Mormons self-identify as Christians but many Christian denominations reject this claim to the label emphatically. The sentiment has been around for the while, but the candidacy of governor Romney has given it new life.
I’m neither Christian nor Mormon, but I do like to puzzle over the meaning of terms that are as ubiquitous as they are vague- terms like “Christian.” So what specifically does the label “Christian” imply? Is it anyone who acknowledges the divinity of Christ as a vehicle for salvation? Or would you impose a lengthy list of esoteric doctrines that brooks no equivocation of any kind?
It seems to me that, in America, the label “Christian” is more symbolic of earned cultural acceptance than it is of shared doctrine. Adventist believe one thing, Lutherans believe another, but both are “Christians.” Baptists believe one thing, Presbyterians believe another, but both are “Christians.” Catholics used to get a lot of crap, but lately it seems like they’re just as “Christian” as everyone else.
…But Mormonism is right out. Why is that? I found this thread, but it mostly approaches my question from the side. The Debate…
Posit an explicit criteria by which I can differentiate between a “Christian” faith and one that merely claims to be so. Explain why your definition is inclusive/exclusive of Mormons. Then bicker with people over their definitions and explanations.
I’ll get the ball rolling by asserting that, if you believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ as well as the promise of spiritual salvation He offers, you are a Christian. Full stop. That’s all it takes. As such, I assert that Mormons are Christians.
Full disclosure: I was raised in two Christian traditions (Presbyterianism and somewhat fundamentalist Southern Baptism) but turned my back on theistic belief two decades back. I don’t have a horse in this race; my interest is purely academic.
As a disinterested party I’ve always taken Mormons on their word on this issue. They have major doctrinal differences with Christian but I never felt those were enough to make them non-Christians. Between that and their Christian self-identification I thought the answer was yes.
Christians are any group that believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ and attempt to follow some interpretation of his teachings as described in the New Testament.
I don’t know how it pans out (and perhaps I should start a GQ thread to confirm it before I post this, but I’ll let somebody call me out on it here), but in this video Penn Jillette brings up the point that “Christian” didn’t really have meaning it had today until the 1960s’ abortion debates. Before that, while it was a word, people mostly thought in terms of “Lutheran” or “Presbyterian” and they weren’t really united under a single banner. Calling yourself “Christian” regardless of denomination was a political move to give the religious public a unified, and therefore more visible and influential voice.
If that’s true, I think excluding Mormons is actually a fair bit of silliness. If there’s a religion that consistently votes on religious issues the way you’d expect this invented voting bloc to vote, it’s Mormons.
However, in general I take them at their word. If they say they believe in Jesus, even if it’s in a slightly different way from how other denominations believe in him, then sure, they’re Christian, why not?
See, that’s an interesting thing to say because my perception is that most people who self-identify as Christian in a way that excludes Mormonism couldn’t even tell you what the Nicene Creed was.
I shall watch it with interest. I love discovering that ideas I’ve taken for granted my entire life were invented in the recent past under questionable motivations. Like religious slogans on money, for example.
Most people who self-identify can’t tell you what they themselves believe, forget somebody else’s religion. They just parrot what they’re taught from the pulpit. But the arguments I’ve heard put forth by people who actually know what their denomination holds to seem to mention the Nicene Creed quite often.
The main problem that traditional Catholic, Orthodox & Protestant Christians have with Mormonism is the definition of God. To COP C’tians, God is One, Triune, Eternal, Infinite, & Omnipresent, Omnipotent, & Omniscient. Mormonism speaks of an Eternal Intelligence, but Personal Deity seems to be entities who emerged from that EI & through striving as material beings became Deity. “As man is, God once was. As God is, man can someday become.” And this is applied to The Father.
Thus, LDS Theology turns the traditional definition of God around. NOT a trivial matter.
This is how it goes, in my impression of various religions…
If you a Catholic hardliner you believe that only Catholics are Christians, and everyone else is woefully misguided if not outright contempt-worthy, and not Christian, and probably not saved, but maybe.
If you are a Protestant hardliner you believe that Catholics and Mormons and Jehova’s Witnessess are not Christian, contempt-worthy, possibly going to hell, but other protestant sects actually are Christian and will be saved.
If you are a Mormon hardliner, you believe all the Christ-based faiths are Christian, including your own, and all Christians of any faith will be saved (at some level, but not as high as Mormons will).
That’s just my perception, willingly open for correction if I’m mistaken.
Not true. While some Catholics may love to call their theological enemies heretics, the very definition of “heretic” is a Christian with false - i.e. non-Catholic - beliefs. From a Catholic perspective, heretics and heathens are equally damned, but the thing that separates a heretic from a heathen is that the former is a Christian while the latter is not.
Catholics do tend to be reluctant to call Mormons Christians, but that’s because Mormons are said to have a invalid baptism, and not because they happen to be heretical in general.
But from my own (Protestant) perspective, I think it’s much simpler to just say a Christian is anyone who regards the teachings of Christ as the center of his religion.
For my part, I find that Christians of all stripes are infuriatingly incapable of deriving a consistent, concrete set of properties which describe their God. For example, the definition you provide here is paradoxical in all the ways that theologians have squabbled about for centuries and is certainly not the universal standard for all Christian denominations. I’ve seen Christians bristle at being forced to defend a Omnimax God right here on this very forum.
Be that as is may, it seems like your definition for “Christian” implicitly excludes the notion that man may, in time, become like God?
Fair enough. But the Nicene Creed just seems to have some ambiguities you could drive a truck through. Apart from there being many versions, you could make an argument that the thing demands belief in special creation. And I’d be surprised to learn that everyone who currently gets away with naming them self a Christian agrees with literally everything in there. Can people who don’t believe that Jesus literally flew into heaven call themselves Christians?
