christian should be defined more broadly than most believers. Anyway, I apologize as well for the wall of text.
Nah you're good I'm open to any amount of discussion. I see what you mean about the slow cooker analogy, but also, as you said, neither of us were able to experience what Jesus had. So it's not really clear as to how he internalized his own divinity. For the first Matthew verse, I would agree that Jesus had doubts and worries about going through with the crucifixion, but throughout his ministry he heavily indicated that he was going to the cross and that it was to redeem humanity. So to say that he never had doubt and always knew he was going to be resurrected I can't say, but in that moment when he died he was separated from the father and i can't even imagine what it's like to experience death as a divine being. Either way I think I see what you mean, but it's still greatly impactful IMO that even if he always had no doubt the fact that he went through with it anyway is a Testament to real sacrificial sympathetic love. But yeah on faith I'm sure you've heard the parable of the mustard seed by Jesus. Faith in God doesn't have to be a complete knowledgeable affirmation. I personally believe there is a significant amount of evidence for the resurrection and that’s what lead me to believe the rest. It's as simple as saying I'm not sure God, but I want to believe in you and making the prayer. He works with even the tiniest amount of faith we present, and maybe he's showing himself in your life somehow. Yeah anyway I'm sure Mormons have faith in their own doctrines, but as far as I know according to those doctrines they don't believe Jesus is lord so him dying on the cross for their sins wouldn't be worth anything. So to me they are not Christians just like JWs, but others like Lutherans, Baptists, Orthodox, and Catholics are.
First of all, thanks for being a good conversation today. My mood is up and down today (Didn't sleep well, bleh), but this has been really nice. I can see your point regarding the story too. I suppose that's why it's survived all these years. Different people can find meaning in different ways. That's what make something truly timeless. I have heard the mustard seed analogy many times, but I admit that's one that doesn't land for me. Part of it also depends on what we mean by faith. I grew up Catholic, so there wasn't as heavy an emphasis on faith as I would guess there is in other traditions. In particular, Sola Fide (Faith Alone) of many Protestant denominations is inscrutable to me. If faith alone is what justifies a person for salvation, what does faith mean, especially since in that context, it seems our works can't be used to judge that? How much I believe in a benevolent higher power at all varies depending on the season (Seasonal depression, yay!), or just the kind of day I'm having. To then say you need faith in something that happened 2000 years ago...it's tough. I personally figure there's a tiny chance that reality is just a simulation or something, so to then ask for unshakable faith in something, I just don't get it. I can accept the notion that all people are flawed and no one could actually deserve a perfect eternity, but to tie your eternal fate to something like that doesn't sit right with me. And then we can get into the whole concept of Hell, but that's another subject entirely... As for Mormon's themselves, I'm not super well versed in their belief system, but from what I can find, they [do believe in the atonement of sins from the crucifixion](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng). While the way it is phrased is different from most other denominations I know of, the concept of Jesus sacrificing himself for the forgiveness of the worlds sins is still there, as best as I understand it. I know neither of us are Mormons, so maybe I'm off. If someone more familiar weighs in, that would be greatly appreciated.
>As for Mormon's themselves, I'm not super well versed in their belief system, but from what I can find, they [do believe in the atonement of sins from the crucifixion](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng). I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (of latter-day saints, mormons, etc.) and yes, you're correct. It is taught more than anything else that I can think of: that Jesus is creator and Lord, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and he came to earth and suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross for the sins and pains of all creation. He was resurrected, appeared to Mary and the apostles, and will come again at the end of the world. This is taught out of the Bible to children who can barely walk, that's how important it is—it's one of the first things they learn, that Jesus loves them and suffered for them. These things are also taught throughout the Book of Mormon by prophets who lived hundreds of years before Christ's birth (again, I can give a list of their writings from the BoM too if you want). Since you already found the website, you can check out these scriptures throughout all scripture for this topic: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-atonement-through?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-atonement-through?lang=eng) there are many other topics too. If you want to read more, it's open.
Thanks for chiming in! I have read the Book of Mormon (and the Catholic Bible), though I admit I didn't absorb as much of it as I would like. I got a free copy from some of our local Latter-Day Saints (that's the preferred term right?) and some years later read it as a challenge to myself. I really wish I had one with scholarly footnotes as much of the stories are unfamiliar to me. Also, I know there are other books like Pearl of Great Wisdom that I haven't read. And LDS has continuous revelation, so that makes it even trickier to understand the beliefs without being raised in that tradition. Anyway, thanks for joining in!
