Would you consider Mormonism to be Christianity?

[Samof94]

What is your opinion of Mormonism and where does it fall in the spectrum of Christianity? Is it Protestant (if it is Christian, its theology is Protestant), Christian but its own brand, or is it something else entirely?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is its own branch of Christianity, separate from Protestantism.

[RI]

Christian in the same way Arians were Christians.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Christian in the same way Arians were Christians.

Yeah, people really ought to remember that Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox are all Nicene Christians, and thus from a theological standpoint are closer to each other than they are to more out-there branches like Mormons, Unitarians, and perhaps also Pentecostals.

[PSOL]

Christian in the same way Arians were Christians.

Yeah, people really ought to remember that Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox are all Nicene Christians, and thus from a theological standpoint are closer to each other than they are to more out-there branches like Mormons, Unitarians, and perhaps also Pentecostals.

How is sainthood seriously different from the Mormons claiming the righteous will become divine?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I'd call it the fourth major Abrahamic religion, along with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

[DaleCooper]

Completely separate religion.

[vitoNova]

lol  Why wouldn't it be?  

Yes, it was some dude from upstate New York who then moved to Utah who literally pulled nonsense out of his rectal hole.

But how is that any different from anything written in the OG Babbles, the Islamic Kookran, or L Ron Hubbard?

Just sayin'

[Blue3]

It’s Christian.

If you believe in Jesus as a positive role model in some fashion as a core of your religion, and you say you’re Christian, then you’re Christian.

It, like Jehovah Witnesses and Pentacolists and Unitarians and other branches founded in the last 100-300 years are much more distinct from the other Protestestant branches that came before. I’ve often seen them lumped together as a branch separate from Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestant, called Restorationist.  

But yes; they are Christian.

As Jesus said - who are we to judge? Let God decide in the end.

[LabourJersey]

They are Christian but not Nicene Christians.

Therefore, they aren't Protestant, even though they are tremendously influenced by the mainly Protestant culture of the antebellum Northern United States.

[wnwnwn]

My catholic upbringing tells me no.
A religion middle school textbook called them and the JW followers of "non chrstians but christian inspired religions/sects".

[Skill and Chance]

For the general population of Mormons, yes, absolutely.  For scholarly types who take Joseph Smith's writings and Brigham Young's sermons very literally, it gets more ambiguous. 

[nicholas.slaydon]

If you can create a definition of Christianity broad enough that Mormons could be considered Christians, then that definition would likely be broad enough for Muslims to be considered Christians. If you have to water down the definition of Christianity that much, then what does Christianity even mean?

[Sol]

I don't feel comfortable gatekeeping Christianity as a non-Christian.

As a sociological matter, they're definitely Christians, even if their theology is very different.

[Skill and Chance]

If you can create a definition of Christianity broad enough that Mormons could be considered Christians, then that definition would likely be broad enough for Muslims to be considered Christians. If you have to water down the definition of Christianity that much, then what does Christianity even mean?

This is pretty straightforward, actually.  Muslims reject the Resurrection. 

[RINO Tom]

lol  Why wouldn't it be?  

Yes, it was some dude from upstate New York who then moved to Utah who literally pulled nonsense out of his rectal hole.

But how is that any different from anything written in the OG Babbles, the Islamic Kookran, or L Ron Hubbard?

Just sayin'

Atheist philosophers who have enough intellect and expertise that they’re interested in more than trolling do not agree with you.  At all.

[Blue3]

If you can create a definition of Christianity broad enough that Mormons could be considered Christians, then that definition would likely be broad enough for Muslims to be considered Christians. If you have to water down the definition of Christianity that much, then what does Christianity even mean?

Muslims don’t consider themselves Christian. And Jesus isn’t at the core of their religion (even if he is an end-times messiah)

[NYDem]

I remember in a previous thread that I proposed this definition:

A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is the son of God, is a follower of teachings ascribed to him, and does not believe in god(s) other than the god(s) of the New and Old Testament.

Parenthesis there are to allow Gnostics or Christians with “heretical” views on the trinity to count, while excluding, say, a polytheist who adds Jesus to a pantheon.

Now I'm not an expert in Mormon theology by any means, but I believe that the Mormon concepts of the Heavenly Mother and of humans becoming gods (godlike? this is where I'm unclear) in Heaven would fail this definition I made up. It's an edge case either way.

[nicholas.slaydon]

If you can create a definition of Christianity broad enough that Mormons could be considered Christians, then that definition would likely be broad enough for Muslims to be considered Christians. If you have to water down the definition of Christianity that much, then what does Christianity even mean?

