Interesting.... This page doesn't say much but what it does say is this, "The Space Exploration Vision Center is now open in Washington D.C. This facility showcases the latest developments in space exploration, concepts and technologies for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program, including a full-scale cockpit simulator. Government tours and meetings are available five days a week." I want on one of those tours.
God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh....it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus...both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father... The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife, hence the virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the Lawful wife of God the Father. (The Seer, by Apostle Orson Pratt, October 1853, Vol. 1, No. 10, p. 158)
President Ezra Taft Benson stated, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was fathered by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!" (Benson, p. 4). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, p. 725, 1992; The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7)
The Being whom we call Father was the Father of the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he was also his Father pertaining to the flesh. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 7:286, October 9, 1859)
My understanding of LDS doctrine is not from propaganda-- it's from reading Mormon literature.
I think the problem of evil is the most difficult - personally. It is also an issue for atheists as it implies the existance of an absolute morality, and where did that come from?
I'd reply to your first question but I'd probably get a whole 'nother bunch of people yelling at me and I'm worn out.
She could totally land that gig. She can not only do the flaming hand thing she can also do the flaming eyes thing too. And based on previous experienced involving brooms, I have no doubt she'd have no trouble swinging around staffs or swords or whatever.
She'd balk at the bikini thing-- but a few minutes of aforementioned skills in the dark arts would bring the sony folks around.
just for a little truth in advertising-- I exagerated the exclusivity part there a bit-- not intentionally. I have 3 friends with every possible dot thing - unless there is a fifth relationship of which I am unaware.
I'm off topic here but I think today I've proven karma is not my top concern. I like your sig first time I've see that. Clever.
And just as interesting is the list of my friends who have you as a foe and the friends who have you as a friend. No pattern I can see. Other than a couple are people who foed me that I friended (that's my rule-- seems like the right thing to do) there is quite a mix of viewpoints there. Now if you friend me you join that exclusive list of people - that when I see their user id, it is accompanied by every possible colored dot thing. There are only a couple of those at this point. Maybe even one - I'll have to go take a look. (Yeah, I'm that much of a nerd)
I really appreciate this response as it is the first one that has given me some insight into what has really bothered people about what I said. I've got a JE that may get some more input but this is very helpful.
I don't mean to insinuate anything about what a mormon believes other than it is very different from the inertia and meaning that has piled up in the word 'Christian' over time. I don't mean to offend I merely seek specificity in language.
Words, like a map, only represent a real place. They are not the place itself. I did not know what I was starting here. At least it is good to know in the future that if I use the word Christian that there are people who are going to see it in a much broader sense than I do.
I think I've been pretty up front about what I think seperates the two belief systems. I understand your point-- but I would say that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant-- these are all Christian. Yes they are different but their underlying philosophical assertions about the very nature of God are quite similar. The teachings of the LDS church in regards to the very nature of God are incompatible with the three mentioned above. So prove any of those three is not Christian and you will have completely destroyed every assertion that I have made.
Your wide range of inclusion supports my point that pulling mormonism inside Christianity and removing the distinguishing features of the word make it meaningless.
The Mormons may have more unique features than most variants of Christianity, but they still share a basic core
And what core is that? That there was a person named Jesus. Other than that there is no common core. Christianity and Mormonism disagree on the very nature of God, the very nature of Christ. The disagree on the most fundamental level.
I'm not even saying lets find the earliest definition and go with it. I'm saying lets look at everybody who is a Christian over the last couple thousand years and find what they have in common. Things like the trinity, God as an omnipresent, omniscient spirit. Things that mormonism redefines.
I am trying to appeal to an objective definition based on majority use over a long period of time. I am not saying that at some point in the future the term Christianity wont encompass mormonism. What I am saying is that right now-- to include it -- you must gut the term of much of its meaning.
Maybe that already happened and I'm really late to the party. But I would like to find a person with serious theological credentials who would be comfortable with jettisoning so much meaning from a word. It certainly makes the discussion of certain things much more cumbersome.
I have not read the entire book of Mormon. I have read a good portion of it. I own a copy of it and some other significant Mormon literature. I have seen those parts of mormon worship that are open to be seen by someone who is not a part of their church. (this is not a knock on them-- just clarification on what I know)
I'm not trying to troll. I would think that this is apparent in the fact that I have done my best to carry on the discussion that I started. (I had no idea it would be like this though)
Mormonism does not add a layer to Christianity-- adding but not subtracting. I would posit that it alters the very core of Christianity and this is why I object to the lack of a distinction between the two. Here is why I think so.