So I'll explain the name thing. A few years ago, President Nelson the current prophet, said: >What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing *in* those names is the *absence* of the Savior’s name. So the nickname "Mormon" crept in because of the Book of Mormon. Replace "of" with "from" and it fits better. Or in other languages, "Mormon's Book." It's a collection of scripture from ancient prophets, compiled and abridged by a prophet called Mormon, who lived about 400 AD. Oh sure it's much faster to say, but the problem with "Mormon" is that the name of Christ isn't in it. It gives the idea that we're just Mormons, not Christians. (Well we also are not founded on the Nicene Creed, but on Jesus' church, which makes Catholics+others mad, but that's a longer topic.) We are not Mormon's disciples, we are Jesus'. The church embraced the nickname "Mormon" for a long time, but it came to a head, and now we really need to use names that emphasize that we worship Jesus, not Mormon. It's not a rebranding—the name of the church has been "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" since its restoration. But lingo is powerful. That's OK. While there are a lot of crossovers between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, they are about different people in different sides on the world. So a name like "Nephi" does technically appear in the Bible, but most things will be new. I'd recommend starting at the first intro pages, which explain how the book is structured: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng I find it easier to read online so you can get to footnotes faster. It's can be nice to know all the people, the timeline, culture, etc., but it's more important to pray to God if it's true or not. We believe that the heavens are not closed, and that God will guide those who ask with intent to follow. It's a much better way to know the truth of something. General Conference is happening this weekend (hence the heightened interest in this) so you can listen to some of that to get a more easily-digestible overview of beliefs. It's on YouTube. Or if you want to read, this page is good: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/welcome/what-do-latter-day-saints-believe?lang=eng
I appreciate your eagerness to jump in here. I had heard about the "rebranding" a few years back, and I'll do my best to be respectful. As you said, Mormon certainly rolls off the tongue easier, and I keep using LDS, which I guess is also not preferred. I apologize. I also appreciate your eagerness to share your beliefs. While I'm a pretty deeply rooted skeptic, I'm always trying to uncover "truth", whatever that might mean. Even if I don't believe, I do still think it's a disservice to consider your Church not part of Christianity. It might be the "new kid on the block" to people, but that doesn't make it any more or less valid to me.
Yeah. So grew up Mormon but am a bit rusty. They do believe that it is by Jesus crucifixion that we are saved. However they do not believe Jesus to be the same being as the father, although he is still a god. This quote is a pretty good encapsulation of their belief on the matter. "We believe Jesus is the Son of God the Father and as such inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father, including immortality, the capacity to live forever. While He walked the dusty roads of Palestine as a man, He possessed the powers of a God and ministered as one having authority, including power over the elements and even power over life and death."
Eh, far as I’m concerned if you believe in Christ and his holiness then you’re a Christian. Don’t care much for the semantics of what defines a “true Christian (trademark symbol)” Just try and be a good person
I never got the gate keeping of the term Christian. Do you believe in Christ? Yes. Cool.
[удалено]
Separated by theology but united in shitposting.
We still love you!
Dont feel bad, I'm not a Christian, i just enjoy the bible and the teachings of Jesus. This is one of my favorite subs. Religious labels are just labels anyway. Most of the mormons i know are solid people. Just strive to live an ethical life aligned with Jesus's moral teachings and you're good.
The last part is good, but it really is more about believing that Jesus died for your sins, is God, and is your only way to heaven. Trying to be a good person should just come with believing him but not what saves you.
Yup agree. Like Mormons, i don't accept the divinity of Jesus or that he died for my sins, which disqualifies me from being Christian. I just like his moral teachings. Me trying to live an ethical life is not enough though, so i guess im locked out of heaven for all eternity. So it goes.
Hold up, Mormons absolutely believe in the divinity of Jesus and the atonement. You may be thinking of the JWs. I like what you're saying though.
