That’s my view. There’s no objective definition of “Christian”; as far as I’m concerned if you say you are a Christian, you are.
A standard that would eliminate virtually everyone who has ever called themselves Christian.
I don’t have an issue with Mormons calling themselves Christians. That being said…I think it’s sort of like Christians calling themselves Jews. When you have a whole new Revelation that defines God in a whole new way, then I think you’re into “new religion” territory.
See from my perspective, the invention of a god-man like Jesus and the related salvation theology substantially differentiates Jews from Christians while Mormons essentially ascribing additional properties to a vaguely defined abstraction like God does not separate them from Christians all that much.
There was a time if you asked most Protestants if he/she believed the Holy Ghost was present during sermons in a Mormon temple you would get at a minimum a reluctant no.
There would be more than a few who would sugest that SATAN was present at a Mormon sermon.
Really, I think Romney has been the best ambassador for the LDS that they’ve ever had in their history. Southern Baptists voting for a Mormon over a fellow Christian ! Unbelievable.
Yeah, I see your POV. The issue mainline Christianity has with the LDS, though, is the definition of the Trinity, which really does strike at the heart of Christianity. The Christian concept of a Triune god is a foreign one to Jews. Their concept of God is that there is but One. Indivisible. Christianity comes along and says it believes in just one God, as well, but that it exists in three persons. Jews say, “nuh-uh, that’s not our concept of One God at all!” And…now there are two religions. So then along comes the LDS, and they say they believe in one God that exists as three persons as well, but it’s actually three separate beings that are physically distinct from each other. The established Christian church says, “nuh-uh, that’s not our concept of One God at all!” And…now there’s yet another religion. As I said, if Mormons want to consider themselves Christians, that’s fine by me, but I think this is a major, major theological difference.
I fail to see how you arrive at that position.
Feena, the early christians didn’t see themselves as christians. They very much felt they were reforming judaism, not splitting off entirely. Mohammed didn’t feel he was creating a new religion but bringing an already existing religion, that of the jews and the christians to the arabic population. It’s not so easy within the denomination itself to see when that line has been crossed.
If someone says “I am a Christian”, it tells me little to nothing about what they believe. They might consider Jesus divine; they might consider some human/divine hybrid; they might just consider him a human Great Moral Teacher with no supernatural aspect. They might believe that God wants them to help the poor, or that God hates poor people and wants them to suffer. They might think that Jesus hated wealth, or they might think that wealth is a sign of God’s favor. They might think that “all men should be brothers”, or that they are God’s Chosen People.
There’s no objective standard by which I can say that one person is a Christian, and the other not. Therefore, I take the position that if someone calls themselves a Christian, they are.
Yes, that’s true Sticks, and it’s sort of my point. The early Jews did think they were reforming Judaism, and the Mormons think they’re reforming Christianity. Ultimately, in a situation like that, you have to accept that folks aren’t likely to take kindly to being reformed, and that’s I think where the resistance to allowing the LDS the “Christian” label.
I think that’s actually quite fair, because you have no investment in any particular definition of Christianity. However, historically there is a definition of Christianity, and it’s fairly precise. For instance, for the RCC, the measure of the validity of Christian baptism literally comes down to nothing more but the conceptual definition of the Trinity, so virtually any other denomination of Christianity qualifies, no matter their other teachings, but not Mormonism…and incidentally, why Mormonism itself requires re-baptism if you join their church (and hey, even if you don’t! 
)
I would say yes, they’re Christians, or Christian enough. It’s really the afterlife beliefs that are the most divergent. Personally I don’t see “you get your own planet” as being that much different than “you get your own mansion.” It’s just a question of scale.
The objective definition of Christianity consists of the belief that the ministry of Christ was
culminating, perfect, and final, and that the New Testament is the culminating, perfect,
and final written account of Christ’s ministry, both as a matter of fact divinely ordained by God.
Thus, all later prophets and scripture are illegitimate, Joseph Smith no less than Mohammed,
The Book of Mormon no less than the Koran.