Christianity teaches that God the father is Spirit- Mormonism denies this
Mormonism teaches that God the Father and God the Son (Jesus) are one and the same person - Mormonism denies this
Christianity teaches that Satan is a fallen creation of God- Mormonism teaches that Satan is equal with Christ- his brother
Christianity teaches that Christ though fully God became man incarnate- Mormonism teaches that Christ came to be as the result of an incestuous relationship between God and Mary (not my words- a leader of the mormon churches words)
Christianity teaches that God is 'wholly other' and created man. Man will always be below God as man. Mormonism denies this - all men are God's direct offspring and may someday be Gods themselves.
I think this goes beyond just adding. But I truly am not trolling. I am taken aback by the number of vehement responses I've generated. I am searching for the why in this. Why my saying mormonism and what has been called Christianity for the last couple thousand years are different is such a big deal.
I don't know why you think I hate mormons. I happen to live in an area where quite a few mormons live. I have no ill will towards anyone based on their creed.
I don't remember 'admitting' I was an evangelical. I don't consider it an offense that needs to be confessed.
I am for some reason interested in preciseness of language. I don't consider it a semantic knot to say that Mormonism and the essential tenets of anything previously defined as Christianity are incompatible. In what way is this a knock on mormonism? I am saying they are different enough that we should use different words to describe them. I would prefer that the definition used for most of the last couple thousand years for Christianity be kept. Why this generates such a visceral reaction is something I don't understand.
Judaism has major tenents that define what it is. I believe that Christianity is based on the correct interpretation of the Old Testament and that Judaism is in error. Yet I don't tell people I am Jewish. This is because I understand that what I believe is such a departure from what Judaism teaches.
When we stretch words to cover everything you end up with the post above which does an excellent job of illustrating my point. It essentially says - 'Just about everything is Christianity' Or to put it another way - the term Christianity means very little.
I consider this a theological issue that need not include name calling or bad feelings. It is merely my opinion on the definition of a term. I am sorry again that you found my opinion offensive.
Today's best irony is this whole subthread was provoked by some troll that has the same ugly negativism while dissing Mormons.
If you are talking about the homophobic comment-- that's between you and that guy. If this is in regards to my comment I couldn't disagree more strongly. It wasn't a troll, ugly negativism or a desire to diss mormons that prompted me to speak up. I am sorry you think so. I have no idea why someone saying mormonism is not Christianity is dissing. Noone calls me Jewish but it doesn't bother me a bit. I know what Judaism stands for and I know that I hold to a different set of beliefs-- that have common roots with Judaism but have such different interpretations of the same scriptures that it is inaccurate to classify what I believe as Judaism.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow you. I agree with the first part. Christianity radically redefines Judaism. I would not go around claiming that Christianity is Judaism-- it is radically different due to the doctrine of the trinity. In fact when I read that line I thought, "Ah... Someone who understands what I am saying."
But I'm not sure what you are talking about in regards to the third coming and the paradox. You do have me curious though if you would like to explain further.
I am sure you are a very nice person. I hope I have not offended you. I wont post any more view points-- I think we've exhausted those. I think we can safely say that each of us has a different definition of what Christianity is and we do not agree.
For what it is worth -- I believe that the specificity I seek in the term Christianity is eroding and this argument will be mute down the road. That should make you happy. I knew that when I kicked this off. But I still mention the 'true' meaning of hacker when I hear it used incorrectly as well. So like I said, I'm not that bright.
I didn't say there wouldn't be someone who said so-- I was responding to the specific item listed "Born again Christians " think so.
That's pretty open still so I would like to see a conservative evangelical that says mormons are Christians. See how many terms have been watered down? One is forced to be more and more verbose-- and it doesn't need to be that way.
I'm not trying to argue-- since I don't think were going to agree at some point. But I'll try to state it one more time 'cause I guess I'm just that dumb. (It has been hard as well to keep this thread up since so few will post logged in)
I think that there is usefulness in defining Christianity as a trinitarian religion. I believe the case for that is objectively supported by history. Mormonism unequivocally rejects the doctrine of the trinity. (Once again-- whether or not it is true is irrelevant) So the two belief systems are fundamentally different. That's all.
I could call my saturn wagon a pick-up truck all day. I could get really ticked off if someone said it wasn't a truck. I could point out all the similarities between it and a truck (they vastly outnumber the differences) But it would not change the fact that it is not a truck. If I could get everyone to call it a truck, it would only mean the word truck had just become a more generic term for something else.
