We had a thread on this exact topic a few days ago, and countless others before that. If you read that thread, you’ll get exact statements of why mainstream Christians don’t classify members of the LDS as Christian. I really don’t see any need to repeat the same stuff for the 50th time.
In the early to mid 20th century, the Episcopal Church with its upper-crust reputation was often referred to as “the Republican party at prayer.” It’s pretty much completely flipped now: although it is still one of the wealthiest denominations it is also one of the most liberal.
I read a lot of discourses, talks, articles, pamphlets, and similar writings from LDS members and leaders as a teenager, and whenever the term “Protestant” came up, it was always strictly denied that ours was a Protestant religion – they often seemed to take offense at the idea, in fact.
I’ve seen Mormonism and its offshoots classified as “Restorationist,” IIRC.
Mormons believe that their faith has a lineage that doesn’t run through the history of Christianity in Europe at all. Jesus came to this hemisphere after his resurrection and shared the Good News with the lost tribes of Israel who had already made the trip over here. But their descendants lost an apocalyptic battle in 421 A.D., and their faith was rediscovered by Joseph Smith some 14 centuries later.
So their history supposedly doesn’t run through either Roman Catholicism or the departure from it that began with Martin Luther. So that’s why Mormons don’t regard themselves as Protestant or Catholic.
What’s the LDS church’s stance on tuna hotdish, macaroni salad, and glorified rice?
The US military, for some reason, has the idea that Christian chaplains must either fall into Catholic or Protestant categories. That, at least, is a bit of an advance from not that long ago when they had the idea that all chaplains had to fit into one of those categories. Apparently (IMHO) it’s not the form, but rather the nifty little device, that has to go on the uniform to identify the Chaplain’s faith. Personally, I think that, sinc ethe chaplain is supposed to serve members of all faiths and even those of no religious faith, there should simply be one device, not just a bare cross, to indicate chaplain.
What, the part about my being able to read?
Well, some 25 people have commented so far, so someone is interested.
Would you like me to call the police to come and help you? I ask this question because I assume someone has broken into your house, has tied you up, and is forcing you to read this thread against your will. :rolleyes:
Including, apparently, Jack Chick.
Quite a few of the Founding father were Deists or Unitarians, all thru the 2nd Adams. Lincoln, Johnson & Hayes had no affiliation. Kennedy , a catholic, ran vs Nixon a Quaker (it can be argued that the Quakers are not “Protestants” also), etc. And as pointed out, quite a few Episcopalians.
Now there was a article that the GOP ticket had no Protestants:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/14/romney-ryan-ticket-makes-u-s-religious-history/
I would guess that the simplest answer to the OP is that a large number oif Protestants see Mormons as “other.” That was a major point of several of the Republican primaries with quite a few people being upset that they might see their party pick a member of a “cult”, (their language), as their nominee. Rick Perry made it a cornerstone of his campaign, (since he pretty much had nothing else going). On several occasions, candidates opposing Romney managed to get preachers on the Religious Right to make veiled and not-so-veiled slurs against Romney based on his membership in a “cult.” Again, Perry had the most famous incident, but his was not the only occasion where that occurred. Later in the campaign, when it was apparent that Romney was not going to simply stroll into the White House as his right, a few Protestant and Evangelical religious leaders made a point of endorsing him for having the same values as good Protestants and Evangelicals, but I do not recall any of them saying that he was part of the fold.
If a large number of people stand up and declare that one person is not of their group, it is fairly understandable that outside observers would look upon that person as outside the group.
I only heard the “no white Protestant” line about twice in the last weeks of the campaign and it was never a major discussion point, but it is not that difficult to see where it came from.
The Episcopal Church was officially known as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America until the 1960s. The Church of England has also been legally defined as “Protestant” for a long time; since the “Glorious Revolution” which kicked out James II, the succession to the throne has been legally limted to “Protestants”. In the United States in 1960, Episcopalians were definitely seen by the great majority (including of Episcopalians) as being in the same group as Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians.
Isn’t the official name of the USA’s Episcopal Church still The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States? I’m asking because I grew up Episcopalian and that’s what we called it even through the 1970s.
Actually, while I really don’t recall much being made of there being no “white Protestants” running for the executive, this year, I have seen several articles on the fact that there are no “white Protestant men” on the Supreme Court.
It’s not just no “white Protestant men” on the Supreme Court, it’s that there are no Protestants period. Currently the Court consists of six Roman Catholic justices and three Jewish justices.
The Catholic church actually delineates Mormons from protestants pretty strongly. They specifically recognize protestant churches baptisms as valid so that a protestant that converts does not need to be baptized. Mormon baptism, however, are called out as not valid.
