Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[guanophore]

CLAIMING IT WAS RESTORING something that was LOST [THE KEYS].

Losing the keys is not the same as Peter not being given keys, is it?

and POINTED to the LARGE SET OF KEYS in Peter’s right hand, he proclaimed: ‘The keys of priesthood authority which PETER HELD as President of the Church

This seems to contradict your previous statement:

Mormons and most all the 40,000 business ventures completely reject this idea that Jesus gave Peter keys.

On the contrary, it is an assertion that what was given to Peter was lost by Catholic corruption.

The rest of your post just seems like Mormon bashing, and says nothing to support the false assertion that Protestants claim Peter was not given keys.

I don’t recognize Mormons as Christians, so they don’t qualify as Protestants. So you still have not defended your assertion that Protestants deny Jesus gave Peter Keys.

One has to wonder what your agenda is here on CAF?

 

[virgo]

Jumping in with a quick question about the fact that someone mentioned “non-creedal” religions automatically not being Christian. Do I have that right? I find it strange that the lack of a “mission statement” would label a religion as non-Christian.

 

[Horton]

A creed isn’t a mission statement. It is a profession of faith. We state what we as an individual and as the Body of Christ believe. It’s so much more than a mission statement.

 

[virgo]

Gotcha. Doesn’t the LDS church have the Articles of Faith? I would consider that a creed. :woman_shrugging:t2:

 

[Stephen168]

Creedal means believing the faith according to the Nicene Creed.

 

[virgo]

So you have to believe exclusively in the Nicene creed to be considered Christian? Wow.

 

[Stephen168]

I never said exclusively. I defined creedal.

 

[Horton]

And the LDS strongly claim their articles of faith are NOT a creed.

 

[virgo]

Gotcha. Well, but are we then taking their word for it? Why not take their word for everything else? It sure reads like a creed.

 

[TOmNossor]

And the LDS strongly claim their articles of faith are NOT a creed.

Gotcha. Well, but are we then taking their word for it? Why not take their word for everything else? It sure reads like a creed.

I am a LDS and there is an anti-creedal strain within Mormonism. Joseph Smith said:

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ [Job 38:11]; which I cannot subscribe to.”

“I say to all those who are disposed to set up stakes for the Almighty, You will come short of the glory of God. To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.”

“The great thing for us to know is to comprehend what God did institute before the foundation of the world. Who knows it? It is the constitutional disposition of mankind to set up stakes and set bounds to the works and ways of the Almighty. … That which hath been hid from before the foundation of the world is revealed to babes and sucklings in the last days [see D&C 128:18].”

The Articles of Faith are actually a CREED. They function as a creed like other creeds EXCEPT for a few things:

1. They are not absolutely inerrant. This is not a thing the LDS embrace.
2. They do not mark boundaries for membership in the CoJCoLDS. Creeds like the Nicene Creed were worded so the Arians could not remain in the church (as I said earlier).
3. They also are not FINAL statements. As God reveals Himself to the church and to individuals we can know more than we knew when we embraced the Articles of Faith.

Thomas Aquinas met God and called all of his writings STRAW. His writings were logical progressions from Catholic non-negotiables contained in CREEDS. Aquinas had no way to unwind his BRILLIANT synthesis of Catholic Creedal teachings. Thus, Aquinas told multiple people his writings were straw and never clarified. God IMO is not the God described in the Summa. Without passions, immutable, … this is a mistaken understanding of God. Aquinas knew that after he met God on December 6, 1273, he could write no more and could not clarify why. He merely said it was all straw relative to coming into the presence of God. This is what Joseph Smith who also came into the presence of God said about the CREEDS.

Charity, TOm

 

[virgo]

I can SO relate to Joseph Smith.

 

[FrDavid96]

I realize the answer to this whole question about who is a Christian will be skewed here toward the acceptance of the Trinity. But it could also be looked at as in Antioch where the term was first used to describe followers of Christ. Or it could be looked at as simply those who accept Jesus Christ as savior. Or perhaps even those who believe Jesus was indeed a significant figure whose teachings they strive to follow as they understand them in their own faith journeys.

There are two different ways of looking at it.

For purposes of canon law, a person who is validly baptised (and here the reader should insert all the criteria for a valid baptism) is accounted a “Christian.” Anyone not-baptized is accounted a non-Christian. That status applies to individual persons, not to communities.

