site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25036 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Right-coded violence reasserts itself (?)

It's sobering, that this morning someone might have asked you "did you hear about the 40-year-old Iraq war veteran who committed a 'third space' mass murder over the weekend?" and you might have reasonably responded, "Which one?"

(Insert Dr. Doofenshmirtz meme here!)

Of course, like any normal American, the instant I heard that someone had shot up a Mormon congregation and burned their house of worship to the ground I crossed my fingers and prayed the perpetrator was a member of my outgroup immediately wondered if the shooter was a right-coded wingnut who somehow blamed Charlie Kirk's death on the Mormons.

(I've never managed to determine whether Tyler Robinson and his family are actually Mormon, or maybe were Mormon at some point, but nobody seems to care; apparently all anyone else wants to know is whether he was really a gay furry, a groyper, or both. But living in Utah seems sufficiently Mormon-adjacent that a psychotic killer could draw the association.)

So far, no apparent Kirk connection! However the Michigan shooter indeed regarded Mormons as the anti-Christ. Perhaps that's the whole story: he just really, really disliked Mormons (sort of like everyone else). This makes Donald Trump's commentary interesting; the President immediately declared that this was a "targeted attack on Christians" and was met with an Evangelical chorus of "Mormons aren't Christians" (which to me seems a little tone deaf, under the circumstances, but times being what they are...). In any event this is probably the deadliest case of targeted violence against Mormon congregations since the 19th century.

(There was apparently a bomb threat in 1993 that could have been a mass casualty event, had the explosives been real. Other than that, I'm not an expert on hate crimes but Google does not seem to think that Mormons are very often the target of such things.)

The North Carolina shooter got less attention (he did not burn down any churches), but that didn't stop Newsweek from digging into some peculiarities of history:

They also confirmed on Sunday that “Mr. Nigel Edge actually changed his name some years ago,” adding that they are working to identify “all of his past.”

One authority referred to him as “Sean,” and according to public records that Newsweek obtained, he previously identified as Sean DeBevoise.

...

According to a 2020 self-published book on Amazon, Headshot: Betrayal of a Nation (Truth Hurts), DeBevoise wrote that on tour, he took "four bullets including one to the head." He said from that moment on his "life would never be the same," adding that "all of this was at the hand of friendly fire that would provide the most crippling mental damage."

This fellow has quite a colorful record, and part of that record includes the fact that

...Edge has been behind several bizarre lawsuits filed in North Carolina this year — including one accusing a Southport church of trying to kill him.

The suit, filed in May, claimed the Generations Church was behind a “civil conspiracy” masterminded by the LGBTQ community and white supremacist pedophiles to kill Edge because he’s “a straight man.”

In January, Edge filed a similar suit against the Brunswick Medical Center, accusing it of being part of a conspiracy launched by “LGBTQ White Supremacists” who were allegedly out to get him because he survived their attack in Iraq.

This reads like schizophrenia to me, but on balance it seems more right-coded than left-coded, concerns over "white supremacists" notwithstanding.

All this seems to have the usual left-coded social media spaces crowing; they have spent the past few weeks assuring us all that right wing extremism is far, far more common and deadly than left wing extremism. But to my mind, neither of these cases quite reach that "political extremism" threshold. The Michigan shooting appears to be genuine sectarian violence of a kind rarely seen in the United States, and the North Carolina shooting looks like a textbook mental health event. Nevertheless, I have no difficulty seeing these as right-coded, for the simple reason that they were carried out against minority groups by white, middle-aged, ex-military men. That's red tribe quite regardless of what their actual political views are--indeed, whether they have any coherent political views at all.

This got me thinking about all the other violence that I see as a blue tribe problem, quite regardless of its ideological roots. The obvious one that Charlie Kirk himself occasionally gestured toward was inner city urban gang violence; that is blue-coded violence, to my mind, though it is arguably "politically neutral." A couple weeks ago I suggested that we should be paying closer attention to the role that "Neutral vs. Conservative" thinking has to play in the national conversation on identity-oriented violence. This weekend's events strengthen that impression, for me. I do not really like the "stochastic terrorism" framing, particularly given my attachment to significant freedom of speech. But neither can I comfortably assign all responsibility for these events strictly to individual perpetrators.

I wish I had something wiser to say about that. I would like there to be less violence everywhere, but certainly the trend toward deliberately directing violence against unarmed, unsuspecting innocents seems like an especially problematic escalation, and one our political system seems to be contributing toward even when our specific political commitments do not. I don't know if drawing a distinction between "tribe-coded" and "tribe-caused" is helpful. But it is a thought I had, and have not seen expressed elsewhere, so I thought I should test it here.

This makes Donald Trump's commentary interesting; the President immediately declared that this was a "targeted attack on Christians" and was met with an Evangelical chorus of "Mormons aren't Christians" (which to me seems a little tone deaf, under the circumstances, but times being what they are...).

This is... tricky, I think, in terms of sensitivity.

On the one hand, Mormons aren't Christians. Or at least, they do not fall within any historical confession of Christian orthodoxy. They're probably best understood as a type of heretic; personally I put them in a category that I think of as 'Jesusists', that is, religions that take Jesus as their central figure, but which are too different from historical Christianity to be understood as the same thing. The point is that "Mormons aren't Christians", as a statement, is substantially true.

On the other, it is obviously breathtakingly insensitive to bring that up at this time. Mormons believe that they are Christians, even if they are, in my judgement, in error. (I realise that technically definitions can't be wrong; even so I can and do believe that they draw the line between Christianity and non-Christianity in an indefensible place.) More importantly, whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity or not is irrelevant to this particular issue. Murdering a group of Mormons at worship is obviously very, very bad. Christians ought to respond to that by condemning the crime while offering empathy, support, and compassion to those grieving. It is not the appropriate time to engage in a confessional dispute.

But to return to the first hand - a major public figure, the president of the United States, just responded to this by asserting that Mormons are Christians, and that this shooting is an attack on Christianity qua Christianity. Now I judge both of those statements to be untrue, and though many might argue the former, the latter seems pretty hard to dispute. It is not factually true that this shooting was "a targeted attack on Christians". If nothing else, ranting about the anti-Christ suggests that the shooter himself is a Christian, albeit a very delusional one. So it seems like there is value in clarifying in this moment that Trump's interpretation of the shooting is wrong.

I suppose this is just another situation where Trump really needed to keep his mouth shut, because all his comments have done is make a tragic situation worse for everyone.

Yeah. Mormons are not Christians. But to pop up with that point of doctrine in the immediate aftermath of "people attending a Mormon church were shot and burned to death" is not the best time. I wouldn't do it, and I'm as Torquemada as the next inquisitor.

Yes, this is correct, and for all that I have been drawn into a long (and genuinely interesting!) discussion about whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity below this, I want to remember that the context of a shooting is not the appropriate place for that dispute.

I think I'm safe having it here, because this isn't a public space, but if I were a public figure or if I were local to the victims, I would not be bring it up out of the blue, and I think it was inappropriate for Trump to.

I don't think Trump is aware of doctrinal differences between denominations, and he was just throwing red meat out there in the wake of the Kirk assassination.

Well, whatever the reason as to why the guy attacked the church, it was a terrible thing to happen.

Isn't the relevant question here whether the shooter considers Mormons Christians and attacked them as such?

It's sort of like the cases of Sikhs or Hindus getting the shit beat out of them by guys shouting about Muslim terrorism, that's still an anti-Muslim crime even if the victims aren't Muslims.

If the shooter intended to kill Christians, and perceived Mormons as indistinguishably Christian vis a vis Catholics or Evangelicals, then it was an anti-Christian attack.

Sure, but that seems terribly unlikely to me.

But really I don't think Trump thought this through, he wouldn't know Christianity (or the LDS flavor of it, for that matter) if a Bible smacked him in the head. This was pattern-matched without evidence to other recent attacks that could plausibly said to be related to anti-Christian animus and became the subject of an immediate Trump tweet. I thought it was frustrating when I initially heard it because it immediately politicized a brutal attack that seemed to have very murky and mostly clinically insane motivations. Both sides of our politics have a pretty bad time diagnosing the actual motivations behind mass violence, even if they're obvious.

The interesting, albeit strangely impassioned, arguments we've had recently about Christian creeds and the LDS faith has really just been a sidequest; not the sort of thing I'd bring up outside of the Autistically Debate Nuances of Ideas Free Speech Zone that is the Motte. People were lit on fire, I'm not sure it matters in the first 24 hours whether the guy who did it did it because he thought Mormons were Christians or Mormons were the anti-Christians, though that might eventually become important. Does the LDS church commemorate martyrs?

All right, fair point. If a person intends to attack Christians, and attacks a group based on his perception that that group is Christian, then it is an anti-Christian attack regardless of whether or not the group is actually Christian.

I suppose a more obvious example of that principle is when people attack Sikhs in the mistaken belief that they are Muslims.

Yeah but it's a bit all over the place. I'm not claiming that the Moonies are a conventional Christian denomination but they do profess some interest in JC and Shinzo Abe's assassination was largely due to his affiliation with the group. Was it an anti-Christian assassination or an anti-cultist assassination?

Isn't the relevant question here whether the shooter considers Mormons Christians and attacked them as such?