Muslims don’t consider themselves Christian. And Jesus isn’t at the core of their religion (even if he is an end-times messiah)

I think you could make a very good case the Jesus isn't really at the core of Mormonism either (Adam-God doctrine, Law of eternal progression, Elohim vs Jehovah, etc.) Especially early form of Mormonism (less so in recent years as Mormons have made a concerted effort to pivot towards a more Christian appearance and public persona within the last 50 or so years).

[RINO Tom]

My short answer is yes, in most "objective" situations.  For things like creating a family tree of religions/denominations or counting populations demographically, I think there should be two qualifications for being a Christian:

1. Self-identifying as a Christian.
2. Believing in the literal, historical Resurrection.

Those are deal breakers.  If you are a "follower of Jesus' teachings" but don't believe in the Resurrection, you are not a Christian in any meaningful sense.  Early Christians were adamant that their faith stands and falls on the truth of the Resurrection story.  Even early Unitarians who denied the actual divinity of Christ believed that God raised Him from the dead. 

Also, even if you might believe in SOME aspect of divinity surrounding (e.g., Muslims believing Jesus ascended into Heaven) but do not identify as a Christian, you are obviously not one.

Using these, Mormons (and Jehovah's Witnesses) check both boxes.  With that said, two more points just for conversation...

1. This is a point in Mormons' favor.  I think to be "heretical" as it relates to a certain religion, a group HAS to fall under the umbrella of that religion, at least in some sense.  I know others have provided pushback against this in pretty articulate ways, but I think there is a very clear intuitive difference between Arians and Buddhists.  The latter doesn't claim to be Christian, doesn't hold ANY of the key beliefs of the faith and therefore could never be called heretics, as the term just simply does not apply to them in any way.  However, Arians simply had severely problematic beliefs to be "orthodox," but they identified as Christians and held the VAST majority of traditional Christian beliefs (e.g., the virgin birth and historicity of the Resurrection).  Their belief that Jesus was a created being prevented them from being "orthodox" Christians, but for "orthodox Christian" to have any meaning, there MUST be "UN-orthodox Christians."  Otherwise, I believe it to be logically impossible to define Christian orthodoxy.  Thus, Mormons fit nicely into the "heretical Christians" group of Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nestorians, etc.

2. With that said, this is a point against Mormons.  Their theology SO radically redefines what God is in a classical theist sense that there is a VERY coherent argument that they are a separate religion.  The concept of "God" in classical theism is merely an infinite, immaterial consciousness that predates the Universe and acts as its first cause.  God cannot have a body or be created Himself or have a frickin' wife ... that redefines what God is.  And that's exactly what Mormonism does, as it teaches that God was once merely a man who became divine and shaped pre-existing and eternal elements to create the Universe.  Believing in eternal "elements" is closer to atheism than theism.  So, I actually think Mormons are MUCH more suspect as "Christians" than a group like Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Flyersfan232]

My short answer is yes, in most "objective" situations.  For things like creating a family tree of religions/denominations or counting populations demographically, I think there should be two qualifications for being a Christian:

1. Self-identifying as a Christian.
2. Believing in the literal, historical Resurrection.

Those are deal breakers.  If you are a "follower of Jesus' teachings" but don't believe in the Resurrection, you are not a Christian in any meaningful sense.  Early Christians were adamant that their faith stands and falls on the truth of the Resurrection story.  Even early Unitarians who denied the actual divinity of Christ believed that God raised Him from the dead. 

Also, even if you might believe in SOME aspect of divinity surrounding (e.g., Muslims believing Jesus ascended into Heaven) but do not identify as a Christian, you are obviously not one.

Using these, Mormons (and Jehovah's Witnesses) check both boxes.  With that said, two more points just for conversation...

1. This is a point in Mormons' favor.  I think to be "heretical" as it relates to a certain religion, a group HAS to fall under the umbrella of that religion, at least in some sense.  I know others have provided pushback against this in pretty articulate ways, but I think there is a very clear intuitive difference between Arians and Buddhists.  The latter doesn't claim to be Christian, doesn't hold ANY of the key beliefs of the faith and therefore could never be called heretics, as the term just simply does not apply to them in any way.  However, Arians simply had severely problematic beliefs to be "orthodox," but they identified as Christians and held the VAST majority of traditional Christian beliefs (e.g., the virgin birth and historicity of the Resurrection).  Their belief that Jesus was a created being prevented them from being "orthodox" Christians, but for "orthodox Christian" to have any meaning, there MUST be "UN-orthodox Christians."  Otherwise, I believe it to be logically impossible to define Christian orthodoxy.  Thus, Mormons fit nicely into the "heretical Christians" group of Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nestorians, etc.