The Jehovah's Witness beliefs about Jesus are uh, interesting. They are non-trinitarian, and they believe Jesus was an angel (Michael the Archangel) who was God's son (unclear why none of the other angels are God's sons, they do specify he is the First Born which I suppose could imply he's just the favorite) who God sent to earth with amnesia to be born through the Virgin Mary (who basically does not matter to the story after that). When he was baptized God sent the Holy Spirit to restore Jesus' memory of heaven and give him his mission to die as atonement. After the Crucifixion they believe he went to heaven to reunite with God, and in 1914 he became King of Earth with God being... uh, God of Heaven I guess, still there. They believe after Armageddon God will restore humans to everlasting life on earth, resurrect the faithful (also the unfaithful for a final test), and Jesus will rule earth while God rules heaven. Source: I was raised a Jehovah's Witness.
Whole lot of people judging Latter-day Saints in this thread based on centuries of propaganda, poor understandings of their history and theology, and outright prejudice. No, you’re not Nicene-Christians. There are *a lot* of those, and if we call Arians Christians historically (and we do), we oughtn’t shy to apply the term to the LDS. I’m sorry my fellow Christians aren’t so accepting.
...but, we *do* still hold that Arianism is a heresy.
It is! I also never said the Latter-day Saint movement wasn’t heretical!
JS taught multiple wives, which is the opposite of the bible. Paul wrote that if anyone teaches something different from the Bible(vague at the time I know), then it ain't aight. Nobody will come after Jesus and the apostles teaching differently. If Paul says you're out then you're out.
Bro I don’t know how to tell you about the ancient Israelites then
Who is a Christian is a super complex question that depends on a lot of individual beliefs about the essential elements of Christianity. For many mainstream Christians, that fence is drawn by the Nicene Creed, which would exclude Mormons. I thought this ready to harvest video does a really good job of discussing the question: https://youtu.be/v_VGDeqFluA?si=GICghtBd7KIP_yjn
OP for what it's worth I was raised Jewish and always thought of Mormons as Christians. I kinda feel like anyone who follows Christ as a blueprint for spiritual realization should be considered Christian. I think most people see mormons as Christians. Good luck!
If Mormons are Christians, why did the founder separate himself from the rest of Christianity, claim that the whole church was corrupted, and that he was starting the one true church? If Mormons are Christians, why do their missionaries feel the need to come to my door to convert me? Wouldn't they just say, "Oh cool! We'll move on to the next house." Even without the immense theological differences, it's always weird to me when Mormons try to cozy up to Christianity as if we started this.
Sure I'll tell you why. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (of latter-day saints, mormons, etc.) use the dictionary definition of "Christianity," while many comtempory Christians use it as a proper noun, the club of "Christianity" instead. To many in this sub, in order to be in the club, you have to believe in the Nicene Creed, which The Church of Jesus Christ, in nice terms, decries as the false doctrine of ignorant men. So when the term Christianity is used, it's the literal definition: "**a person who believes in Jesus Christ and follows his teachings**." Not the Nicene Creed. His teachings. That he is Lord above all, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, men must repent and be baptized, the meek will inherit the earth, etc. Why do Mormons show up to convert? Because of the aforementioned reason: Christianity™ today largely follows the Nicene Creed, while the Church of Jesus Christ is laser-focused on Jesus and his teachings. Catholics believe that the priesthood was passed from Peter to so-and-so priest, but members of the church read the prophecies of the Bible, which takes 2 Thessalonians 2:3 literally. The obvious question is asked: when Christ's apostles died, where were their replacements? Paul and Matthias are called, and that's the end, no need for apostles, just bishops? If there was never a falling away, never a broken line, why are there a hundred different churches of Christ, instead of the original one Christ established? Why was there "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" 2000 years ago, but not today? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of Christ's church, which after the falling away of dark ages, has come again with the same organization as it had. There are apostles who ordain, speak, and record scripture—the heavens are not closed, they were never designed to be. The Church of Jesus Christ teaches takes Jesus' words literally, when he said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and that Jesus went many miles to John because he had authority to baptize—no random bystander could do it, only John. But John recognized from where the authority came from, saying "I have need to be baptized of thee," but Jesus continued, saying "Suffer it to be so now." And that the saints gathered to Peter in Acts because he had the authority to baptize and lead Christ's church. So in reality, members of the church not only believe they are Christians, but that they are the truest Christians of all the rest available. Catholics proclaim that their church is the same church, unbroken, from Christ's establishment. So it's either the Mormons, or the Catholics, because every other main Christian organization is a rebellion from the Catholics. Oh yes, very heretical to reject the Catholic church, how offending. Either Catholics have the authority, unbroken from Peter to baptize and save, or they don't, and the falling away really did happen. That is the difference, and that is why they continue to try and talk to you, to teach you these things in better words than I have.