Very much agreed. An attack on Mormons qua Christians by someone who thinks Mormons are Christians (which, AFAIK, the vast majority of lefty American anti-Christians do) is an attack on Christianity, regardless of whether or not Mormons are really Christians. An attack on Mormons qua Mormons is not an attack on Christianity, particularly if the attacker doesn't think Mormons are Christians.

Based on what has come out so far, this attacker is a mentally ill (80% certainty) Trump-supporting (80%) Red Triber (95%) with a personal beef against specific Mormon individuals (60%). That is not someone who would attack Mormons qua Christians, but is very likely to attack Mormons qua Mormons. So Trump's statement is misleading.

Well, that’s why this is a point of confessional faith. Saying “x is a Christian, y is not” is another way of describing what you believe to be essential to your religion in one way or another. It’s a faith statement of boundaries, not an attempt at a dispassionate analysis.

It’s painfully obvious to me that Mormons are Christians in a sociological sense — they’re very concerned about Jesus Christ (as they like to remind everyone constantly) and believe in their own interpretation of the Bible. Historically it’s evident that LDS doctrines have much in common with 19th century restorationism, but with a unique spin.

But I would also argue that their beliefs are about as distinct from other forms of Christianity, in terms that are seriously important to those other forms, as Christianity is from Judaism.

The big tension between Judaism and Christianity is that Jews believe Christians have fundamentally altered the nature of G-d by proposing the Trinity and associating Jesus of Nazareth with absolute divinity. And the big tension between Nicene Creed stans and Mormons is the former believe the latter have fundamentally altered the nature of God by rejecting the Nicene model of the Trinity, and insufficiently associating Jesus of Nazareth with absolute divinity!

It also goes almost without saying that the big accusation of Muslims against Christians is they believe Christians have lessened God by proposing that God can have a son who bore flesh, just as the big accusation of Nicene Christians against Mormons is they believe Mormons have lessened God by proposing -- at the very least, in the personal views and sermons of essential early LDS leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young -- that the father of Jesus Christ once bore flesh. These are the kind of weighty debates that have always raged within and between Abrahamic sects, and divided one from another.

So it seems to be entirely predictable that Christians for whom the Nicene concept of the Trinity is the absolute most important element of their faith would look at the different LDS doctrine and go, “absolutely not.”

It’s also important to remember that the origin story of the LDS includes the belief that all other forms of Christianity underwent a Great Apostasy, which means that the authority of the apostolic faith and the associated priesthood were lost from the earth -- and Joseph Smith was tasked with recovering and restoring it. (Hence, discovering the undiscovered sacred texts written on gold plates.)

So it’s written deeply into the self-understandings of both Mormons and their Christian opponents that the other has broken in an important way from the truth about Christianity, even if Mormons are nicer with how they state it nowadays. But it’s embedded in the very name of the LDS church that it believes its membership to be uniquely the Saints of these Latter Days; “Christian”, as a term, just has less exclusive meaning to them. The actual equivalent question to “Are Mormons Christians?”, posed from the other side, is “Are Protestants and Catholics Saints?”

So, all that to say, of course Mormons are sociologically Christians. But Christians who are wary of applying the term aren’t idiots, and they know exactly what they’re doing, and why. And their position is far from unique among Abrahamic religious perspectives.

I’m trying (was trying?) really hard not to explicitly litigate the Christian point unless someone wants me to, but I do want to register that part of the Mormon dissatisfaction with your reading of the situation is that while any Mormon will freely concede the first point about the Trinity beliefs being decently different, the point about seeing Jesus as insufficiently divine is seen as rooted in a false and/or bigoted understanding of our doctrine. As a trivial example, we believe Jesus to be Jehovah of the Old Testament. So while we might call ourselves, I dunno, 80% the same about Jesus’ role and identity, maybe higher, others seem to feel that the figure is something like 10% - which, wherever you put the actual figure, it’s definitely not there. As a matter of “general religion”, viewed broadly, we LDS consider Jesus’ atonement and assumption of our sins an absolute and pivotal requirement to get to “heaven” and in fact to avoid eternal death. Sure there are some divergent ideas about what heaven looks like but isn’t that a bit… academic? Especially when traditional Judaism doesn’t even stress a concept of Heaven and Muslims specifically reject Jesus as having a special role altogether, so when people lump us in with them it feels even more strange and absurd. And even more so when you consider that the internal model one has of the true nature of God debate has, in practical terms, almost zero outward manifestation. We even use the same key phrase that Catholics and many other Christian churches require to mutually recognize baptism. And it’s not like if you talk to a regular Christian about the nature of God, they won’t say something that violates the Nicene Creed is a not insignificant number of cases in pretty short order.

My understanding is that Mormons also believe in an always-existing material universe which predates the existence of any sort of God figure. It's much more of a Hindu/Samsara model of the cosmos than anything Christian. For Christians and Jews (and maybe Muslims?), God is the source of being, eternal and preexisting. It's a very different metaphysics.

We don't believe the material universe predates God. They (and all other spirits, including us) are all eternal and have been around forever. I agree that we don't believe God is the source of being, or the uncaused cause, at least not in the sense creedal Christians do.

So Mormons can (politically) pass as Christians and self-identify as Christians, but theologically were assigned non-Christian at birth? Good thing we do not have separate bathrooms for Christians, then.

It always seemed to me like the most obviously divergent thing about Mormonism from typical old-world Christianity is the notion of Exaltation/what is pop-culturally glossed as "you will get to be the Jesus of your own planet one day". One thing all Abrahamic religions are reliably united in is a social cosmology in which all humans are equal (perhaps some negligibly more equal than others) and subordinate to a singleton God, with the pervasive vibe of ongoing subordination (and the attendant bliss of your life and fate being in the hand of another) being the single most important aspect of the believer's experience. The Mormon view, from that reference point, feels almost comically hubristic, making it seem reasonable for the haughty and ambitious to think of the subordinate life as a gauntlet to pass through to earn the master's privileges. Yes, it sucks being Jesus's gofer bitch now, but up with it for a bit longer - think of how one day you'll get to lord it over your own Spirit Children.

Now, I'm only Christian in terms of upbringing/background, but it is easier for me to accept some quirky nontrinitarians as Christian than people who think that there is no category distinction between Jesus/God and themselves (except insofar as they are lower on the career escalator).

I think it’s more accurate that we think of God the Father as… a father. Parents want their children, broadly, to grow up and become good people and raise their own families. Why would our Father be any different? Partly why our doctrine so highly emphasizes family, while some Christians even believe that all family bonds are meaningless and dissolved upon death. Thus “growing up” is not disrespect to a father, and it also doesn’t dissolve those relationships, so the idea of being Jesus’ equal still feels sacrilegious to most Mormons, even if the doctrine implies something of the sort (and there are plenty of doctrinal implications, but not as much hard official doctrine, so that’s all they usually are, at the end of the day all Christians can but speculate about certain aspects of heaven and eternal life).

Mormonism as a pyramid scheme to be crude

Great take, but I want to quibble on a point.

The actual equivalent question to “Are Mormons Christians?”, posed from the other side, is “Are Protestants and Catholics Saints?”

"Saint" isn't really an official term for Mormons. We don't believe all Mormons are saints or that all non-Mormons are not saints. "Latter-day saints" is aspirational.

I don't think there really is an equivalent question to "Are Mormons Christians?". That question gets to basically the very foundation of Christian doctrine--is Mormon faith efficacious? Are we saved even if we believe in "a different Jesus?" The answer, as far as most of broader Christianity is concerned, seems to be no. LDS doctrine is simply not so exclusive of those with doctrinal disagreements.

Are we saved even if we believe in "a different Jesus?" The answer, as far as most of broader Christianity is concerned, seems to be no. LDS doctrine is simply not so exclusive of those with doctrinal disagreements.

I don't think this is correct statement of Mormon theology. Mormons believe that saving ordinances (including baptism) are necessary for salvation, that only an ordained priest (in what is effectively an apostolic succession, although I don't think Mormons use the word) can validly perform them, and that the break in apostolic succession during the so-called Great Apostasy means that only the LDS Church and its offshoots have validly ordained priests. Hence the Mormon emphasis on proxy baptism for the dead - they believe that their pre-conversion ancestors are not effectively baptised, and need to be.

Protestants believe in sola fide and either that no sacraments are necessary for salvation, or that only baptism (which can be performed by anyone with no need for a sacramentally ordained minister) is necessary. The Protestant view would be that Mormons are presumptively unsaved because of a lack of the required faith. The Calvinist view would be "If God wanted you to be saved, he wouldn't have made you a Mormon."

The Catholic/Orthodox view is that only baptism is strictly necessary for salvation, and does not require a sacramentally ordained minister, but the other sacraments (including Mass) are necessary for almost everyone and do require sacramentally ordained ministers in apostolic succession. (The Catholics and Orthodox consider each other's apostolic successions and sacraments valid). So it is possible but unlikely that a baptised Protestant could be saved without darkening the door of a Catholic/Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church has stated that LDS baptism is not valid because it isn't in the name of the Trinity, implying that they think Mormons are unsaved. Also that they think Mormons are not Christian, given the centrality of baptism to the Christian understanding of the "who is a Christian?" question.

My view remains that Mormonism is a Christian heresy, and "Are Christian heretics Christians?" is an unproductive question about the meaning of words. "Can Mormons be saved?" is (assuming you believe Christianity is true) a question about the world with the answer "No" according the both Catholic and Protestant understandings.