2. With that said, this is a point against Mormons.  Their theology SO radically redefines what God is in a classical theist sense that there is a VERY coherent argument that they are a separate religion.  The concept of "God" in classical theism is merely an infinite, immaterial consciousness that predates the Universe and acts as its first cause.  God cannot have a body or be created Himself or have a frickin' wife ... that redefines what God is.  And that's exactly what Mormonism does, as it teaches that God was once merely a man who became divine and shaped pre-existing and eternal elements to create the Universe.  Believing in eternal "elements" is closer to atheism than theism.  So, I actually think Mormons are MUCH more suspect as "Christians" than a group like Jehovah's Witnesses.

wouldnt your definition also include a number of cults?

[RINO Tom]

My short answer is yes, in most "objective" situations.  For things like creating a family tree of religions/denominations or counting populations demographically, I think there should be two qualifications for being a Christian:

1. Self-identifying as a Christian.
2. Believing in the literal, historical Resurrection.

Those are deal breakers.  If you are a "follower of Jesus' teachings" but don't believe in the Resurrection, you are not a Christian in any meaningful sense.  Early Christians were adamant that their faith stands and falls on the truth of the Resurrection story.  Even early Unitarians who denied the actual divinity of Christ believed that God raised Him from the dead. 

Also, even if you might believe in SOME aspect of divinity surrounding (e.g., Muslims believing Jesus ascended into Heaven) but do not identify as a Christian, you are obviously not one.

Using these, Mormons (and Jehovah's Witnesses) check both boxes.  With that said, two more points just for conversation...

1. This is a point in Mormons' favor.  I think to be "heretical" as it relates to a certain religion, a group HAS to fall under the umbrella of that religion, at least in some sense.  I know others have provided pushback against this in pretty articulate ways, but I think there is a very clear intuitive difference between Arians and Buddhists.  The latter doesn't claim to be Christian, doesn't hold ANY of the key beliefs of the faith and therefore could never be called heretics, as the term just simply does not apply to them in any way.  However, Arians simply had severely problematic beliefs to be "orthodox," but they identified as Christians and held the VAST majority of traditional Christian beliefs (e.g., the virgin birth and historicity of the Resurrection).  Their belief that Jesus was a created being prevented them from being "orthodox" Christians, but for "orthodox Christian" to have any meaning, there MUST be "UN-orthodox Christians."  Otherwise, I believe it to be logically impossible to define Christian orthodoxy.  Thus, Mormons fit nicely into the "heretical Christians" group of Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nestorians, etc.

2. With that said, this is a point against Mormons.  Their theology SO radically redefines what God is in a classical theist sense that there is a VERY coherent argument that they are a separate religion.  The concept of "God" in classical theism is merely an infinite, immaterial consciousness that predates the Universe and acts as its first cause.  God cannot have a body or be created Himself or have a frickin' wife ... that redefines what God is.  And that's exactly what Mormonism does, as it teaches that God was once merely a man who became divine and shaped pre-existing and eternal elements to create the Universe.  Believing in eternal "elements" is closer to atheism than theism.  So, I actually think Mormons are MUCH more suspect as "Christians" than a group like Jehovah's Witnesses.

wouldnt your definition also include a number of cults?

I suppose that would depend on how you are defining cults?  But yeah, I think something like some of the Gnostic groups would have been accurately labeled as "Christian cults."  However, a KEY quality of a cult (at least IMO) is exclusivity and a secretive nature - something that has never defined hardly any Christian groups from the beginning, as most have freely shared all of their holy scriptures and focused on evangelizing anyone everyone.  Compare that to Scientology where you literally have to pay money to learn the basic cosmology narrative.

[dead0man]

it's like with trans people innit?  If they think they are Christian (or a lady), who the hell are any of us to gate keep what makes someone a Christian or a lady?  The only problem here is when they try to include themselves in Christian (or lady) organizations, in which case the organizations job IS to gate keep and they should have that ability.  In rare cases, this is going to be a problem (if the organization is run by the govt.  If the organization is private, they should be able to exclude whomever they want and you are free to start your own private organization that does the same thing and you can have it include or exclude anyone you like), and there will be losers, there is no way around it.

but for the other 99.99% of the time, just let the people be whatever they want to be, pee wherever they want to pee (in private, obviously).  Who the hell cares?

[Aurelius2]

It's Christian, but not Christian.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No it's not.