For what it’s worth, Catholics believe that it’s only possible for a person to be validly baptized once, as it leaves an “indelible mark on the soul”. And Catholics have a much more permissive view of what counts as a valid baptism than many denominations.
Catholics also have a notion of conditional baptism, to cover one’s options: “If you are capable of being baptized, then I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. This form might be used with a stillborn baby, just in case the baby is somehow just barely alive at the time. Or with a teratoma, just in case it’s actually a person. Or with a person for whom, for one reason or another, it’s unknown if they were baptized, such as a foundling. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for a priest to use this form for a convert from Mormonism to Catholicism.
I grew up Mormon, and served a full time mission in fact.
I no longer an active member or believer, but I do remember my mindset at the time.
I never identified as a protestant. One of the things Mormons believe in is no other church is true. God told Smith that himself. The only true church was Christ’s, and while I believe there is no official doctine as to the exact event when his church “died,” it certainly occurred before people started calling themselves Catholics.
Mormon’s believe that a Church must be organized exactly as it was in Christ’s time, with apostolic succession (if you’re really interested, read the 13 articles of faith) and direct lines to the priesthood. Mormons believe that the “Aaronic” priesthood restored by John the Baptist to Smith and, while this is never directly spelled out, the “Melchizedek” priesthood was conferred by apostles Peter, James and John.
So, they basically believe everything that happened after the Bible and before Joseph’s first vision to be a bunch of bunk. Well intended bunk, best-you-can-do-with-what-you-have bunk, but bunk nonetheless. That basically precludes them identifying with any other Christian sect, although Smith clearly borrowed ideas from many of them, as well as the Freemasons.
As a now-outsider (and atheist), I basically view them as generic Christians who believe in a bible and and some extra “Christian fanfiction” as I like to call the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, etc. They clearly came up with some weird ideas, though I don’t really consider them much weirder than anything else out there. All religions believe in some pretty weird stuff.
Make no mistake though, while their idea of Christ might not perfectly align with other mainstream Christians, they believe, revere and love Christ 100%, accept him as their savior, and tend to be HIGHLY offended by any suggestion they are not “Christian.”
As an outsider, I see modern Christianity divided into Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, with all the little sects and splits that happened after 1500 being various types of Protestant, no matter their ideology. The name comes from protesting the Catholic Church, and I figure any non-Catholic sect that has sprouted up since then counts. (Boy, is Mel Gibson going to be mad when I tell him his weird fundamentalist Catholic sect is actually Protestant. :))
Also, you’re a Christian if you worship Christ. Muslims don’t, but Mormons and Jehova’s Witnesses do. Ergo, they are Christians.
I like how everyone else is discussing the finer points of doctrine, but I call them like I see them. To this outsider, Mormons are just another flavor of Protestant Christian. Yes, their beliefs are weird, but not as weird as, say, a devout Baptist might think.
Mormonism also has a large target on its back if you want to come at things from that angle. Mormonism has always paid a lot of attention to the collection and retention of money. Which is unsurprising given its origins. (Insert rambling critical dismantling of Mormonism here.)
I was raised within the mormon church, though by all accounts I’ve been an atheist all my life. (I was baptized over my voiced protests.) The church considers itself christian, because of course it’s christian by any definition of “christian” that doesn’t cut out wide swathes of groups that claim that name. They also never once claimed to be protestant - which is unsurprising given that they think they’re better -more correct- than protestants. And catholics. And everybody else. The idea is that every other religion had fallen into corruption and error by the time Joe Smith got interested in religion, so why would mormonism claim to be associated with any of those erroneous groups?
As far as mormonism is concerned they’re the direct continuation of the church started by Christ in the 0030s. Protestants are just a corrupted spinoff.
I’ll throw my two senum in here as an ex-Mormon (and ex-Christian).
Mormons are unequivocally Christian, just a different brand of Christianity.
In my experience, they do not see themselves as Protestant, and tend to view protestant churches as being either
a) the product of well-meaning people trying to interpret the bible as best they can without the necessary authority and guidance of divinely appointed leaders, or
b) the result of Satan seeking to pervert the true teachings of god and lead people astray.
They kind of play it both ways, depending on the audience and the lesson they’re trying to teach in the moment.
Short story: theirs is the only true religion and the only path to salvation.
A story that many Mormons seem fond of (recorded in LeGrand Richards’s A Marvelous Work and a Wonder) tells of some Catholic priest berating a Mormon congregation for failing to realize the strength of their own position as one of only two possibly true Christian religions: the Catholic church, or the LDS. The logic being that if the Catholic church did indeed hold the apostolic authority from Christ, then the Protestants were apostates, but if the authority had been lost, then it would need to be restored by divine manifestation, as the Mormons claim, and could not exist in any of the Protestant churches. I don’t know whether this nameless priest even existed (the sharing of made-up stories is a bit of a thing in the church), but the message that the LDS would take from this tale is “see, even the Catholics know that we’re the real deal.”
You are correct. As **Ashtura **explained, Mormons believe that the Aaronic priesthood (which includes the authority to baptize) was restored to Joseph Smith by John the Baptist, and that the Melchizedek Priesthood (which includes the authority to bestow the holy ghost and lead the church) was restored to Smith by the apostles Peter, James and John. They also teach that a bunch of other angelic beings appeared to Joseph Smith to restore various other Keys of the Church, to cover all the bases.
Since** Jonathan Chance **has nixed discussions of any cultish aspects of Mormonism, I’ll wait for someone to start a separate thread to offer my take on that.
I’ve heard people claim you can be Scientologist and Christian. I don’t know if that’s an official doctrine or something to make the “faith” more appealing.