I don't think this is correct statement of Mormon theology. Mormons believe that saving ordinances (including baptism) are necessary for salvation, that only an ordained priest (in what is effectively an apostolic succession, although I don't think Mormons use the word) can validly perform them, and that the break in apostolic succession during the so-called Great Apostasy means that only the LDS Church and its offshoots have validly ordained priests. Hence the Mormon emphasis on proxy baptism for the dead - they believe that their pre-conversion ancestors are not effectively baptised, and need to be.

The point I was making is that "are Mormons Christian" fundamentally asks whether Mormons are saved, and Mormons have no equivalent question, since we believe virtually everyone will be. Yes, we believe only our baptisms are authoritative, and only our church is God's true church on the earth, but there is no equivalent "are Christians Mormon". That's just not how we view the requirements for salvation in general.

since we believe virtually everyone will be

If I don't have to become Mormon to be saved, why should I become Mormon?

That's the pretty obvious question that every religious tradition that starts endorsing soft or hard universalism has to grapple with. Becoming LDS would require an extensive set of sacrifices, like giving up hot drinks and taking on certain tithing practices, and also requires submission to a strong institution of religious authority. If that's not actually necessary to achieve the same goal that Mormons hope to achieve, why not "eat, drink [coffee], and be merry" now, and let God sort out whether the LDS are right or not?

A core LDS belief is that we should strive to grow, repent, increase in knowledge and accountability, and become more perfect through God's grace.

We believe in three kingdoms of heaven. Salvation gets you into the lowest. Higher kingdoms follow higher laws, and exaltation (the highest division of the highest kingdom) requires moral perfection, something which can only be attained through faith, repentance, and a covenant relationship with Christ that starts with baptism. The purpose of the LDS church is to facilitate that process of moral growth, and enable that covenant relationship.

Among many other things, living under covenants means living under a higher law, being more accountable for your actions and growing faster. If you fail to make these covenants, particularly if you know (or should know) that you should be making them, you won't have the same opportunity for growth in mortality; an opportunity which will never be repeated. In the end, since everyone will get access to those covenants, your literal membership in the LDS church (divorced from all other details related to that membership) is pretty irrelevant, but your moral virtue/capacity to keep those covenants determines which kingdom you end up in and which law you abide by forever.

In short, we won't be drinking coffee in heaven, and those who do so now may find themselves unable to quit later, after the opportunities of mortality are through. (Of course, coffee itself will probably be allowed there.)

I believe Mormons have different levels of heaven, with only Mormons going to the top one, a second layer for non-Mormon Christians- that may or may not include evangelicals, theres a lot of bad blood between the two communities, but generally includes practicing Catholics, Lutherans, etc- and a bottom layer for nonbelievers. Not a Mormon, could be wrong.

You can read about it here.

  • Perdition, not a kingdom of heaven, is for true monsters like Judas. People who would, with a perfect knowledge of who Christ is, choose to crucify him again.
  • The Telestial kingdom is basically for bad people
  • The Terrestrial kingdom is for good people who "weren't valiant" in their testimony of Jesus. "Blinded by the craftiness of men" does not refer to other Christians, though they may in large part end up in this kingdom.
  • The Celestial kingdom is for people who repent and receive the necessary ordinances, such as baptism. Since we believe in proxy baptisms for the dead, this is a place anyone who exercises enough faith in Christ can end up. It's also for anyone who dies before accountability (due to age or mental capacity)
  • Within the Celestial kingdom, the highest division is called Exaltation, and is limited to those who keep the "new and everlasting covenant", meaning they make and adhere to all of God's covenants. The last necessary covenant is the marriage sealing, which we also do by proxy, so anyone can end up here too.

Nobody is getting sorted into a kingdom of heaven based solely on their religion. It's all about which covenants you've made with God, or in other words, how high of a law you are prepared to keep. I've elaborated on that a bit here.

but the other sacraments (including Mass) are necessary for almost everyone and do require sacramentally ordained ministers in apostolic succession.

The Catholic view leans more towards, "God is not limited by His sacraments, but this is the only sure way He taught us." Meaning it's possible others are saved through the Church without knowing they are connected with the Church, like Abraham was. But the Church isn't going to change what it's doing, because this is the only sure way they know of.

(The Catholics and Orthodox consider each other's apostolic successions and sacraments valid).

It’s a tangent, but is there a clear Eastern Orthodox consensus on this? E.O. attitudes toward the Western churches seem to vary quite a lot, and I have never been able to get a handle on which takes on the issue, if any, are mainstream within their communion.

The Eastern Orthodox have never defined their sacraments well enough.

In general most orthodox jurisdictions(not ROCOR) accept documented baptisms by the same denominations Catholics do, and first marriages by default. Recognizing Catholic or oriental orthodox holy orders and confirmations is more complicated.

I suppose what this boils down to is the question of what you think is important in defining Christianity. I take faith and belief to be central. If Christianity is about, as I would argue it is, who God is, then a group's position on the Trinity or on Christology is extremely important.

I certainly grant that Mormonism is what you call 'sociologically Christian'. They are Christian-ish - they gather in buildings that look like church buildings (mostly; they reject crosses), they read from the Bible, they talk a lot about Jesus. I just don't think that any of that is enough to make a person or a group Christian. They themselves presumably agree on this principle, because as you note, they believe that all traditional churches have fallen from the faith.

My last conversation here was about precisely this though I don't think I did a good job of explaining myself.

They themselves presumably agree on this principle, because as you note, they believe that all traditional churches have fallen from the faith.

We still think traditional churches are Christian, though.

I agree that at some point it's reasonable to have a dividing line. Simply worshipping an entity called "Jesus", whatever the nature of your worship and your idea of who Jesus is, is not enough to be Christian. On the other hand, was the thief on the cross Christian? Sociologically, absolutely not, but in truth I'd argue that he was Christian, despite probably knowing virtually nothing of even core Christian doctrine.

Categories in general are made for man, and when it really comes down to it, which category to sort a group into depends on what you are using that category for. If your main use of the term "Christian," like most Christians, is to identify people who you believe are saved (whose faith is not misplaced, whose doctrine about Christ is close enough to reality, etc.), you probably don't consider Mormons part of that group. But I hope you recognize this is a more complex theological issue than it appears at first glance, and the assertion that "Mormons aren't Christian" is primarily a theological point, fairly irrelevant to those who do not recognize your theology as true.

I don't think one needs a detailed knowledge of theology to be a Christian. The good thief addressed Jesus directly and appears to have perceived him to be the messiah and believed that he would be the ruler of the kingdom. The reference to the kingdom of God as well as the good thief's confidence that Jesus had done nothing wrong suggests that the thief was aware of at least the basic outline of Jesus' preaching. At any rate, he put his faith in Christ to the best of his ability. That would appear to meet most minimal definitions of Christian faith. (Some definitions might add something like "faith in Christ as God", but I think we can safely presume that the thief had that.)

I don't think that scenario is directly comparable to Mormons, though. The thief would naturally have been unaware of doctrines formally laid out after him - doctrines intended to clarify and explain the nature of what the good thief was privileged to witness directly - but ignorance does not constitute denial. Likewise for, even today, the Catholic or Protestant in the pews who happens to be theologically ignorant. The issue with Mormons is not ignorance, but rather denial of core doctrines.

For what it's worth, I specifically do not use the word 'Christian' to mean people that I believe are saved. I do not think that the categories 'Christian' and 'saved' are coextensive. There are Christians who are not saved (cf. Matthew 7:22-23), and there are non-Christians who are saved (cf. Luke 16:22).

You could draw a distinction whereby people who call themselves Christians, are recognised as Christians by the world, and appear in good standing in the church are not real Christians if they are rejected by Christ, and likewise that people who in their lives were never aware of Christ or put any explicit faith in him (like Abraham) are in some way implicitly Christian, but I think that does too much damage to the everyday uses of the words. My understanding is that all salvation is from Christ (cf. John 14:6), but that not all who are called by the name Christian partake of this, and that some who do not call themselves Christians do. The power of God is not constrained by human labels or categorisations.

My main use of the word 'Christian' is to identify members of the church. I believe Peter van Inwagen once argued that the word 'Christianity' is itself a mistake - there is no such thing as Christianity. There is only the church, and its various members. I'm not as rigid about the word as he is, and I'm happy to use the word 'Christianity' to mean 'that which the church professes', but I think there's something to be said for the basic point. Christians are the fellowship or the community of those who follow Christ - or perhaps more properly, those who follow the triune God, because I would probably exclude Christian atheists. I exclude Mormons because I do not understand them to follow Christ in the sense that Christians do. As the Catholic document you cited says, the Mormon understanding of who 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' are is so divergent 'from the Christian meaning' as to not even be heresy. The utility of the ecumenical creeds is as guardrails - they lay out a basic minimum understanding of who God is and of the economy of salvation.

Not Tenaz but my take, and I think you even concede this at one point, is that the word Christian itself is best understood as a perspective looking from the outside, not an inward one of self-identity. A Muslim or atheist will feel labeling Christians as such quite natural, because the doctrine emphasizes, well, Christ. I feel even better about this definition because it’s the one the Bible itself uses! At least initially. Note Acts 11, the first usage, is strongly implied to be a moniker given by the crowds to these new-breed not-quite-Jews, and even predates the official expansion to Gentiles.