“Anglo-Catholic” is not an alternative name or nickname for the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, it is the name of a faction or tendency within Anglicanism. It refers to those Anglicans who, in certain points of theology, and in the sorts of liturgy they prefer, are rather more like Catholics than other Anglicans are. Traditionally, the Anglican Church has been tolerant of a relatively broad range of theological opinion and liturgical practice. It was deliberately set up this way in the time of Elizabeth I in order that, without ceding the monarch’s religious authority back to the Pope, it would be able to accommodate both those English people who were nostalgic for the Roman Catholic forms of worship that they had grown up with (but were not prepared to rebel against the crown to the extent of declaring themselves to be actual Roman Catholics), and those who had become committed Lutheran or Calvinist Protestants. Anglicans in Britain (I don’t know if it is the same for American Episcopalians) are usually aware of which of their local Anglican churches are “high church” (rather catholicky) or “low church” (firmly protestant), and may choose where they worship accordingly. (Whether a particular church is “high” or “low,” or somewhere in between, really depends, I think, on nothing but the attitude of the local rector or vicar who runs it.)
Anyway, although it is probably true that most Anglicans, except, perhaps, the most extremely “low church” ones, are more like Roman Catholics in their theology and liturgy than most other Protestants are, the point is that the term “Anglo-Catholic” is not a sly way of saying that Anglicans are really pretty much Roman Catholics. They are not. They are Protestants. All Anglicans, even the “high church” ones, are Protestants, and do not recognize the authority of the Pope, etc. These days, any Anglicans who decide that their theological views are not actually Protestant, will have no trouble in leaving the Anglican Church and becoming actual Roman Catholics. If they remain Anglo-Catholics, it is because (either out of conviction or inertia) they still hold to key protestant tenets, and reject crucial tenets of Roman Catholicism.
As Skammer and drew870mitchell have both pointed out, lots (probably even a plurality) of U.S. presidents have been Episcopalians (i.e., Anglicans). Indeed, when someone is called a WASP with the implication that they are a member of the traditional American monied ruling class, their Protestantism will, most of the time, turn out to be Episcopalianism/Anglicanism.
I strongly suspect that “catholic” is being used here in its original sense of “universal”. They are not saying that Episcopalians are really Roman Catholics, they are saying that the Anglican Church aspires to be a Church for everybody (just as, once upon a time, the Roman Catholic Church really was for everybody). When I used to go to Anglican services (when I was Boy Scout - I didn’t go to church otherwise), we would sing the creed, which included the line “I believe in one catholic and apostolic Church”. Despite the fact that our vicar was pretty “high church” (which explains why we sang the creed) we were certainly not saying that we were Roman Catholics - they were in the church down the road, and were quite different - rather, we were saying that (as all Christian sects believe) we were the true Christians, who everybody else should join with.
In my view of things, the most telling difference between Catholic and Protestant is whether or not their clergy is sacerdotal (priestly) or not. This is a fundamental difference even more important than recognition of the Pope, pictures of Mary, etc…
In a sacerdotal church, there is a consecrated class of priests who are reputed to have an unbroken succession from Christ and his apostles, and more importantly, who are reputed to possess powers to confer to the faithful some sort of element absolutely necessary to salvation. And the priestly class is held to be the only one who can act as a conduit of these powers from God to the faithful.
Protestantism, on the other hand, is NOT sacerdotal. A Protestant Minister may look a lot like a priest in his clerical collar and black suit, but he is NOT reputed to be the exclusive conduit of some special power from God to the faithful. He may be a good preacher and widely respected, but he possesses no power that the laity do not possess.
Put it another way: If every priest suddenly disappeared tomorrow, it would, by Catholic doctrine, be impossible for the faithful to obtain the sacraments that only the priests consecrated in an unbrokenm chain of apostolic succession could administer. The laity would be up the proverbial s. creek.
But under Protestant doctrine, if every Minister disappeared tomorrow, the remaining laity would still be able to attain salvation, since the Ministers were not exclusive dispensers of “direct current” from God, just scholars and preachers.
So where do the Mormons fit in that dichotomy?
Valteron: The Episcopal priests are considered to be in the line of apostolic succession. The LDS priesthood also is considered (by the LDS) to be along that line also. Both churches hold that certain rites can only be administered by priests. So, in your view, Episcopalians and Mormons are Catholics!
I’m just pulling your leg a little there. Mormons believe that they don’t fit under Catholicism or under Protestantism; however, they do hold to the apostolic succession concept. Episcopalians believe they are part of Protestantism and they also hold to the apostolic succession concept.