At the same time, the Church also says that some communities either do, or do not, practice valid baptism.

Alongside the canonical definition of Christian, we might also use the word to describe anyone who believes in Christ; not just by name or by reference, but one who actually believes in the Christ Who lived 2000 years ago, was crucified, died, and rose.

That excludes groups like Mormons who believe in an entirely different Jesus than the one who lived 2000 years ago.

It also excludes Unitarians because Unitarians believe in combining all religions together and believing that non-Christian faiths (such as Hindu and Moslem etc.) are all true and all valid. So, while they might sometimes have a practice that has all the external appearances of Baptism (water, mentioning the Trinity, etc) since they don’t believe that the God of Christianity is the only God (but just one among many equals), their ceremonies are not true baptisms.

There are those who believe in the true Jesus Christ, but who have never been baptised; at least, they believe most of what is essential in Christian belief. Obviously, they do not believe or profess the entirety of the Christian faith. We can still call these people “Christians” (and indeed, sometimes we must), even though they do not meet the definition of Christian as it is used in canon law. If the issue is a canonical one (such as a mixed marriage involving one Catholic party) then we use the canonical definition. If it’s a matter of conversation, or other matter not involving the canons, we can still use the word Christian to describe them.

 

[FrDavid96]

Maximilian75:

The Trinity seems to be the only thing that all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox) hold in common.

These two do not.

What’s their status?

A person who is baptized in Trinitarian baptism is a Christian.

Those who are unbaptized (even if they go to a church that is a Trinitarian ecclesial community) and those who are baptized in a non-Trinitarian baptism are not Christians.

Keep in mind that they may believe that they are, may call themselves Christian, may be “followers of Christ”. But to actually be incorporated into the Body of Christ-- one must be validly baptized.

Yes, however…

Those two distinctions that you articulated: being accounted a “christian” under canon law and being “incorporated into the Body of Christ” are important descriptions applied to individual persons. No disputing that.

At the same time, though, people can still be called Christian without actually being baptised; when the topic of discussion is not a canonical one.

For example, since some evangelical communities view baptism as not strictly necessary, there are many people out there who believe in the true Jesus Christ, even though their beliefs are incomplete and some in error, who can still be designated as “Christian.” If such a person wishes to marry a Catholic (or other situation addressed in the law) then that person is deemed a non-Christian.

In conversation, though, and as a generic description, such persons are still Christians, even though the individual persons might never have been baptised.

 

[Horton]

Thomas Aquinas met God and called all of his writings STRAW. His writings were logical progressions from Catholic non-negotiables contained in CREEDS. Aquinas had no way to unwind his BRILLIANT synthesis of Catholic Creedal teachings. Thus, Aquinas told multiple people his writings were straw and never clarified. God IMO is not the God described in the Summa. Without passions, immutable, … this is a mistaken understanding of God. Aquinas knew that after he met God on December 6, 1273, he could write no more and could not clarify why. He merely said it was all straw relative to coming into the presence of God. This is what Joseph Smith who also came into the presence of God said about the CREEDS.

TOm, you are not fooling anyone anymore. You can not take snippets of Catholic writings out of context to “prove” LDS thought to be true.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over & over again and expect different results.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It can get even trickier than simply saying Unitarians are not Christians since there is such a thing as the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship. But like I said the answers here will be skewed towards Catholic canon and the Catholic perspective. As for myself, I am better leaving whether Mormons believe in an entirely different Jesus or whether those who describe themselves as Unitarian-Universalist Christians (granted a small minority in today’s UU Fellowship) are or are not Christian to a much higher power than any of us are here on this earth. It’s certainly above my pedigree to know their hearts, minds, and souls.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yeah, in my UU days, one of the women who I travelled with to a UU youth conference, was Born Again Christian. I was atheist at the time, my fellow UUs included Christians, pagans, agnostic and unaffiliated. In my city, 99% of the UUs are sort of like religious refugees, from previous religions. I’ve only met two people, who were born and raised UU, and they never claimed to be Christian.

The East coast of the US (New England) has UU congregations that are multigenerational and have been around for a couple of hundred years. Here in SLC, it’s mostly a new home for people who have left other religions, particularly, Mormonism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My eyes hurt from all the rolling.