Well you can read the thread-- and I'm starting to have a hard time keeping track of it all-- but just in case someone else comes along and doesn't dig.... I'm not trolling. I'm not trying to be funny or bigoted. I think that there is an argument to be made -- that ignores the veracity of Christianity and Mormonism-- from history that the two systems do not all describe the same belief system. I think it would be helpful to communication to maintain the distinction between them. Christianity is somewhat unique due to it's doctrine of the trinity. To take a non trinitarian system and mix it in, waters down the term and damages its usefulness.
I believe that an accurate definition of Christianity is found in looking at the history of Christianity. I don't care much for slippery words that aren't backed up with some objective meaning.
Your link mentions anti-mormons. I'm not anti-mormon. I am not trying to refute what Mormons believe. I don't consider myself an expert in what Mormons believe. I do like to define things on some objective basis and I think the most useful tool in regards to defining Christianity is the one I have mentioned throughout this thread. And by that standard mormonism fails to meet the definition. I don't think this has any bearing on the validity of the religion- I just think it is a more accurate way to describe religious systems.
If mormonism and christianity are the same thing then the term christianity is really pretty much useless.
Mormons believe in all three beings, however we see them as three separate beings. We believe them to be distinct, separate entities, however joined in purpose and nature.(emphasis mine)
In other words: Mormons don't believe in the trinity.
Mormonism and historical Christianity share almost nothing in common in their interpretation of scripture. I'm not sure why the need to be perceived as Christian.
I would disagree and go with the first quote they have-- define it by its history. Their definition basically states that the term Christianity means nothing objectively. If that is true the word is useless.
I posted another reply already that lists what is commonly held to be the primary doctrines of Christianity. The trinity is the first. I don't think the concept of the trinity could be considered nitpicking. It is the thing that most differentiates Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions. In fact were it not for that-- Christianity would be more an offshoot of Judaism than anything else.
The ramifications of the trinity are huge. They show up in the places where the mormonism and Christianity don't meet. God being spirit. The incarnation. Humankinds destiny in regards to after this life. The list is long.
I'd love to see a single source where a conservative evangelical (born again) says that Mormons are Christians.
This is very easy to settle from a historical perspective with a single word- Trinity.
A lot of times I've seen this discussion turned into an issue of what Mormonism teaches. But that is really not necessary. Merely define Christianity. Then tell me that mormonism fits that definition. Here's a definition for Christian doctrine from wikipedia:
The most uniform and broadly accepted tradition of doctrine, with the longest continuous representation, repeatedly reaffirmed by official Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant definitions (although not without dissent, as noted below) asserts that specific beliefs are essential to Christianity, including but not limited to:
* God is a Trinity, the single eternal being existing in three persons: Father, Son (Divine Logos, incarnated as Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit.
* Jesus is both fully God and fully human, two "natures" in one person.
* Mary, the mother of Jesus, bore in her womb and gave birth to the Son of God (who is, himself, likewise God), who although eternally existent was formed in her womb by the Spirit of God. From her humanity he received in his person a human intellect and will, and all else that a child would naturally receive from its mother.
* Jesus is the Messiah hoped for by the Jews, the heir to the throne of David. He reigns at the right hand of the Father with all authority and power forevermore. He is the hope of all mankind, their advocate and judge. Until he returns at the end of the world, the Church has the authority and obligation to preach the Gospel and to gather new disciples.
* Jesus was innocent of any sin. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, believers are forgiven of sins and reconciled to God. Although virtually all Christians agree on this, there are a variety of views on the Significance of Jesus' resurrection. Believers are baptized into the resurrection and new life (or death in some groups) of Christ. Through faith, they live by the promise of resurrection from death to everlasting life through Christ. The Holy Spirit is sent to them by Christ, to bring hope and lead mankind into true knowledge of God and His purposes, and help them grow in holiness.
* Jesus will return personally, and bodily, to judge all mankind and receive the faithful to himself, so they will live forever in the intimate presence of God.
* Some Christians, particularly in the West, refer to the Bible as the "Word of God." Other Christians, particularly in the East, believe that Jesus alone is the Word of God, and see Scripture as an authoritative book, inspired by God but written by men. As a result of these differing views, many Christians disagree to varying degrees about how accurate the Bible is and how it should be interpreted.
Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.
