Commentary — 3 February 2006
"Mormon Christians"

A 19th-century news story referred to fugitive Joseph Smith as a “Christian” and “leader of a new Christian sect.”

Polygamist groups in Ohio, Missouri, or Illinois had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. To refer to them as “Christians” is inaccurate.

Christian is a common name for a member of mainstream Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches. Christians discontinued polygamy more than 2,000 ago. No members of a Christian church today can enter Mormonism without ceasing to be Christian.

When referring to people or organizations that practice Mormonism, terms such as those given in the first paragraph above are incorrect. The dictionary does not mention Mormons anywhere in the definition of "Christianity." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christianity

While you are beating your chest about Trinitarianism and Mormons not being Christians, you are ignoring a whole load of Christian history. Christianity never was a unitary movement so give up on it. There’s never been one sole, solitary person who got to decide who is Christian and who isn’t. Although a good war could sometimes settle it.

Some people were heretics and some weren’t, but if you proclaimed ”belief in Jesus,” whatever that meant, you were a Christian. You might be a heretic, but you were a Christian.

Were historical Jesus and historical Judas on the same page? Were the Ebionites down with Paul? The principal way that Peter and Paul got along with each other is that they almost never had to see each other. Which ones were Christians and which ones weren’t? Support your answer. Then you can tell me whether Montanists and Manacheans were Christians.

Is it consistent that you could be a non-Trinitarian Christian before Nicaea but not after? Arians sacked Rome but they weren’t Christians, right?

Thought your priest should be personally worthy before your baptism would be effective? You’d make a fine Donatist, the first Protestants before there were even Protestants. If Christianity has never been unified, who has the power, and on what basis are you going to decide who is and who is not a Christian. With the use of a sharp sword, you might make some headway on who is a heretic, but by definition, a heretic is a Christian.

Then you have a whole lot of Gnostics who weren’t even sure that Jesus was really “man.” Then you’ve got Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars and Albigensians. May they rest in peace.

You can then go down the list of Christological heresies but when the clergy went home east from Nicaea, they preached a Trinitarianism that still looked a whole lot more like homoiousian than homoousian. And the only thing that saved the not so far Easterners for centuries is they could always claim that it was just tough to get Greek to align with Latin.

What did the “Christians” in Persia think? Is “essence” the same as “substance?” Can you cram a non-Chalcedonian Christ in to the Western understanding of the Creed? Nestor couldn’t.

What did the 6th century Christians in western China think? How do you say homoiousian in Mandarin? As far as we know, they didn’t have the Creed. They we too busy thinking about how one could be attached to Christ without being attached.

You can stick a Filioque in there too.

Where’s Waldo? Another Protestant before there were Protestants, he’s off being influenced by the Cathars and Albigensians. Does it matter? Well Waldensians deeply influenced Jan Hus, who met the fiery stake in the era of the 3 competing Popes. Hus deeply influenced the Anabaptists. Some Anabaptists claim a chain of ordination all the way back to the Waldensians. Anabaptists were the first in Europe (the world?) to argue for the separation of church and state, long, long before the French Enlightenment. And ignore the fact that you couldn’t get most of their Christology into the Creed with a giant shoe horn. Oh, they thought the only believers should be baptized, pretty much the biggest religious idea in the good old US of A and an idea the Donatists would be comfortable with. But are Anabaptists Christians?

Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ (Christian) where the Bible is silent, we are silent. Guess they are not Christian they couldn’t care less about the Creed.

Christadelphians, check
Oneness Pentecostals, check
Christian Scientists, check
John Locke, check
Issac Newton, check
Benjamin Franklin, check
Thomas Jefferson, check

Apart from a few generals, who has ever had the power to declare who is, or is not, Christian?

Nobody.

Christianity has always been a vast movement with some connection to Jesus, who may, or may not have existed in any meaningful way in connection with Christianity.

So when you say that Mormons are not Trinitarians, what is your point? The statement is tautological.

When you say Mormons aren’t Christians, you don’t understand Christian history. It makes no more sense than saying that Peter, James and John were Mormons.

lulu - heretically

Sorry for all the edits, the electrons are hating on me today, I had trouble getting the format right.

^ Didn't see what he did there

I think lulu is explaining why it is fallacious for any particular Christian group to presume that it gets to dictate what particular Christology or doctrine defines someone as a "Christian."