There is a set of questions asked people who want to be baptized LDS. There is a set of questions for Mormons who want to attend Mormon temples. They all reflect the Articles of Faith. All must be answered with a right (orthodox) answer.

But yes, once a baptised Mormon, there is a broad range of belief among individuals, held within a set framework. Mormonism only having an orthodoxy at particular points, such as pre-baptism or for a temple recommend. Other than that, Mormonism is about orthopraxy.

You distort the conclusions of St. Thomas Aquinas. But you know that already.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Thomas Aquinas met God and called all of his writings STRAW. His writings were logical progressions from Catholic non-negotiables contained in CREEDS. Aquinas had no way to unwind his BRILLIANT synthesis of Catholic Creedal teachings. Thus, Aquinas told multiple people his writings were straw and never clarified. God IMO is not the God described in the Summa. Without passions, immutable, … this is a mistaken understanding of God. Aquinas knew that after he met God on December 6, 1273, he could write no more and could not clarify why. He merely said it was all straw relative to coming into the presence of God. This is what Joseph Smith who also came into the presence of God said about the CREEDS.

TOm, you are not fooling anyone anymore. You can not take snippets of Catholic writings out of context to “prove” LDS thought to be true.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over & over again and expect different results.

Horton,
Truth be told I expect the same thing each time. I say something that is TRUE about LDS history/thought or Catholic history/thought. I provided a rational interpretation of this.
Then someone such as yourself accuses me of any one of a number of things such as lying, misrepresenting, misquoting, or misunderstanding. In the past (probably too many times) I tried to provide the quotes (which were ignored, declared to be only part of the record, or understood differently – and wrongly IMO), tried to offer non-LDS scholars who agree with my understanding (I was then accused of the fallacy of “appeal to authority”), or ….
On this thread, instead of doing this I have asked the great detractors to point to ANYTHING they think is factually wrong in my claims, from history or my interpretation of those claims AND to commit to interacting with the data and arguments I provide. So far this is met with a repeat of the original, “You don’t understanding the history,” “you are misrepresenting the history,” “you are not fooling anyone,” …
So, there is an Atheist argument and a combo-Catholic-Atheist argument I have seen to explain the actual history concerning Aquinas; you are will come to offer either of these and I will explain why I think they are inadequate. Of course, if you have no knowledge of the history, then just repeat meaningless platitudes about how am the ignorant fool.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps.

Scholars, hagiographers, and Catholics in general have never understood Aquinas’s comment to be a retraction or refutation of anything he wrote. If it had been, Pope Leo XIII would not have encouraged a renewed interest in Thomistic theology and philosophy, and Aquinas would not have been named a Doctor of the Church.

I know it is a thing in Mormonism, that understanding God as just another guy, causes feelings of “we got it right”. A God, who is just like you, is describable, in human terms. Who can’t describe another human?

Catholic understanding and thought is that we cannot and are unable to describe God. We, as a community of believers over millennia, are certainly verbose in our attempt. But we know we are mere creatures trying to describe the indescribable. The Bible supports the Catholic understanding.

 

[TOmNossor]

My eyes hurt from all the rolling.
There is a set of questions asked people who want to be baptized LDS. There is a set of questions for Mormons who want to attend Mormon temples. They all reflect the Articles of Faith. All must be answered with a right (orthodox) answer.
But yes, once a baptised Mormon, there is a broad range of belief among individuals, held within a set framework. Mormonism only having an orthodoxy at particular points, such as pre-baptism or for a temple recommend. Other than that, Mormonism is about orthopraxy.

I think this is a fair qualifier. Those who wish to become LDS are expected to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I know because when I said I was not sure about that, the missionaries told me to figure it out before I could be baptized.
The Baptism and Temple recommend questions are still largely orthopraxic however there are some generic belief questions too. I will post the 15 temple recommend questions for you in case you have forgotten them.

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other GeneralAuthoriti es and local authorities of the Church?
5 Do you live the law of chastity?
6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
10 Are you a full-tithe payer?
11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?
12 Do you have financial or other oblgations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:
Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?
14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
15 Do you consider yourself worthy …?

If you are a faithful member AND avoid some of the more common sins, these are not hard. I occasionally talk a little about #7, but I love you guys and so far it hasn’t been a problem.
Charity, TOm