I'm not a troll-- just interested in accuracy. There is no need for this to be an issue of opinion. Words have definitions. I guess you could make the definition of Christian to be 'Person who believes in a God' and then every deist is a Christian (Don't tell the muslims - they may take offense)
But if one is slightly interested in maintaining the term Christianity to refer to a set of beliefs that have existed for a bit of time now-- you can't apply it to Mormonism.
Slashdot Mirror
Grumman is teamed up with Boeing on theirs. So if this goes anything like the JSF contest Lockheed will win over the pregnant space guppy.
A few links right to locmart:
Main CEV Page Has the graphics shown in the other articles, etc.
Couple Page PDF Early on stuff about CEV
Interesting.... This page doesn't say much but what it does say is this, "The Space Exploration Vision Center is now open in Washington D.C. This facility showcases the latest developments in space exploration, concepts and technologies for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program, including a full-scale cockpit simulator. Government tours and meetings are available five days a week." I want on one of those tours.
God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh....it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus...both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father... The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife, hence the virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the Lawful wife of God the Father. (The Seer, by Apostle Orson Pratt, October 1853, Vol. 1, No. 10, p. 158)
President Ezra Taft Benson stated, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was fathered by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!" (Benson, p. 4). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, p. 725, 1992; The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7)
The Being whom we call Father was the Father of the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he was also his Father pertaining to the flesh. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 7:286, October 9, 1859)
My understanding of LDS doctrine is not from propaganda-- it's from reading Mormon literature.
I think the problem of evil is the most difficult - personally. It is also an issue for atheists as it implies the existance of an absolute morality, and where did that come from?
I'd reply to your first question but I'd probably get a whole 'nother bunch of people yelling at me and I'm worn out.
She could totally land that gig. She can not only do the flaming hand thing she can also do the flaming eyes thing too. And based on previous experienced involving brooms, I have no doubt she'd have no trouble swinging around staffs or swords or whatever.
She'd balk at the bikini thing-- but a few minutes of aforementioned skills in the dark arts would bring the sony folks around.
just for a little truth in advertising-- I exagerated the exclusivity part there a bit-- not intentionally. I have 3 friends with every possible dot thing - unless there is a fifth relationship of which I am unaware.
I'm off topic here but I think today I've proven karma is not my top concern. I like your sig first time I've see that. Clever.
And just as interesting is the list of my friends who have you as a foe and the friends who have you as a friend. No pattern I can see. Other than a couple are people who foed me that I friended (that's my rule-- seems like the right thing to do) there is quite a mix of viewpoints there. Now if you friend me you join that exclusive list of people - that when I see their user id, it is accompanied by every possible colored dot thing. There are only a couple of those at this point. Maybe even one - I'll have to go take a look. (Yeah, I'm that much of a nerd)
I really appreciate this response as it is the first one that has given me some insight into what has really bothered people about what I said. I've got a JE that may get some more input but this is very helpful.
I don't mean to insinuate anything about what a mormon believes other than it is very different from the inertia and meaning that has piled up in the word 'Christian' over time. I don't mean to offend I merely seek specificity in language.
Words, like a map, only represent a real place. They are not the place itself. I did not know what I was starting here. At least it is good to know in the future that if I use the word Christian that there are people who are going to see it in a much broader sense than I do.
I think I've been pretty up front about what I think seperates the two belief systems. I understand your point-- but I would say that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant-- these are all Christian. Yes they are different but their underlying philosophical assertions about the very nature of God are quite similar. The teachings of the LDS church in regards to the very nature of God are incompatible with the three mentioned above. So prove any of those three is not Christian and you will have completely destroyed every assertion that I have made.
Your wide range of inclusion supports my point that pulling mormonism inside Christianity and removing the distinguishing features of the word make it meaningless.
The Mormons may have more unique features than most variants of Christianity, but they still share a basic core
And what core is that? That there was a person named Jesus. Other than that there is no common core. Christianity and Mormonism disagree on the very nature of God, the very nature of Christ. The disagree on the most fundamental level.
I'm not even saying lets find the earliest definition and go with it. I'm saying lets look at everybody who is a Christian over the last couple thousand years and find what they have in common. Things like the trinity, God as an omnipresent, omniscient spirit. Things that mormonism redefines.
I am trying to appeal to an objective definition based on majority use over a long period of time. I am not saying that at some point in the future the term Christianity wont encompass mormonism. What I am saying is that right now-- to include it -- you must gut the term of much of its meaning.
Maybe that already happened and I'm really late to the party. But I would like to find a person with serious theological credentials who would be comfortable with jettisoning so much meaning from a word. It certainly makes the discussion of certain things much more cumbersome.