It might be excusable for those who deny the divinity of Christ to miss the point here. It is
not excusable for modern American Evangelicals to miss it. But then, modern American Evangelicals
fail on so many other accounts that they would be intellectually and spiritually bankrupt even
if they truly appreciated what Mormons are, and what Mormons are not.
I wholeheartedly believe some Mormons are indeed Christians. I do not believe the Mormon faith, per se, is a Christian denomination, for lack of a better term. Once you go around saying other books besides the Bible are the inerrant, inspired word of God … you’ve done gone and flown the coop. There is no “other testament” of Jesus Christ and there is no way to heaven but by the blood … not by works.
That said, LOVE me some Mormons, I’ve found most of the ones I’ve met to be wonderful people and I respect how they stick to their principles.
Also, Mormon guys tend to be really hot. (I seriously mean it, and I apologize for the hijack)
That underlines my position however; the Catholic Church is not a synonym for “Christianity”, but only a subset of it. They don’t get to define “Christianity” any more than one of the Protestant churches that claims Catholicism isn’t Christian gets to define it.
All apologies for the hijack, but: do they classify Jews as heretics, or heathens, or something else altogether?
As Jews.
The word “heresy” is really only applied to other Christian doctrines. It denotes an erroneous or divergent Christian teaching, not so much a completely non-Christian one.
Well, except those of us who recite it every Sunday.
I generally have a fair amount of respect for Jillette, but he is dead wrong on this issue. Various denominations have been insisting that Catholics are not Christians for decades prior to the 1960s in the U.S.
Beyond that, back when employment applications were allowed to include one’s religion, “Christian” was a convenient way to indicate that one was some flavor of Protestant without tying oneself to a particular denomination–a practice that was prevalent from at least the early years of the 20th century, if not earlier.
The ease with which many people moved between various denominations as they changed locations or social class–with no opprobrium attached to their moves–also displays his error. Certainly, many people did hold to the specifics of the denomination in which they worshipped, but Christian had been a general term in wide use by many others for a very long time prior to the 1960s. Many groups as widely different as the Young Men’s/Women’s Christian Association (YMCA 1844) and the Ku Klux Klan (1867, 1915) have used the word Christian as a marker for inclusion and exclusion without regard to denomination for a very long time and in many locations before the 1960s. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (1873) was not particularly interested in the issue of abortion.
There is no single “objective” definition of Christianity.
In general, the vast majority of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox would all recognize each other as Christian based on their profession of either the Nicene or Apostle’s creeds. There are also a couple of Middle Eastern groups, numbering in the few thousands, whose traditions extend back to the era of the Nicene Creed while they do not accept it, but who would probably be recognized as Christian in some manner or another. Monophysites are more likely to be judged heretics than pagans by the large Christian denominations.
More problematic for lumpers and splitters are Jehovah’s Witnesses and similar groups whose origins are clearly rooted in Protestant Christianity, but who have developed doctrines that are in direct conflict with those of the holders of the Nicene Creed. Similarly, Unitarian Universalists profess ideas that are rather far removed from Credal churches, but can trace their origins directly to various Christian groups.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints falls into this category–having clearly Christian roots, (they use a version of the Authorized Version of the bible), yet having beliefs that are incompatible with the Nicene Creed.
Pagans and heathens are simply people who do not believe in the god of Abraham. The word pagan comes from Latin and the word heathen comes from Anglo-Saxon or Old English and have nearly identical etymologies meaning the rubes who live out in the sticks and still worship the old gods. (The words were applied once Christianity became the dominant religion of the urban/sophisticated people.)
Heretic comes from the Greek word for different and indicates someone within the same religion who has “different,” (and, thus, “wrong”), ideas about “our” beliefs.
Believing in the God of Abraham, but not being Christian, neither Jews nor Muslims are either pagans or heretics. Buddhists, Hindus, animists, and other traditions would incur the label pagan.
C.S. Lewis wrote about generic Christianity in the 1940s with Mere Christianity. I think Jillette is wrong on this issue.
As someone brought up in a Presbyterian Church, I learned that anyone who believed the doctrine of the Nicene Creed was a Christian. So I think that is a doctrinal test to be applied.