One could argue, actually, that 1 Corinthians 1:12 condemns the name 'Christian', at least implicitly. The word 'Christian' suggests the party of Christ, as it were, over against other parties or factions, and Paul expressly condemns people quarrelling and identifying themselves as belonging to Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ.

The endonyms that we hear for early believers in the New Testament are terms like 'the believers', 'the brothers', 'the saints', 'the disciples', and so on. These are not terms that would be used by outsiders, or which might lead to confusion.

(I believe that the most common term the Qur'an uses for Muslims is not in fact Muslim, but mu'min, from iman, faith, and means 'believer' or 'faithful'. If Christians and Muslims both publicly called themselves the Believers, it would be unnecessarily confusing.)

I don't think one needs a detailed knowledge of theology to be a Christian. The good thief addressed Jesus directly and appears to have perceived him to be the messiah and believed that he would be the ruler of the kingdom. The reference to the kingdom of God as well as the good thief's confidence that Jesus had done nothing wrong suggests that the thief was aware of at least the basic outline of Jesus' preaching. At any rate, he put his faith in Christ to the best of his ability. That would appear to meet most minimal definitions of Christian faith. (Some definitions might add something like "faith in Christ as God", but I think we can safely presume that the thief had that.)

I don't think that scenario is directly comparable to Mormons, though. The thief would naturally have been unaware of doctrines formally laid out after him - doctrines intended to clarify and explain the nature of what the good thief was privileged to witness directly - but ignorance does not constitute denial. Likewise for, even today, the Catholic or Protestant in the pews who happens to be theologically ignorant. The issue with Mormons is not ignorance, but rather denial of core doctrines.

My point is not that ignorant people can be Christian (though this is true). My point is that your use of the word is primarily theological; it has more to do with your beliefs regarding our standing before God than with anything else.

I exclude Mormons because I do not understand them to follow Christ in the sense that Christians do. As the Catholic document you cited says, the Mormon understanding of who 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' are is so divergent 'from the Christian meaning' as to not even be heresy. The utility of the ecumenical creeds is as guardrails - they lay out a basic minimum understanding of who God is and of the economy of salvation.

There's so obviously more to it than this, though. If it were really about "following Christ" then the majority of Mormons would be Christian. The parts of our doctrine so repugnant to you, such as our belief in the Godhead vs. the Trinity, are utterly beyond not only the awareness, but probably even the mental capacity, of the vast majority of both Christians and Mormons. If you actually believed the creeds were a "basic minimum understanding" then you'd say the vast majority of Christians aren't Christian either. Those guardrails aren't working, yet you consider the people they have failed Christians nonetheless. Perhaps there actually is a deeper, more meaningful definition of "Christian" to you than the one you've put forward here.

Are you doing ok? I know we just had a long back-and-forth about the nature of God (except you might not agree with the word Nature, so just substitute what-God-is-ness.) And this is the "arguing about things politely" website. But I want to express to you how sad I was to hear the news, and how much I hope that LDS and Catholics can stand against desecration of safe and holy places.

There are some Protestants who do not consider Catholics to be Christians because we don't "Believe in the Gospel" which is reduced to Sola Fide. Who gets to be The Gatekeeper of what a Christian is? I don't know. I know you're not Catholic and I'm not LDS - that's something that we get to decide within our sects. But the term Christianity is so broad that no single group can claim the authority to gatekeep. If you consider yourself Christian, then that's good enough for me.

The Medievals believed Islam to be a Christian Heresy. If muslims count, LDS certainly does.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm doing fine.

I... don't see how one can comment on the meaning of the word 'Christian' without being primarily theological. 'Christian' is a theological term.

I am actually, like C. S. Lewis, willing to bite the bullet on many, or even most, self-proclaimed Christians not really being Christians. I'm not hugely strict about this in practice where I tend to think that any good-faith attempt to genuinely know and follow God, to the best of one's limited ability, is acceptable worship, and in that light, sure, there are no doubt individual Mormons who render that worship. I don't claim that no Mormons are saved or anything like that. But if you ask me to accept that most Americans who call themselves Christians are not meaningfully Christian, then I will do that. That is probably and unfortunately the case.

(I am not quite as pessimistic as your linked study - I think survey design can be unreliable, most people struggle with theological language, and there is often a sensus fidei that exceeds the ability of people to explicate their faith. If a Catholic says the Nicene Creed every Sunday at mass, sincerely intending to believe it, but when asked to define the Trinity during the week descends into waffle, I would extend some charity. The linked paper doesn't include the questions themselves and has some red flags for me - who the heck are 'Integrated Disciples'? they possess a 'biblical worldview'? huh? - so I'm skeptical. Nonetheless, no one could deny that ignorance or confusion around the Trinity is very common.)

So perhaps it would be helpful to refine a little. I claim that Mormonism, which is to say that which the Mormon church presents for belief, is not a form of Christianity.

I... don't see how one can comment on the meaning of the word 'Christian' without being primarily theological. 'Christian' is a theological term.

Others want to use "Christian" as a group signifier, but your definition here is closer to something that would exclude Judas and include devout atheists who were baptized as children. It can also be a theological term without referring to one's standing before God--you could argue that being Christian means believing in certain key characteristics about Jesus.

(I am not quite as pessimistic as your linked study - I think survey design can be unreliable, most people struggle with theological language, and there is often a sensus fidei that exceeds the ability of people to explicate their faith. If a Catholic says the Nicene Creed every Sunday at mass, sincerely intending to believe it, but when asked to define the Trinity during the week descends into waffle, I would extend some charity. The linked paper doesn't include the questions themselves and has some red flags for me - who the heck are 'Integrated Disciples'? they possess a 'biblical worldview'? huh? - so I'm skeptical. Nonetheless, no one could deny that ignorance or confusion around the Trinity is very common.)

Yeah, I couldn't find any others, but the linked study definitely isn't great.

So perhaps it would be helpful to refine a little. I claim that Mormonism, which is to say that which the Mormon church presents for belief, is not a form of Christianity.

Here we differ. If the thief on the cross practiced a form of Christianity (as I believe he did) then we can accept extreme diversions from and gaps in knowledge of Truth, and still ultimately call a belief system Christianity. Yes, the thief was perhaps justifiably ignorant where later groups are not, but belief systems are not ignorant or informed. They are ideas, they are the things about which we are ignorant or informed. A belief system is either true or false, valid or invalid, Christianity or not Christianity. You could say something like "nobody nowadays is as ignorant as the thief on the cross, and therefore no practicing Mormon is a valid Christian" but this is just not true--the thief was a whole lot more informed than, for example, your average 2-week-old.

In other words, let's say you have a 60 IQ and have only ever been exposed to Mormonism. You don't even know what the godhead or the trinity are; you just believe in God and his Son in very general terms. Is that belief system Christianity? Is it Mormonism? I don't think ideas exist outside of people's heads, so if someone can be both a practicing Christian and a practicing Mormon, then Mormonism is a form of Christianity.

But if you ask me to accept that most Americans who call themselves Christians are not meaningfully Christian, then I will do that. That is probably and unfortunately the case.

Fair enough, I just hope you keep this in mind the next time this debate comes up.

More comments

They themselves presumably agree on this principle, because as you note, they believe that all traditional churches have fallen from the faith.

I think this is the key issue we've been going round on. Mormons don't see Christianity as synonymous with the true faith. The see Christianity as a big tent full of many denominations and their own Church as the true faith within that big tent. This is also why I don't think the trinity is a useful tenant for determining what is and isn't Christianity. Because from extremely early on the umbrella of Christianity. This is my personal view as well. I see Christianity as a big movement of many mutually exclusive Christianities even from the beginning. (see Paul's letters) And I don't think removing them from the category of Christianity is much use, we'd just have to come up with another term to categorize these Jesus worshipping movements. Also for someone without a Christian background the trinity may not even seem that that important. To someone not primed to see it, the father son and holy ghost being one in purpose but not in being versus different aspects of God together and separate in divine mystery, doesn't seem THAT different. Especially compared to things like worshipping graven images or praying to the saints and Mary.

Just as many Sunni Muslims try to exclude the Shia from Islam and insist they aren't Muslims. This just devolves into silly language games. The Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Arians obviously all fit under some category with the Orthodox. Virtually every university and textbook everywhere calls that thing Christianity and if we exclude them from it then we need to create an umbrella term for them. Which again seems redundant when we already have terms for these. But this debate actually only seems to come up in relation to modern American religions because Mormons seem weird to Americans and nobody uses they word Heretic anymore so they get excluded from Christianity.

But I think Christianity is too big a tent to do that. Fundamentally woke high church Episcopalians and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists believe extremely different things and live extremely different lives if they can be under the umbrella of Christianity so can the Mormons because the word Christianity does not describe one particular tradition but rather many disparate traditions which is the whole reason we have denominations in the first place!

The reason I see it as pretty central is that basically the Trinity goes back pretty far in the historical record, and was dogmatically declared around the same time the New Testament was canonized. It’s really hard to claim one without the other. If you’re calling the New Testament without reservations The Canon as opposed to other writings, it’s really hard to consistently also say “but they are wrong about these other things.”

