5 ms·

Mormons claim Christianity and espouse some Christian principals (i.e. blood atonement for sins of the world), although many of their beliefs (i.e. God is an ev

by jqm 12y ago

Mormons claim Christianity and espouse some Christian principals (i.e. blood atonement for sins of the world), although many of their beliefs (i.e. God is an evolved man and through adherence to Mormon doctrine men can become Gods after death) put them well outside the realm of what is considered mainstream Christianity. I'm not sure these additional beliefs necessarily disqualify them as "Christian" though as they do appear to have retained most of the fundamental basics..... I suppose it depends on ones definition of Christian. No doubt plenty of "Christian" denominations consider that others aren't. "In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the Cross" -Nietzsche

joshdance 12y ago
I agree with you. Many groups would claim another group isn't Christian, especially as the definition of "Christian" has shifted and changed throughout the years. A good article outlining some main points is here - https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng. (for the record I am a Mormon, and a Christian. :)
coldtea 12y ago
>i.e. blood atonement for sins of the world That was never a christian belief to begin with. The atonement was (supposedly) because of God's own incarnation as Christ, our of love, not because of some blood offering to God (i.e. the crucifixion, which was not even meant as such, anyway).
- jqm 12y ago
  I realize modern religion has tried to blunt the concept (it's all about love etc)... but blood atonement figures very prominently in the doctrine presented in the bible... Romans3:25, Hebrews9:22, Rev1:5 for instance. There are plenty more. Very prominent concept. Which is why up until recently there was plenty of talk about being "washed in the blood" in Christian churches. (I believe the manifest brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness of the concept was one of the primary things leading to my rejection of Christianity at a very early age.... no offense to anyone's particular faith... just my point of view)
  - sp332 12y ago
    I think the brutality must have been intentional. To the Romans, a "good death" was quick and painless. For example, if you were a citizen of Rome, then even if you were sentenced to death, you were guaranteed a beheading instead of something slower. To the Greeks, keeping the body intact was very important. That's why they gave Socrates hemlock to drink; even though it must have been agonizing, it was respectful because it maintained the integrity of his body. Jesus' death mixed the worst kind of death to both Greeks and Romans, and also fit in the curse that the Jews had against anyone who died hanging on a tree. This offensiveness is called out explicitly in 1 Corinthians 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=HCSB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1...
  - thret 12y ago
    I think you have it backwards. The 'brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness' of blood sacrifice is the whole point of Christianity. I realise Judaism has changed a lot, but in Jesus' time it was an unforgiving system. The death of Jesus was supposed to supplant all other kinds of sacrifice, and bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more - you simply had to ask for forgiveness. When you discuss OT scriptures you aren't talking about Christianity.
    - jobposter1234 12y ago
      > bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more I believe the Biblical narrative describing the significance of Jesus' sacrifice was about past sins, that which humans bore without actually committing. I do not believe the death of Jesus in any way suggests, in Christian folklore, that you don't need to atone for sins. FWIW, I think the Catholic Church (which didn't exist until hundreds of years after the whole Jesus thing) considers things like rosary prayers as atonement.
      - thret 12y ago
        My understanding is that Jesus' sacrifice was for all sins, past and future.
- sp332 12y ago
  The redemption of sinful people via blood sacrifice is the single strongest theme in the entire Christian canon (the Bible). Jesus' death as payment for other people's sins is prophesied repeatedly, and confirmed after the fact. e.g. Isaiah (written 700 years before Jesus' birth) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=HCSB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&versi... and this letter to the Hebrews written about 30 years after his death https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9-10&version=HCSB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9-10&ve...
nl 12y ago
The "standard" beliefs of Christianity are expressed in the Nicene creed[1][2]. Even recent evangelical churches believe the things listed there, although they probably don't recite the creed itself. Most mainstream Christians don't consider Mormons as Christians because they have added to the Bible, which is considered a heresy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_Creed_of_381 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_betwee... (note that "catholic" in this means "diverse" and doesn't specifically refer to the Catholic church) [2] the differences between the two creeds listed there are basically what split the Orthodox church from the Western church and indirectly led to the fall of Constantinople. So some people consider them fairly important, but others don't.

by jqm 12y ago

joshdance 12y ago

I agree with you. Many groups would claim another group isn't Christian, especially as the definition of "Christian" has shifted and changed throughout the years. A good article outlining some main points is here - https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng. (for the record I am a Mormon, and a Christian. :)

coldtea 12y ago

>i.e. blood atonement for sins of the world That was never a christian belief to begin with. The atonement was (supposedly) because of God's own incarnation as Christ, our of love, not because of some blood offering to God (i.e. the crucifixion, which was not even meant as such, anyway).

jqm 12y ago
I realize modern religion has tried to blunt the concept (it's all about love etc)... but blood atonement figures very prominently in the doctrine presented in the bible... Romans3:25, Hebrews9:22, Rev1:5 for instance. There are plenty more. Very prominent concept. Which is why up until recently there was plenty of talk about being "washed in the blood" in Christian churches. (I believe the manifest brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness of the concept was one of the primary things leading to my rejection of Christianity at a very early age.... no offense to anyone's particular faith... just my point of view)
- sp332 12y ago
  I think the brutality must have been intentional. To the Romans, a "good death" was quick and painless. For example, if you were a citizen of Rome, then even if you were sentenced to death, you were guaranteed a beheading instead of something slower. To the Greeks, keeping the body intact was very important. That's why they gave Socrates hemlock to drink; even though it must have been agonizing, it was respectful because it maintained the integrity of his body. Jesus' death mixed the worst kind of death to both Greeks and Romans, and also fit in the curse that the Jews had against anyone who died hanging on a tree. This offensiveness is called out explicitly in 1 Corinthians 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=HCSB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1...
- thret 12y ago
  I think you have it backwards. The 'brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness' of blood sacrifice is the whole point of Christianity. I realise Judaism has changed a lot, but in Jesus' time it was an unforgiving system. The death of Jesus was supposed to supplant all other kinds of sacrifice, and bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more - you simply had to ask for forgiveness. When you discuss OT scriptures you aren't talking about Christianity.
  - jobposter1234 12y ago
    > bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more I believe the Biblical narrative describing the significance of Jesus' sacrifice was about past sins, that which humans bore without actually committing. I do not believe the death of Jesus in any way suggests, in Christian folklore, that you don't need to atone for sins. FWIW, I think the Catholic Church (which didn't exist until hundreds of years after the whole Jesus thing) considers things like rosary prayers as atonement.
    - thret 12y ago
      My understanding is that Jesus' sacrifice was for all sins, past and future.
sp332 12y ago
The redemption of sinful people via blood sacrifice is the single strongest theme in the entire Christian canon (the Bible). Jesus' death as payment for other people's sins is prophesied repeatedly, and confirmed after the fact. e.g. Isaiah (written 700 years before Jesus' birth) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=HCSB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&versi... and this letter to the Hebrews written about 30 years after his death https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9-10&version=HCSB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9-10&ve...

nl 12y ago

The "standard" beliefs of Christianity are expressed in the Nicene creed[1][2]. Even recent evangelical churches believe the things listed there, although they probably don't recite the creed itself. Most mainstream Christians don't consider Mormons as Christians because they have added to the Bible, which is considered a heresy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_Creed_of_381 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_betwee... (note that "catholic" in this means "diverse" and doesn't specifically refer to the Catholic church) [2] the differences between the two creeds listed there are basically what split the Orthodox church from the Western church and indirectly led to the fall of Constantinople. So some people consider them fairly important, but others don't.