In the GQ thread mentioned in the OP, there was a link to a Mormon blogger who argued that Mormons could be considered Protestants because of the historical origins as well as the theology in the Book of Mormon. That argument is interesting but flawed as it fails to point out that the theology in the Book of Mormon is actually not representative of the unique, characteristic theology of later Mormonism.
Joseph Smith’s beliefs evolved radically over the roughly two decade span from his first accounts in 1823 of the buried records which would become the Book of Mormon until his death in 1844 at the hands of a mob. The theology continued to change profoundly after his death, not becoming fixed until the early twentieth century.
The initial period from about 1823 to the later part of the decade was characterized by the Smith family interest in folk religion and magic. Joseph and his father used magical means to search for lost treasure remarkably similar to details to the origins of the Golden Plates.
Smith used the same “seer stone” to translate the Book of Mormon as he had used to locate buried treasure. (Although he claimed success in locating the treasure, they were never able to recover any.) Oliver Cowdery and other early key members also utilized seer stones or diving rods to communicate with God.
The Book of Mormon was written starting in 1828 and published in early 1830. The church was organized in 1830 and was moved to Kirtland, Ohio in 1831. The theology in the Book of Mormon and reflected in Smith’s teaching was grounded in the religion of the time and place as noted by biographer Fawn Brodie and
[quoted here.]
(Issue 114 - Salt Lake City Messenger)
Campbell was a key figure in the Restorationist movement, looking to recreate the primitive Jesus movement. Sidney Rigdon, one of his followers and a leader of a congregation, converted to Mormonism and became one of the top leaders. Early Mormon meetings often had manifestations of the spirit, including speaking in tongues. Early Mormon doctrine appears to be also influenced by the seeker movement and the debate over Universalism.
Smith produced several scriptures during this time, including a revision to the Bible as well as a Book of Moses. Reflecting the theology in the Book of Mormon, these scriptures emphasized many contemporary beliefs, including the Trinity.
Had Smith’s theology been frozen at that point, it would have been much easier to call Mormonism a Protestant religion, although they would not have seen themselves as such.
However, from the mid 1830s, Smith’s thinking had changed sufficiently that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Commandments (predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants) needed to be revised in order meet the changed doctrine. Smith viewed God the Father and Jesus as separate beings now, for example, so BoM verses which referred to Mary as the “mother of God” in the original 1830 text were altered in 1837 to say the “mother of the Son of God.”
The priesthood became more important as Smith’s position in the church was challenged. The 1833 Book of Commandants did not contain the supposed revelations concerning the restoration of the priesthood (which Morgenstern inexplicably conflates with the account of the First Vision) but were added to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and backdated to 1829. The fundamental role of the priesthood within Mormonism was not mentioned in the Book of Mormon or other early scriptures produced by Smith, but became a central theme of the Book of Abraham, published in 1842 in Nauvoo, IL.
The Book of Abraham also plays a part in Smith’s evolution to polytheism, and a belief in the “preexistance” in which God had spirit children, (which then are born into human babies).
Also in Nauvoo, Smith expanded on the then secret practice of polygamy, and further developed the theology that God the Father had once been a mortal man and that we could become gods and goddess ourselves. In sort of a MLM scheme, gods had human children who then went on to become gods in their own right, forever adding to their upline’s glory.
Following Smith’s death, in the headly days of open polygamy and the Utah theocracy, Brigham Young further developed this unto the Adam - God doctrine in which God the Father took one of his Heavenly Wives and came down to Earth as Adam and Eve. Later, this doctrine was rejected – and buried – by the church.
The concept of “eternal progression,” man’s ability to become a god, has never been renounced by the LDS church, although it is emphasized much less publicly than when I was still a member. Of course, as missionaries, we did not teach such deep doctrines to potential converts.
Mormon theology is so different from Protestant churches, it really cannot be classified together. While there is no doubt that they consider themselves as Christians, their beliefs are different enough that I can see why some would say they aren’t.
I registered just to weigh in on this one. Having been raised as an LDS Mormon (but currently a reformed atheist), the above quote is the best answer in this thread IMHO.
If you define Protestant as Non-Catholic, then sure, they’ll fall in that category. But their teachings are quite unlike those of Lutheran/Calvinism roots. So take that as you may. Now the debate as to whether or not they are Christians is only a debate outside of that church. I say with absolute certainty, any member of the LDS church will unequivocally proclaim that they are indeed Christian. Now whether or not other Christians accept them as such is … :dubious: I liken that debate to the GOP’s tendency to brand its own members with the “RINO” label.
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board, GottaBeMeh!
I already knew a little bit about the history & culture of the LDS. I’ve actually learned a lot in this thread. But it’s nice that someone acknowledged my post! I was pretty proud of it.
(Oh, no, does almost everyone in this thread have me on ignore?)
Except that’s not what ‘Protestant’ means. It’s kind of insulting to Reformed Christians to interpret their religion as merely rejecting Rome. And it’s kind of insulting to LDS to fail to recognize that they explicitly rejected Protestantism and that identity more strongly than Calvin or Luther rejected Catholicism.
Or it would be insulting, except that these days ‘the little sects and splits’ don’t really advertise their differences enough that you’d know that. So you’re excused.
Yeah, I would call Protestants schismatics by (direct or indirect) way of Calvin or Luther. I don’t know enough about Presbyterians or Unitarians to know if they’re covered by this narrow definition, but Gibson, Sinead O’Conner and Hans Kung are not, and I’m getting the feeling that Mormons aren’t either.