Sure, but that also gets to the problem with Protestants. Treating a book as infallible that was created by a church you reject. You could make some apologism for this by pointing out the books of the Bible were really written separately until they were compiled but yeah I think it's a big problem for anyone not Catholic or Orthodox.

I think it depends on the flavor of Protestant. If you’re talking about low church Bible thumping evangelicals, I get it, but I think most high church Protestants respect the councils and the dogmas of the early church. The Anglo Catholic movement actually accepts the dogmas and canons of the first seven councils so they’d be pretty in line with the Roman Church and the various Orthodox Churches. Lutherans still informally accept quite a bit of that dogma through the Augustine Confessions and Book of Concord.

Mormons don't see Christianity as synonymous with the true faith. The see Christianity as a big tent full of many denominations and their own Church as the true faith within that big tent.

Eh. This isn't really true. "The true faith" is faith in Christ, meaning love, obedience, loyalty, worship, and trust in the Son of God, qualities not confined to people in any particular religion. The LDS church doctrinally being "the true church" doesn't mean we have a monopoly on truth or even that in every respect we have more truth than any other denomination; it means we have the most truth and, perhaps even more important, God's authority to establish his kingdom on earth. This is quite comparable to the Catholic view of the nature of the Catholic church.

The LDS church doctrinally being "the true church" doesn't mean we have a monopoly on truth or even that in every respect we have more truth than any other denomination; it means we have the most truth and, perhaps even more important, God's authority to establish his kingdom on earth.

Critically, it is a claim that you are the only church with real priests whose ordinances (sacraments to Catholics, cleric spells to unchurched nerds) actually work.

American folk Christianity avoids the question, but the combination of scaraments that actually work, ordained ministry, and apostolic succession (as believed by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, LDS and some Lutherans) gives "real Church" vs "fake Church" a different and more significant meaning that it has in sola fide priesthood-of-all-believers Protestantism.

True, but our belief in a single authorized baptism is also accompanied by a belief that said baptism can be accepted even after death, so it’s not exclusionary as a complete package! And you really do need to include both, seems to me. It’s not as if this is the only very significant theological difference among Christian sects.

Well, qualified in one respect. It’s not as if we think that God ignores the prayers or genuine authentic intentions toward God of others. Functionally someone who confesses a sin to a Catholic priest, exercises faith in Christ, repents of their ways, is essentially forgiven (or will be) - just the priest didn’t actually serve an official role in it. So I guess I still don’t quite see it. Perhaps similar to how many Christian sects have walked back beliefs that the unbaptized can literally never enter heaven and won’t get a chance to, Mormons have also toned back the emphasis on how other sects are all extremely misled people. Early LDS history, (in)famously, was not quite the same - many especially older Mormons even thought of the Catholic Church as a somewhat devilish deception. So in that sense there’s an argument to be made that this distinction is no longer as true as it used to be.

Just as many Sunni Muslims try to exclude the Shia from Islam and insist they aren't Muslims.

An even better comparison is Ahmadiyya, who claim to be Muslims, but every other denomination rejects them.

Nitpick: in my experience Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims do not try to exclude each other from Islam. In Islam there is a very strong consensus that anybody who says and sincerely believes the shahada is a Muslim. Sunni-Shia differences are obviously very important and a major driver of violence even today, and heaven help you if try to change from one to the other, but I have never heard a Muslim trying to suggest that a member of the other party is not a Muslim.

That said, I don't like the analogy to early Christianity that much because I think what we're looking at in early Christianity is a young tradition forming itself, and as part of that formation, it went through a process of debating and coming to understand its own doctrine. 'Christianity' as we know it today is largely a product of that process.

I'd suggest that most people have an intuitive sense that there is a point at which a Christian-derived or Christian-influenced religious movement ceases to be Christianity. The most famous example is probably Islam itself. We know that the first Christians to come into contact with Islam understood it to be a heresy - Muhammad was a deluded man who misunderstood the scriptures and preached his own revelation. I think we have a spectrum of dissent where, say, Protestantism is clearly Christianity, Islam is clearly not Christianity, and in the middle there's a grey area. Pentecostals? Christian. Adventists? Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses? Ehh, getting pretty heretical. Mormons? A bit further out. Candomblé? Influenced by Christianity but definitely not. And so on. I understand that different people will, in good faith, draw the Christian/non-Christian line in different places.

My personal model would be concentric circles, if that makes sense? At the centre we have 'Christianity', which I define in terms of the ecumenical creeds. It contains Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and maybe Oriental Orthodoxy. The next circle out is what I term 'Jesusism', which includes any religious tradition in which Jesus Christ is the central or decisive figure: this includes Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo, Hong Xiuquan, and so on. The next circle after that is 'Jesus-influenced': this includes any religious tradition in which Jesus is a major figure, but not the central one. This would include Islam, the Baha'i Faith, CaoDai, and so on. Finally, beyond that, we have religions that have nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever: Hinduism, Daoism, Scientology, and so forth.

But I grant that there are plenty of people for whom 'Christianity' means everything within my 'Jesusist' circle.

The next circle out is what I term 'Jesusism', which includes any religious tradition in which Jesus Christ is the central or decisive figure: this includes Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo, Hong Xiuquan, and so on.

None of these other guys believe in the atonement, though, or that Jesus is God. Really LDS is just its own thing, not neatly slotted into a category of churches that see Jesus as a cool holy guy.

religions that have nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever: Hinduism

Ackchyually, some Hindus consider Jesus to have been an avatar of Vishnu.

Would you call those Hindus Christian?

I'd put them in the 'Jesus-influenced' circle, or possibly add an intermediate circle between it and the outermost category.

Nitpick: in my experience Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims do not try to exclude each other from Islam. In Islam there is a very strong consensus that anybody who says and sincerely believes the shahada is a Muslim. Sunni-Shia differences are obviously very important and a major driver of violence even today, and heaven help you if try to change from one to the other, but I have never heard a Muslim trying to suggest that a member of the other party is not a Muslim.

Ethnic cleansings have been done for precisely that distinction. The doers may have been 'bad' muslims doctrinally as well as ethically, and the determinations often coincide with political differences people feel worth killing over, but it has (and, occasionally, does) happen even if it's not the civilized norm.

Sunni and Shia have absolutely killed each other over the distinction, yes. There are rivers of blood between those parties. I'm just not aware of cases of Sunni or Shia declaring the other party not Muslims.

Them not being Real Muslims is the justification for why killing them is okay / moral / righteous, rather than theological fratricide. Sometimes its claimed on grounds of apostasy, sometimes that they are heathens, and sometimes qualified theological language is thrown out the door as well as any religious principles of how you should/should not treat other Muslims.

It's the same twisting of categories for why [insert denomination of Christianity] isn't Christian. Tailor a definition of the [Good Group] to some theological claim of [Subgroup], declare opponent outside the bounds of [Good Group], categorical ejection removes the target from the beneificary/protected claimed macro-group.

On the one hand, Mormons aren't Christians. Or at least, they do not fall within any historical confession of Christian orthodoxy.

What's wrong with using the word heretic? I think one of the problems with the Mormons aren't Christians argument is that their services are so incredibly Christian. They worship Jesus sing the same hymns study the the gospels. The average Protestant would completely understand everything going on in a Mormon service in a way they wouldn't in a Jewish, Islamic or even Catholic service.

I really don't think that the fact that they believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate beings rather than united but different in the concept of the trinity is enough to exclude them. Arianism is almost always referred to as Arian Christianity and no one gets up in arms when people say the Goths converted to Christianity. I think what they mean is Mormons aren't saved which is a different argument. Call them heretics or followers of a false prophet but their services are extremely recognizable as Christian.

I don’t think the specific nature of services, which vary hugely by culture and denomination, means much. Modern Mormon services often seem Protestant, as I understand it, but that’s quite temporal. In the 19th century assimilated Jews reconfigured synagogue services to become essentially Christian in the style of the time (adding sermons, adding organs, adding hymns), but they were still Jewish obviously, and some of those things later became less common - and were never common among the very orthodox.

It's not just the form but the content as well. Praying to Jesus drawing lessons from the gospels, putting up nativity scenes.

I mean, I'm happy to use the word 'heretic' as well. I think there is a meaningful difference in that in Arius' time, the boundary was not yet well-defined, whereas today that line has been clearly drawn for well over a millennium and a half, but I'm not going to fight too hard over words as long as it is clearly understood that, whatever words you use, Mormonism does not belong to the same category as, broadly speaking, 'Christianity'. Mormonism is not the same kind of thing as Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism. That's the hill I'll defend.

Personally I don't like to use 'saved' as a synonym here because I think that means something different. There are Christians who are not saved, and there are non-Christians who are saved. The saved and Christianity are overlapping but distinct categories.

I don't think we actually disagree very much. But I do think the word heretic describes them much better as their services are essentially just American Protestantism except they also read from the book of Mormon and the doctrine and covenants.

I agree it's different but it's very similar to a lot of other sects that sprung up in America around this time. Such as the Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists and the Shakers which are all very sectarian in character.

Mormons remind me of Ismailis many Muslims think of them as non Muslims and they are obviously a heterodox sect but essentially all non Muslims still consider them Muslims. Heterodox sects are generally still considered under the umbrella of their big religion. I think the question of whether Mormon's are Christian thing is a bit of scissor question because they fall outside of ecumenical Orthodoxy but are at the same time obviously to any outsider a schismatic Christian sect. So since modern people don't use the word heretic then things get all muddled. But I think heretics, heterodox sect, schismatic sect and similar terms are all accurate whereas non-Christian really doesn't make sense for them.