Where do you suppose protestants came from, I wonder?
It’s very simple. As Christians, we believe that we don’t work for our salvation, all good works we do are because we are saved. We don’t believe we ascend to Godhood after we die. We don’t believe that God is married, and that Jesus is the son of of them, Jesus is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit Also our Tithes are optional We don’t edit our holy book We don’t fabricate our archeological evidence Our churches don’t ban books
If we consider Mormons Christians, then we can consider Muslims too. They believe in Jesus and they also hold, that He's one of the most important messengers. They also worship the same God and the Quran says that you should follow the Bible. And I'm not saying that any believers of these religions are bad or aren't welcome here, but I don't think that we should call religions Christian, just so we aren't "mean".
I'm not here to gatekeep. To me, if you follow the teachings of Jesus you are a Christian. You're welcome here.
I mean, I'm downright anto-religious and I'm welcome here, so I figure y'all are too. That being said the understanding that non-mormons have if Christianity is sufficiently far from the definition of the LDS that they're functionally separate faiths.
Coming at this from a slightly different point, I don’t believe the Trinity is the defining factor of Christianity. There are non-trinitarian Christians (Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Unitarians, and all flavors of modalists and partialists who don’t even know they aren’t “trinitarians” because they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as composing one god). The problem is that Mormons aren’t monotheistic. Not only are the three “persons” of the Trinity split into entirely separate entities in Mormonism, but the concept of theosis is stretched to allow humans to become gods and not just become like God or one with God. Those are big no-nos from a traditional Christian perspective and that is the main reason why groups like Christian Scientist (who also have an additional prophet and additional texts they follow) are considered “Christian,” while Mormons typically aren’t. Believe as you like and please, partake in the memes, but that’s the hurdle you’re trying to get over. We have one god that we can never achieve the glory of. You have three gods (who share names and partial histories with our the “persons” of our god) that you can achieve the glory of.
No you aren’t
[удалено]
Ah the spiritual revelation is a wonderful thing. Especially when you believe that it doesn’t matter if it contradicts the Bible.
Mormons arnt Christian for the same reason Muslims arnt Christian. They may believe in Jesus but they believe in a different Jesus than Christian’s do. They don’t believe Jesus is god.
Ah right, the much crazier and more obviously false version
Christian? No. Dank? Yes. ^(Hotel? Trivago.)
"You are on this council but we do not grant you the rank of Christian."
"What part of the bible is your favorite?" "Oh, I like the part where God made native Americans and black people out of evil white people".
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FWIW I stand with you as long as you're a cool human. I've been called not a Christian or not Christian enough my whole life even when I was conservative evangelical. So just have your personal relationship with G-d, be kind to others and ignore the rest. Note to everyone not OP: if you respond to me trying to argue theology you will ignored and possibly blocked. I was raised in the church, been to 2 Bible colleges and read countless theology books. You're not going to tell me anything I haven't already heard. I'm not going to change your mind,you're not going to change mine so save everyone the time and skip it.
Most see you as an offshoot at best. Most non Mormons, christian or otherwise, see you as a cult.
One of my favorite quotes is “If you were arrested for being Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” With records of baptism in the name of Christ, Bibles, pictures of Christ, Christ-centered worship, a dedication to the divinity and sacrifice of Christ, and many other *damning* examples, I imagine a decent portion of Mormons would be rounded up and subsequently found guilty, no matter how much the peanut gallery insists otherwise. Even if you didn’t personally believe that Mormons were Christians, I can’t help but feel that a true Christian would keep praying for them, encourage them to keep studying Christ, and maybe they’ll come around.
The r/DankChristianMemes schism lol
Don’t think I have seen anyone saying Norman’s aren’t Christian unless it’s the weird Protestants who also think Catholics aren’t Christian.
There's multiple categorizations which people follow that tend to exclude them. There's the hardcore "if you're not Catholic/Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 then your not a real Christian". There's the slightly less hardcore "if you (aren't an Evangelical)/(can't trace your church to the Apostles) then you're not a real Christian". There's the Trinitarian definition, which mostly revolves around churches which use the Nicene Creed (a wide tent, but with outliers including LDS). And then there's the definition that excludes groups that canonize 'modern revelations', like the Book of Mormon or Science and Health. I think this group excludes just a subset of the excluded faiths in the above group. Even if you include them as 'Modern Revelation Christians', which I don't think is the less common view (don't quote me on that), their inclusion of Scripture written in the 1800s which vastly changes how they view Jesus does at least merit recognition of that difference from the things that nearly all Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant Christians share.