I'm not trying to troll. I would think that this is apparent in the fact that I have done my best to carry on the discussion that I started. (I had no idea it would be like this though)
Mormonism does not add a layer to Christianity-- adding but not subtracting. I would posit that it alters the very core of Christianity and this is why I object to the lack of a distinction between the two. Here is why I think so.
I think this goes beyond just adding. But I truly am not trolling. I am taken aback by the number of vehement responses I've generated. I am searching for the why in this. Why my saying mormonism and what has been called Christianity for the last couple thousand years are different is such a big deal.
I don't know why you foed me.
I don't know why you think I hate mormons. I happen to live in an area where quite a few mormons live. I have no ill will towards anyone based on their creed.
I don't remember 'admitting' I was an evangelical. I don't consider it an offense that needs to be confessed.
I am for some reason interested in preciseness of language. I don't consider it a semantic knot to say that Mormonism and the essential tenets of anything previously defined as Christianity are incompatible. In what way is this a knock on mormonism? I am saying they are different enough that we should use different words to describe them. I would prefer that the definition used for most of the last couple thousand years for Christianity be kept. Why this generates such a visceral reaction is something I don't understand.
Judaism has major tenents that define what it is. I believe that Christianity is based on the correct interpretation of the Old Testament and that Judaism is in error. Yet I don't tell people I am Jewish. This is because I understand that what I believe is such a departure from what Judaism teaches.
When we stretch words to cover everything you end up with the post above which does an excellent job of illustrating my point. It essentially says - 'Just about everything is Christianity' Or to put it another way - the term Christianity means very little.
I consider this a theological issue that need not include name calling or bad feelings. It is merely my opinion on the definition of a term. I am sorry again that you found my opinion offensive.
Today's best irony is this whole subthread was provoked by some troll that has the same ugly negativism while dissing Mormons.
If you are talking about the homophobic comment-- that's between you and that guy. If this is in regards to my comment I couldn't disagree more strongly. It wasn't a troll, ugly negativism or a desire to diss mormons that prompted me to speak up. I am sorry you think so. I have no idea why someone saying mormonism is not Christianity is dissing. Noone calls me Jewish but it doesn't bother me a bit. I know what Judaism stands for and I know that I hold to a different set of beliefs-- that have common roots with Judaism but have such different interpretations of the same scriptures that it is inaccurate to classify what I believe as Judaism.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow you. I agree with the first part. Christianity radically redefines Judaism. I would not go around claiming that Christianity is Judaism-- it is radically different due to the doctrine of the trinity. In fact when I read that line I thought, "Ah... Someone who understands what I am saying."
But I'm not sure what you are talking about in regards to the third coming and the paradox. You do have me curious though if you would like to explain further.
I am sure you are a very nice person. I hope I have not offended you. I wont post any more view points-- I think we've exhausted those. I think we can safely say that each of us has a different definition of what Christianity is and we do not agree.
For what it is worth -- I believe that the specificity I seek in the term Christianity is eroding and this argument will be mute down the road. That should make you happy. I knew that when I kicked this off. But I still mention the 'true' meaning of hacker when I hear it used incorrectly as well. So like I said, I'm not that bright.
I didn't say there wouldn't be someone who said so-- I was responding to the specific item listed "Born again Christians " think so.
That's pretty open still so I would like to see a conservative evangelical that says mormons are Christians. See how many terms have been watered down? One is forced to be more and more verbose-- and it doesn't need to be that way.
I'm not trying to argue-- since I don't think were going to agree at some point. But I'll try to state it one more time 'cause I guess I'm just that dumb. (It has been hard as well to keep this thread up since so few will post logged in)
I think that there is usefulness in defining Christianity as a trinitarian religion. I believe the case for that is objectively supported by history. Mormonism unequivocally rejects the doctrine of the trinity. (Once again-- whether or not it is true is irrelevant) So the two belief systems are fundamentally different. That's all.
I could call my saturn wagon a pick-up truck all day. I could get really ticked off if someone said it wasn't a truck. I could point out all the similarities between it and a truck (they vastly outnumber the differences) But it would not change the fact that it is not a truck. If I could get everyone to call it a truck, it would only mean the word truck had just become a more generic term for something else.
Well you can read the thread-- and I'm starting to have a hard time keeping track of it all-- but just in case someone else comes along and doesn't dig.... I'm not trolling. I'm not trying to be funny or bigoted. I think that there is an argument to be made -- that ignores the veracity of Christianity and Mormonism-- from history that the two systems do not all describe the same belief system. I think it would be helpful to communication to maintain the distinction between them. Christianity is somewhat unique due to it's doctrine of the trinity. To take a non trinitarian system and mix it in, waters down the term and damages its usefulness.