I do agree with the comparison to other 19th century restorationists. It seems to me that Mormons are part of a family of 19th century American Protestant offshoots or spin-offs - Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Seventh-Day Adventism, Christadelphianism, and so on. They generally share a common method (charismatic leader/writer and reinterpreter, extremely strong emphasis on scripture and dismissal of tradition, etc.), and frequently some doctrinal conclusions (nontrinitarianism, narrative of general apostasy, etc.). Go back a bit further and there are Europeans following the same model as well - the Swedenborgian New Church, for instance. Likewise there are more recent examples - Iglesia ni Cristo in the Philippines is another instance of the same model, and perhaps even the Unification Church.

At any rate, I don't think all the groups in that category are non-Christian - Adventists, for instance, seem pretty clearly inside the tent. However, I think some of them have placed themselves outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

I think you're probably correct that there's a scissor statement here. I am particularly interested in doctrine, but most American Christians are extremely ignorant of theology and embrace a number of heresies. (Though I should say that Ligonier, the people doing the State of Theology survey, themselves have a rather narrow and tendentious view of orthodoxy.) As long as Mormonism looks like church on the outside, only weird nerds like me will get stressed about what they actually believe.

I'm also a nerd who is interested in doctrine. But for example in academia or in a published work it would be totally uncontroversial to refer to the Ebionites as Jewish Christianity or Valentinius' followers as Gnostic Christianity and their beliefs are (well at least the Gnostics) are surely farther from Nicene Orthodoxy then Mormons. A lot of Evangelicals insist that Catholics aren't Christians because they pray to graven images and violate the ten commandments so obviously they can't be Christians.

I think the fact that the Mormons are so inline 19th century restorationist tradition and the family of 19th century American Protestant offshoots and spin-offs as you say basically means they have to be Christians in the same way the Essenses were Jewish and the Ismailis are Muslim.

personally I put them in a category that I think of as 'Jesusists', that is, religions that take Jesus as their central figure, but which are too different from historical Christianity to be understood as the same thing

I feel like this is an obvious place to taboo "Christianity," though of course--I can't imagine any self-identified Christians lightly acceding to that. In my years I have been fascinated to hear from Evangelicals that Catholics are not Christian; from Jehovah's Witnesses that Protestants are not Christian; from Wokists that Christians are not Christian. I have heard arguments about the "historical Jesus" and the "historical creeds," I've met "restorationist Christians" in the form of Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons, and I have to say: it sounds like a whole lot of wildly unproductive verbal disagreement to me. I've read my share of Kierkegaard and C.S. Lewis and others who have weighed in on the debate, I'm not ignorant of the stakes. But I haven't got a horse in the race, so to speak, so while that probably makes me a nicely impartial judge of the matter, it also seems like maybe the kind of disagreement for which none of the relevant parties want an impartial judge!

(FWIW, my own heuristic is that anyone who thinks Jesus was Divine can be comfortably regarded as a "Christian" for every practical purpose imaginable, and people who gatekeep categories with such practical value can in almost all cases just be safely ignored. Surely Mormonism as at least as much a "Christian faith" as, say, Denmark is a "Christian nation." I assume that I would probably feel differently if I subscribed to a different metaphysics, though!)

So it's hard for me to say that Trump's interpretation of the shooting is wrong, even though it is almost certainly clumsy. This was a targeted attack, and it was an attack on self-identified (if plausibly heretical) Christians, and it appears to have been an attack on their faith for adherence to their faith (as opposed to e.g. for their race or their presumed politics), which is a surprising and unusual thing here in the United States--though, crucially, not a historically unprecedented thing for Mormon congregations.

And I have to seriously wonder--did Trey Parker and Matt Stone have something to do with this? Did Hugh Grant, or Netflix, or FX, or Netflix, or Hulu, or Netflix? Other than the musical, those are all productions from the last four years--at what point would it be plausible for the Mormons to begin to worry that society is prosecuting an active vendetta against them?

One response might be that (at least some--there is no "Quran the Musical") other faiths also catch Netflix shade--Unorthodox and One of Us are relatively recent productions touching on Judaism, Midnight Mass and The Sinner seem arguably critical of Catholicism, etc. The Mormons aren't unusually persecuted, rather, Netflix (and perhaps Hollywood more generally) portrays all religion in maximally negative light!

And this is where I think Trump's comment becomes clumsy--or, if you believe some of the more extreme things sometimes said of him, not clumsy but deliberately Christian nationalist. This appears to be a possible case of genuine sectarian violence. How often does that happen, here? This Wikipedia list of attacks on churches in the United States is quite interesting to me, especially the "motive" column. "Anti-Christian" violence is clearly a thing, but it would probably be more accurate (and inclusive) to suggest that anti-religious violence is a thing.

Whether or not they are ultimately part of the "Christian" coalition, the Mormons are clearly part of the coalition backing Trump. I don't personally think Trump is actually trying to move the United States toward Christian nationalism, but if he were, it would have to be a Christian nationalism inclusive of Mormons--or else a Christian nationalism with no hope at all of maintaining rule over the Rocky Mountains.

Well, I think I was implicitly tabooing 'Christianity' here. What I assert is that there is a broad category of belief into which Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants generally fit, but which Mormons do not fit into. I assert that Mormon belief and doctrine is significantly qualitatively dissimilar to that of these other groups.

It seems to me that two things are going on when people say "Mormons aren't Christian". The first thing is just "you don't believe what I believe" or "you don't worship what I worship". There are implicit claims about differences in doctrine and practice. The second is "you are not my people". They are attempting to differentiate themselves from Mormons in a tribal sense.

Thus when I, for instance, say "Mormons aren't Christianity", what I'm actually saying is "you're not affiliated with me!"

On the one hand, Mormons aren't Christians.

...how come?

see here.

But can you provide a more detailed explanation?

Mormon cosmology is completely different from the Abrahamic religions. In Mormonism, God did not create the universe, he simply organized preexisting matter. God himself is part of and subservient to the material universe.

This leads to a bunch of strange (though arguably coherent) beliefs, many of which are explained in this less-than-sympathetic cartoon, although from what I can tell everything in it is technically correct.

Also, endless celestial sex. You can decide for yourself whether this is a positive or a negative.

I think these high cosmology arguments are complicated by the fact that Mormon services are essentially indistinguishable from low church protestant ones. The average Protestant would feel more comfortable in a Mormon service than a Catholic one in terms of knowing what to do.

Mormon cosmology is completely different from the Abrahamic religions. In Mormonism, God did not create the universe, he simply organized preexisting matter. God himself is part of and subservient to the material universe.

Do you have a source on that? As someone who grew up in that faith, I never heard that.

Abraham 3:24

And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

Creating the Earth out of materials existing in the universe doesn't mean that God didn't create the universe itself.

...yeah, if that's all correct then it would be hard to call it Christianity.

There is no possible way Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20 can square with Christian scripture.

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

The angels being subject to saved humans as a result of their union with Christ is pretty basic Christian soteriology, and an early form of it shows up in 1 Corinthians (chapter 6:2-3):

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels?

Angels are also never described as being "in the image of God" the way humans are, although they're considered to have a certain resemblence to the divine glory.

As for the "they shall be gods" part, well, that's also in the Bible, famously quoted by Jesus as an unbreakable line of scripture (John 10:34-36):

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

While there's a difference in the kind of divinity being ascribed, it's also fundamental to Catholic and Orthodox understandings of salvation since the early middle ages that the ultimate destiny of man is to partake of the divine nature by grace. The phrase appears across Christian history that a person who has achieved perfect sanctification could be said to "have everything that God has," to be divinized. What you've quoted is actually the least distinct element and phrasing in Mormon soteriology, from the point of view of analyzing historical Christianity in its broad scope.

More comments

uh, sure, I guess. The following is speaking very generally and aiming for as neutral a view as I can manage.

Jews (speaking very broadly here as I will for all groups) think they have a revelation from God, and that revelation is at a certain point closed. Then they have a system pertaining to how that revelation interfaces with their community, which may not be closed per se but where thousands of years of tradition usually vastly outweigh present concerns.

Christians believe the Jewish revelation is valid, but don't see it as closed, and believe there was a subsequent revelation which at a later point closed. They likewise have a community-interface system which likewise draws on thousands of years of tradition, which is completely incompatible with the Jewish system. So while both Jews and Christians think the Old Testament is the word of God, Jews think the New Testament is heretical pagan nonsense and the church and its traditions have no valid connection to God, while (many) Christians think Jews missed the boat, the rabbinical system is in the same way heretical nonsense, made up to paper over the fact that Judaism ended with the destruction of the temple, when it became impossible to fulfill the requirements of the Law.

Mormons are to Christians as Christians are to Jews. They have what might be described as a Newer Testament, which they see as a subsequent revelation to the Christian one, which is, you guessed it, now also closed. And they have their own community-interface system which is only a couple hundred years old but hey give them awhile, sheesh. And to their credit, a couple hundred years ain't nothing, and they do seem to be going fairly strong to date, but this system is likewise incompatible with the Christian system in the same way that the Christian system is incompatible with the Jewish one. Christians think the Newer testament is bad fanfic, in the same way Jews think the Christian New Testament is bad fanfic, for similar reasons.