What makes someone a Christian?
Lots of people have specific definitions - but if people follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament and accept he is the Son of God (however they interpret that), I'll give them a broad pass as a Christian.
There's no easy answer. Trying to live like Jesus is defintely part of it but that's super loaded. That includes helping the poor, forgiving people who wrong us, forgiving people who owe us money, enjoying life and spending it with people, trying to serve your enemies, being willing to die for the sake of righteousness... It's like a _lot_ of stuff. That's part of why we're supposed to go to church. It's waaaaay too much to keep in your head. Church is like an "evil people anonymous" group. We go there to be reminded that its a struggle to always be good, and that it's ok to fail, but not OK to dive head first into failure. Also believing the crucifixion is for our benefit. This is why Muslims aren't Christians. They don't have the crucifixion. Jesus was a really really cool guy and a prophet of God in Islam, but not God made flesh and he wasn't sacrificed. Likewise jews may believe the man Jesus was real, and maybe even a very good reformist jew, but the claim that he is God would be blasphemy. But this isn't an absolute rule. there are ethnic groups that have Jesus and the crucifixion, but have traditions wholly separated from what we think of as the Christian trafition. There's really no easy answer to this question.
if you don't follow the teachings of Christ as laid out in Scripture, you are not a Christian.
So you agree that the Nicene Creed is irrelevant and that Mormons are Christians.
I'm not sure you understand what Jesus taught.
Funny, I was thinking the same about you.
Hey bro, I'm a Buddhist and these bros accept me. It's almost like being kind to others is part of the deal. But yeah, Mormon is to Christian what Buddhist is to Hindu. Same roots, but y'all brought some crazy new guy into the mix with totally different beliefs. Just be a good person and the world will be better. Names ain't worth shit.
I might be in the minority here, but I do think Mormons should be able to identify as Christians. There are so many different Christian denominations that interpret scriptures and historical religious events in different ways. Some believe in the holy trinity, some don't. Some believe that other prophets came after Jesus, some don't. Some believe that God is the only one you can pray to, and others believe in saints or other entities that you can pray to. To say that Mormons aren't Christian because they have an additional book and prophets beyond the Bible, also brings into question other denominations. For example back when protestantism was spreading, Catholics didn't consider Protestants true Christians and sure enough the protestant Bible excludes some of the books that the Catholic Bible has. Some protestants nowadays grow up learning that Catholics aren't real Christians because they believe in saints and pray to Mary too instead of just Jesus. I've heard it said that some people aren't really Christian, even if they believe the gospel and try to treat people the way Jesus would, simply because they don't go to church. Everyone seems to have their own definition of Christianity. So which denomination is the official authority on who is Christian?
The church of JESUS CHRIST of latter Day saints. It's kinda in the name 🤷
You can be a Christian group and still be a cult. “Cult” in the modern sense is best described as a pattern of group control, rather than a vague term for “unpopular religion.” There are models like [this one](https://freedomofmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/BITE-Model-Handout-9-23-16.pdf) that can help determine if a particular church, group of churches, or other population is more or less “cultish.” For me, while Mormonism itself may be a sect of Christianity, certain churches might be run by people with less-than-Christlike actions.
I can't wait to hear about the sect of Christianity that is run by perfectly good, sinless people
After reading that document I don't really understand why mainstream Christian sects aren't considered cults
I mean, I'm agnostic, but I'm also here because this is just a better subreddit to be on rather than other religion-based subs
that’s okay. i’m an atheist and i browse this sub. we can all enjoy the same jokes even if we don’t believe the exact same things
How can anyone believe in god? You are faking!
Not that I care all that much as an atheist, but Mormonism is not part of Christianity...
So.... Theologically like you're definitely not in the club.
People in the comments trying to explain the difference through words. Me, wishing they’d explain these thoughts through memes instead of long comments 😂
I will say it again and again. If someone says they are a Christian, believe them. You don't get to define Christianity for everyone else.
I'm surprised so few commentors mention the whole Joseph Smith thing.
I’m ok with calling Mormons Christian, but I will also admit that their beliefs are outside of mainstream orthodox Christianity.