I believe that an accurate definition of Christianity is found in looking at the history of Christianity. I don't care much for slippery words that aren't backed up with some objective meaning.
Your link mentions anti-mormons. I'm not anti-mormon. I am not trying to refute what Mormons believe. I don't consider myself an expert in what Mormons believe. I do like to define things on some objective basis and I think the most useful tool in regards to defining Christianity is the one I have mentioned throughout this thread. And by that standard mormonism fails to meet the definition. I don't think this has any bearing on the validity of the religion- I just think it is a more accurate way to describe religious systems.
If mormonism and christianity are the same thing then the term christianity is really pretty much useless.
Mormons believe in all three beings, however we see them as three separate beings. We believe them to be distinct, separate entities, however joined in purpose and nature.(emphasis mine)
In other words: Mormons don't believe in the trinity.
Mormonism and historical Christianity share almost nothing in common in their interpretation of scripture. I'm not sure why the need to be perceived as Christian.
I would disagree and go with the first quote they have-- define it by its history. Their definition basically states that the term Christianity means nothing objectively. If that is true the word is useless.
I posted another reply already that lists what is commonly held to be the primary doctrines of Christianity. The trinity is the first. I don't think the concept of the trinity could be considered nitpicking. It is the thing that most differentiates Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions. In fact were it not for that-- Christianity would be more an offshoot of Judaism than anything else.
The ramifications of the trinity are huge. They show up in the places where the mormonism and Christianity don't meet. God being spirit. The incarnation. Humankinds destiny in regards to after this life. The list is long.
I'd love to see a single source where a conservative evangelical (born again) says that Mormons are Christians.
This is very easy to settle from a historical perspective with a single word- Trinity.
A lot of times I've seen this discussion turned into an issue of what Mormonism teaches. But that is really not necessary. Merely define Christianity. Then tell me that mormonism fits that definition. Here's a definition for Christian doctrine from wikipedia:
The most uniform and broadly accepted tradition of doctrine, with the longest continuous representation, repeatedly reaffirmed by official Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant definitions (although not without dissent, as noted below) asserts that specific beliefs are essential to Christianity, including but not limited to:
* God is a Trinity, the single eternal being existing in three persons: Father, Son (Divine Logos, incarnated as Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit.
* Jesus is both fully God and fully human, two "natures" in one person.
* Mary, the mother of Jesus, bore in her womb and gave birth to the Son of God (who is, himself, likewise God), who although eternally existent was formed in her womb by the Spirit of God. From her humanity he received in his person a human intellect and will, and all else that a child would naturally receive from its mother.
* Jesus is the Messiah hoped for by the Jews, the heir to the throne of David. He reigns at the right hand of the Father with all authority and power forevermore. He is the hope of all mankind, their advocate and judge. Until he returns at the end of the world, the Church has the authority and obligation to preach the Gospel and to gather new disciples.
* Jesus was innocent of any sin. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, believers are forgiven of sins and reconciled to God. Although virtually all Christians agree on this, there are a variety of views on the Significance of Jesus' resurrection. Believers are baptized into the resurrection and new life (or death in some groups) of Christ. Through faith, they live by the promise of resurrection from death to everlasting life through Christ. The Holy Spirit is sent to them by Christ, to bring hope and lead mankind into true knowledge of God and His purposes, and help them grow in holiness.
* Jesus will return personally, and bodily, to judge all mankind and receive the faithful to himself, so they will live forever in the intimate presence of God.
* Some Christians, particularly in the West, refer to the Bible as the "Word of God." Other Christians, particularly in the East, believe that Jesus alone is the Word of God, and see Scripture as an authoritative book, inspired by God but written by men. As a result of these differing views, many Christians disagree to varying degrees about how accurate the Bible is and how it should be interpreted.
from the article:
Why did it last so long?
Here's what I think: Most people weren't reading all that brilliant science fiction. Most people weren't reading at all. So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by.
I'm not a troll-- just interested in accuracy. There is no need for this to be an issue of opinion. Words have definitions. I guess you could make the definition of Christian to be 'Person who believes in a God' and then every deist is a Christian (Don't tell the muslims - they may take offense)
But if one is slightly interested in maintaining the term Christianity to refer to a set of beliefs that have existed for a bit of time now-- you can't apply it to Mormonism.