In each case, you have the older version rejecting the newer version as a heresy, and the newer version thinking the older version missed the boat. ...Only, I'm not actually sure whether Mormons think Christians are fine as-is, or should ideally become Mormons, the way Christians think Jews should become Christian. I'd assume so, just on a naïve application of memetics.

Mormons are to Christians as Christians are to Jews. They have what might be described as a Newer Testament, which they see as a subsequent revelation to the Christian one, which is, you guessed it, now also closed.

Actually, the Mormons make a big deal about having a living prophet, who can receive new revelation as needed. This has come in handy a couple of times when political considerations have forced the church to update its doctrine in a hurry, such as in 1890 when they stopped practicing polygamy in order for Utah to join the Union, or in 1978 when God changed his mind about black people.

It's weird to me how the Mormons seem like the most boring, steadfast, buttoned-down, no-nonsense of all religious groups in the way they act. And yet their actual religious dogma seems like one of the craziest. Sure, just dial up their direct hotline to god whenever they need an update on current political issues, that makes sense...

Sure, just dial up their direct hotline to god whenever they need an update on current political issues, that makes sense...

I mean, yes? If you think God is real, God has the ability to send messages, and God wants certain things of humanity, then it's pretty logical for God to send such messages whenever humans get confused about what he said. Judaism has plenty of prophets doing this, and pagans typically had oracles.

The overly-convenient nature of the Mormons' updates certainly doesn't gel very well with claims that their hotline is plugged into something eternal, but the notion of having a hotline to the divine is really a pretty-logical extension of Actually Believing In Gods.

More comments

They have what might be described as a Newer Testament, which they see as a subsequent revelation to the Christian one, which is, you guessed it, now also closed.

The LDS church famously has an open canon, though the current books are considered the "standard works" that make up the existing canon. But it's perfectly possible in Mormon theology that the church could, by "common consent," add a new work if there was an overwhelming consensus that a text should be added to the canon.

Leading to considerable efforts to add the Book of Arnold in some quarters.

Which I found particularly hilarious because once you take the idea of a separate revelation of Jesus to North America seriously, the possibility of a separate revelation to Africa of the type that Elder Cunningham appears to deliver is entirely plausible at a theological level. "One with the people of Africa" indeed.

More comments

I stand corrected!

...my main point, in any case, is that in any of these questions of categorizing people, there's the answer from the people in the category, and there's the answer of the people outside the category, and neither is obviously correct.

I was looking for examples of specific theological beliefs or other aspects of Mormonism that might render Mormonism incompatible with Christianity as it's traditionally conceived. Looks like Quantumfreakonomics has it covered though.

I was looking for examples of specific theological beliefs or other aspects of Mormonism that might render Mormonism incompatible with Christianity as it's traditionally conceived

I can. The quickest one is they reject the oneness of God and Christ. This isn't in any standard nontrinitarian sense, it is in the uniquely Mormon polytheistic sense as they believe God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct gods, among multitudes. They employ rhetorical tricks, they believe in a "godhead" that is "one" and you'll find that "one" often in quotations because it's an equivocation. As trinitarian Christians mean one in the literal sense of one essential being, Mormons mean one in the figurative sense, acting in a common purpose. You could say that of the religion, the Church of Latter-Day Equivocations. Smith used a bunch of words because they sounded Christian when he meant anything but.

Yahweh said to Moses "I am." Christ said to the Pharisees "Before Abraham was, I am." The Pharisees understood he was claiming to be God, that's why they tried to stone him. Mormons post-hoc their nontrinitarian beliefs by saying instances of YHWH/Jehovah in the OT actually refer to Christ. False to an absurd degree, in the number of verses clearly describing Yahweh as God the Father, and those that go on to say "and no other gods exist."

Smith followed in the line of Muhammad. He gutted a religion, wore it as a skinsuit, and in America exploited some of its inertia for his cult. There are nominally Christian sects that also reject the divinity of Christ. Same goes for them. That's not what's really relevant here, though. Apropos this discourse, you see among righties some saying "Christendom is under attack" and the retort spiral of "Mormons aren't Christians" / "Yes we are" et refrain. Christianity, most historically, is the belief in Christ and God as one. Most Christians today believe in Christ and God as one. They think Mormons believe the same. If they knew Mormons didn't, they would no longer consider them Christian but a deeply heretical, borderline if not overtly blasphemous, likely Satanic cult. Dante would find Joseph Smith in the Eighth Circle, Ninth Bolgia. Ever-cleft from groin to abdomen.

Personally, I find polygamy, especially polygyny, as so gravely wicked as to be self-apparently disqualifying of Smith and so all of his work. Today, a man who wants multiple wives hates women to a degree I don't know how to put into words, and he hates men even more. Smith had 30-40 "wives." And that's always what it's about, at least in the US. Men go to remarkable lengths so they can have sex with whichever women they want.

Yes, they had a "revelation" to stop the practice, because if they hadn't, the army would have done it for them.

I can. The quickest one is they reject the oneness of God and Christ. This isn't in any standard nontrinitarian sense, it is in the uniquely Mormon polytheistic sense as they believe God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct gods, among multitudes. They employ rhetorical tricks, they believe in a "godhead" that is "one" and you'll find that "one" often in quotations because it's an equivocation. As trinitarian Christians mean one in the literal sense of one essential being, Mormons mean one in the figurative sense, acting in a common purpose. You could say that of the religion, the Church of Latter-Day Equivocations. Smith used a bunch of words because they sounded Christian when he meant anything but.

We believe the godhead is one in the scriptural sense.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

It's hard to get more clear and straightforward than this.

On the meta level, you have reasons to think that Jesus was speaking figuratively here but literally when he said "there are no gods besides me." I have reasons to think the opposite. We could get into a very long, tiresome debate about which is correct, and as loathe as I am to begin such a debate, it's still far preferable to your current insinuation that the question is entirely settled; that one approach is straightforwardly un-biblical and heretical while the other is fully and self-evidently sound.

Personally, I find polygamy, especially polygyny, as so gravely wicked as to be self-apparently disqualifying of Smith and so all of his work. Today, a man who wants multiple wives hates women to a degree I don't know how to put into words, and he hates men even more. Smith had 30-40 "wives." And that's always what it's about, at least in the US. Men go to remarkable lengths so they can have sex with whichever women they want.

I suppose you would fully condemn the many wives God gave to David, too?

Yes, they had a "revelation" to stop the practice, because if they hadn't, the army would have done it for them.

Please read the declaration, lol. You're implying here something like "LDS leaders pretended that God coincidentally told them to stop practicing polygamy just in time to avoid direct conflict with the army" It's actually the exact opposite--the declaration explicitly says that polygamy was ended due to external interference.

This is just dishonest.

More comments

On the one hand, Mormons aren't Christians.

One might say that Mormons are Christians in the same sense that Christians are Jews. It captures both important features of self-conception and also important points of disagreement.

No. Mormons are substantially less Christian that Christians are Jewish.

The mormons believe that God was once a man who then became a God, and their version of enlightenment/ascendance/heaven is that they will themselves become God. Christians and Jews believe in the same God. Mormons do not believe in the same God as Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

Here are some mormon redditors trying to figure out how to square this, btw.

I know there are quite a few mormons who post here. Feel free to just ignore all this, btw. I love a good debate about religion, but I love you guys more, and don't want it to come at your expense, or to feel like people are kicking you while you're down - what happened yesterday was horrific.

I feel like this view is complicated by Mormons services being virtually indistinguishable from Protestant ones. They take communion, recite the lords prayer, celebrate Christmas with Christmas trees. The high theology is extremely different but the actual church practices is virtually the same.

Right, well, but can you define Christianity by similarity of vibes? By some standards Silicon Valley Buddhists are more similar to US Protestants than the latter are to Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Christians. Your "American Protestant would know what to do" standard also holds - I fully assume the US Protestant would be less lost at an American Yoga retreat than during Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox liturgy.

By some standards Silicon Valley Buddhists are more similar to US Protestants than the latter are to Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Christians.

To some extent this has been my personal experience: I could not convert to another religion if I chose, I couldn't take any other religion than Catholicism seriously, or I wound up back at Catholicism. Religion is in the blood.

Yes but it's more than vibes. The same prayers the same hymns, the eucharist, and drawing lessons from the Bible and gospels. It's the content too not just the forms.

Because the founder took parts of things that worked and added his own theology? The typical protestant church service was REALLY working during the second great awakening.

I mean isn't that just Protestantism. That's what Martin Luther and John Calvin did and why we have something like 50,000 Protestant denominations.

No. Mormons are substantially less Christian that Christians are Jewish.

...I'm not sure Mormons would agree with the first part, nor Jews with the second. I agree, but then I would, wouldn't I.

I'd agree on the latter part, in any case. Whatever my theological disagreements with Mormons, people who wish them harm are my enemies.

To be fair, Nicene Christians do believe that we will eventually become God in some sense, via theosis, or union with God. It's definitely not the same thing as the Mormon vision, but I could see people getting confused if you squint.

Or in the same sense that Muslims are Christians, no?

I wasn't sure whether to frame them as Christians (new revelation outside the law) or Jews (human prophets, perceive incarnation as blasphemy), so left them out as more confusing than the point was worth, but yes, essentially. "I'm his son, but he claims he's not my father."