As has been pointed out a couple of times in this thread, it is similarly fallacious for the LDS Church to presume it gets to decide who can and cannot self-identify as a Mormon.

I agree big time with that.

The world was created just for you to be enlightened Nightlion. Enjoy the heaven where only you reside.

I didn't "twist" anything. You are a poser who chooses to sell your snake oil under the pretense that Mormonism is in fact Christian, when there isn't anything Christian about Mormon doctrine. Just because you make yourself feel better by selling your BS to the itching ears, don't be so surprised when someone calls BS.


Wow... so Joseph Smith wasn't tempted by Fanny? How about Joseph Smith was a horny 38 year old man who preyed on young girls. Was he "tempted" so that makes it ok? The next time you see the news post some picture of a high school teacher who had an affair with a student, well, feel sorry for him because he was "tempted" by the student. Your boundaries that throw the women under the bus to defend the acts of a pedophile named Joseph Smith are in fact sickening.


If your BS filter is on, then these lies should have it pegged. Liz will give the creepy Joseph Smith all the outs to justify his actions, while professing belief that he's a prophet of God, wait..., except for the part about D&C 132, because, well, that's false... but I still believe... don't you Liz? How about Brigham's racism? Are you good with that because you're white and delightsome?




Well alrighty then. Let it be known from this day forward that Liz believes Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith to be true. The "conclusions" she so conveniently avoids would be known as the truth, but to someone who has chosen to compromise true belief to present a false witness it's hardly shocking. I hope you land on Kolob only to usher your husband's new wives into the fmaily Liz... maybe he'll reserve Tuesday nights for you?


You are a hypocrite, a liar, and a false witness. You are Simon Belmont, bcspace and ldsfaqs all rolled up into one. You spew lies about Christianity to benefit your own needs while selling the word of the real Jesus Christ to convince people you actually believe them, when you know the snake oil you're selling is a lie. I hope you meet the souls you convinced through your words to follow the false prophet in Joseph Smith. I hope they tell you how your words convinced them to believe the words of Joseph Smith were true, even though you knew they came from occult magical rocks and incorrectly translated words from the pagan book of the dead. You can spew your "inspired" lies to them face-to-face, but know this Liz... you know this now. What were your conclusions Liz... cat got your tongue? Smile empty soul...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xKGLk3JlL.jpg

There's all the difference in the world! The LDS Church is an organization; Christianity is a movement. Leaders of an organization can decide who is a member of the organization. But no organization within a movement has the authority to decide who is part of that movement. That job lies, somewhat imperfectly, with sociologists.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the organization.
Mormonism is the movemement.

The LDS Church definitely has the right to decide who can and who can't class themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the same way as Catholic leaders have the right to decide who can and who can't be classed as Catholic.

The LDS Church has NO right to decide who can and who can't class themselves as part of the Mormonism movement within which the Church is but one organization. Exactly the same as your statement that Catholics have no right decide who can and who can't class themselves as Christian.

To use your words "no organization within a movement has the authority to decide who is part of that movement."

LOL! This made my morning! It was decadently wicked. I love your sense of humor!

I like how that just does a 180 on the LDS Church, and bites it in the butt.

I like how that just does a 180 on the LDS Church, and bites it in the butt.[/quote]

They never, ever seem to get that point.

So much for my sharing my conclusions shutting you up as you promised. And you continue to twist my words, which I won't even bother to acknowledge point by point. Everyone can read your venomous slur for themselves.

Face it. No one here takes you seriously, Thews. You are the joke.

Shut the f*** up.

I just saw this. BTW, thank you for your civil tone. Thews could learn from you, if he chose to.

There are portions of the bible which I question being literal as well (the global flood, Jonah and the whale, etc.), and yet, I find the work, overall, to be an inspirational work. I look at the Book of Mormon the same way. If someone is going to go to great lengths to send a message that Christ is the savior of all mankind, then I believe it to be an inspired work.

So, for you, it could be the work of a fraud and still retain value as a Testament of Christ?

Yes.

I confess to being a tad shocked.
Perhaps then, the Hoffman forgeries could have been of some faith promoting use dependant on their contents?
(again, I'm not poking fun or picking a fight. Just trying to understand a perspective that one rarely comes across).