I find the attempt to define what a Christian is to be rather impossible. Think of it this way. For example, you could say that Mormons are not Christians because they do not follow the Nicene Creed. But I would guess that the majority of 1st century Christians did not follow the Nicene Creed either. We cannot even be sure if Jesus or Paul believed in the tenets of the Nicene Creed. Yet surely if Jesus was not a Christian, then no-one ever has been.

Jesus and Paul both believed that God was The Universal Prime Mover, that is: there is nothing before God. He set the universe in motion. Mormons do not believe this, but rather that God was a human that lived in an existing universe, and through good works ascended to God status.

Is "God was a human that lived in an existing universe, and through good works ascended to God status" actually the belief of the average modern Mormon, though?

I would imagine so? This is a pretty unambiguous teaching which is routinely affirmed by their leadership.

What? No it's not, none of that is unambiguous teaching at all, let alone "routinely affirmed". AFAIK the last significant comment on this was nearly twenty years ago and was pretty much as ambiguous as it gets.

The "through good works" part in particular is totally wrong. As far as I know that has never been taught by any LDS leaders. We don't believe in works generally, not the way others would like us to.

What are the parts of Christianity that Mormons believe were missing for 1800 years?

Which differences would you accept as “yes these actually are the different beliefs we have”, that were so important that an angel had to come to upstate New York in the 1800s and reveal them to Joseph smith?

I could list a few very important differences of belief. The nature of God certainly doesn't count among them, both because it's not nearly important enough and because it's not even official LDS doctrine. As @MadMonzer says the most important thing is the restoration of priesthood authority. Related to that, I'll add:

  • The nature of our relationship with God--we are meant to become like him
  • The nature of grace vs. works. We're all saved by grace but the works have a purpose too--God won't perfect us without our permission
  • Temple worship and in general our covenant relationship with God, made possible by priesthood authority
  • The structure and organization of the church

Some less important differences that I personally find very significant:

  • LDS theodicy. In short, God cannot step in and prevent all suffering without both revoking our agency and possibly preventing our ability to experience joy altogether. Our answer to why there is suffering is "because God wills it; because it increases his glory" but we also know the why to both of these statements.
  • The purpose of ignorance. Why doesn't everyone infallibly know every single speck of information about God and religion? Because we are accountable for what we know. Someone who is not ready to hold to the higher law is often better off not being aware of it.
  • The origin of the Book of Mormon as a literal miracle. It must be either a scam or a miracle. We cannot hide behind metaphor or "God is just the universe"; our church (and its origin) is either literally, physically true or literally false.

Which differences would you accept as “yes these actually are the different beliefs we have”, that were so important that an angel had to come to upstate New York in the 1800s and reveal them to Joseph smith?

You said the whole "God was once a man" thing was "a pretty unambiguous teaching which is routinely affirmed by their leadership." This is just wrong. It's not that I don't accept that as a different belief we have, it's just obviously wrong to anyone who knows what they're talking about. Given that I've corrected you on one single point of doctrine, it's hardly time to get on your high horse with this implication that I'm pretending there are no differences between LDS doctrine and broader Christian doctrine.

More comments

What are the parts of Christianity that Mormons believe were missing for 1800 years?

Valid Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, and the teachings about the essential nature of those priesthoods required to transmit them effectively by laying on hands. (In all Christian denominations with ordination, ordination only works if both minister and ordinand know what they are doing.)

Is Christ himself a follower of Christ? It seems like a bad case to build your definition on.

The point of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, at any rate, is to clarify and define the apostolic faith, particularly in order to draw clear lines that include the orthodox and exclude heretics. Obviously Jesus himself didn't know the Nicene Creed in its exact terms, but considering that the Creed is defined in particular reference to Jesus' life, words, and death, I think it's reasonable to say there's some relationship between him and the Creed?

In any case, as regards Mormonism specifically, the point is that when we talk about 'historical' or 'orthodox' Christianity, we talk about a large community or set of communities which has defined its belief in particular ways. Creeds are among the various tools that the church has used to do this. It is, I think, objectively the case that Mormonism exists outside of these historical definitions. Mormons themselves would accept this - Mormons believe that there was a great apostasy that led to pretty much the entire Christian world falling into error and unbelief.

When I say "Mormons aren't Christians", what I mean is that Mormon beliefs are outside of and contradictory to historical definitions of orthodoxy. We can dispute the exact words appropriate to describe that situation - non-Christian, heretic, unorthodox, heck if you ask a Mormon they might prefer 'restoration' or something - but I think the words point to a real fact about the world.

But I think if you called Mormons heretics people would have less issue. I certainly would. It seems silly to exclude Mormons when their service are so essentially American and Protestant and they were just one of many sects to come of the great awakening with a founder and a new theology but those groups are generally referred to as Christians.

Well, I don't think that being American has anything to do with anything, and imitating the form of a Protestant worship service doesn't seem relevant to me either? Unitarian Universalists are non-Christian. Sunday Assembly are non-Christian. At some point Christianity has to be about what a person believes.

Well but they celebrate the Eucharist, sing hymns, pray to Jesus, worship Jesus, put up Christmas trees, study the Bible for moral lessons, the content as well is virtually the same if you don't notice some of the books have different titles. It's not just the form is the same but the content as well. And the different scriptures thing while taken farther isn't really that unique. Protestants, Catholics and the Ethiopian Orthodox all have different scriptures. Their canon isn't the same. Catholics have Popes and Saints and pray to Mary, which Protestants don't. I agree Mormons fall outside modern Ecumenical orthodoxy. But I don't think their practices or even beliefs are farther apart then Catholics are from Protestants.

Every Christian who professes the Nicene Creed does so because they do know that Jesus professed its tenets. If we didn't believe that we wouldn't profess it.

If you didn't believe that you wouldn't profess it, but how do you know that Jesus agreed with it? I'm no New Testament scholar, but from what I've read from it, I don't see how it would be possible to be sure that Jesus actually agreed with it.

The entire Christian religion is predicated on the assumption that Jesus would have agreed with it.

Would it help to go through the Creed line by line?

It seems pretty clear that Jesus believed in one God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Did Jesus believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father? Jesus does not offer a programmatic Christology in the gospels, unless you want to go fairly deep into John, but even in the synoptics it seems fair to say that Jesus identifies himself with the Father in a profoundly intimate way, even if he does not spell it out in these terms.

Did Jesus believe that he came down from heaven for us and for our salvation? That seems pretty clear in the gospels - he talks about the Son of Man coming to save sinners. Did he believe he was born of the virgin Mary? Well, certainly he knew who his mother was, though depending on which gospel you read some might argue about the virgin birth. If we accept the Resurrection at all, presumably Jesus believed that he was crucified and rose again and ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father, and in the gospels Jesus mentions the future coming of the Son of Man and judgement of the nations plenty of times.

Did Jesus believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life? Jesus doesn't talk about the Spirit that explicitly outside of the gospel of John, though he does mention the Spirit a few times. I'm happy to give this one a check though I'll admit that a lot of things are a bit hazier if you don't accept John.

Did Jesus believe that the Spirit spoke through the prophets? That one's easy. In one holy catholic and apostolic church? He does talk about the church or the community of his disciples a bit in the synoptics - I think that counts. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, absolutely, if we accept the Great Commission as historical. That was his idea to begin with. And the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come - yes, Jesus is recorded arguing in favour of those beliefs.

It seems like most of it is pretty safe. If you're interested in the quest for the historical Jesus and you're skeptical of the gospels, especially John but also to an extent Luke (for the virgin birth), you might question whether Jesus believed most of this, but if you do accept the gospels (and surely Christians do), the Nicene Creed seems quite consistent with how Jesus described himself and his Father. It is sometimes more specific or explicit than Jesus himself was, but that doesn't seem fatal to me.

But then why are Mormons not Christians in your view? Granted I don't know much about their views, but from the little I know, it doesn't seem more different from the Nicene Creed than Matthew 24's Jesus quote: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Because I think that historically the Christian community has defined and policed its boundaries in ways that place Mormons outside of it - I apologise if that was not clear.

Did they police the boundaries of Christianity that way? Or the boundaries of heresy and orthodoxy that way?

More comments

It's actually fairly common in many religious based homeschool groups to write out mandatory statements of faith that exclude members of the LDS faith, so yes, several protestant groups do gatekeep them out. Of course, my family left one such group when we figured out their history curriculum was littered with references on how the evil Romanists ruined things in history...

Fair enough. I've probably underestimated the degree to which Mormon theology differs from mainstream Christian theology, cause of how much Mormons and mainstream Christians in the US at least largely seem to me to behave the same and live very similar lifestyles. Maybe I'm not aware of differences in lifestyles, either.

More comments

I see you, Arius of Cyrenaica, trying to spread your homoiousian nonsense. Of course we know Jesus agreed to it, because Christ was of the same substance as God the Father, as decided by a council of bishops brought together by God's chosen representative on Earth, Constantine the Great. Being of the same substance logically follows that Christ knew of the true formulation of God's church, even after his death.

The Motte is no place for you or the Arians who hold to your corrupted image of the triune nature of God.

God's chosen representative on Earth, Constantine the Great

Almost good satire, but just a tad too obviously ridiculous here.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats