Are Mormons Christians

[RebeccaJ]

How far removed from Trinitarian doctrine can a particular denomination be for the Catholic Church to recognize its baptisms?

From here, it appears when a view, practice and intention are so outside of Christian understanding, that the errors are not considered heretical (error based on not understanding).

Doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptism

This explanation becomes even more necessary if one considers that errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism. In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church. In this way, the name of Christ attains great honour for faith and sanctification because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ (cf. Denzinger-Hüngermann [DH] 110-111). The same principle was upheld by the Synod of Arles in 314 (cf. DH 123). Well known also is the struggle of St Augustine against the Donatists. The Bishop of Hippo affirms that the validity of the sacrament depends neither on the personal sanctity of the minister nor on his belonging to the Church.

Right intention is the intention to do what the Church wants, what Christ wants

Even non-Catholics can validly administer Baptism. In every case, however, it is the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which does not belong to those who separate themselves from her but to the Church from which they have separated themselves (cf. Augustine, On Baptism 1, 12,9). This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes (cf. Augustine, Treatise on the Gospel of John VI, 1,7; cf. CCC n. 1127). The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).

**
Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized**

According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.

I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used.

II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent.

The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that **one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism.

IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.

continued…

 

[RebeccaJ]

…continued

Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism

Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.

 

[twopekinguys]

Are Mormons Christians? That will depend on your definition of ‘Christian’. In the broadest of senses Mormons are Christians. More narrowly defined, probably not.

Are you a politician up for reelection?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Are you a politician up for reelection?

That’ll depend on your definition of ‘up’

Seriously though, I see no problem in having varying degrees of specificity for the same word (after all, most words have multiple definitions). In a very broad sense Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and even “New Age” or “Gnostic” Christians are all Christians. These groups came up out of a Christian context in a Christian part of the world and still have some peripheral ties to Christianity. Mormonism, for example, certainly isn’t Jewish or Muslim!

As we get more specific with our definition (say, use the Catholic definition of “Christian”), then obviously Mormons do not fit the bill.

The same could be said about the label “Mormon”. In the broadest of senses, a Mormon is anyone who reveres Joseph Smith as a prophet. This would obviously include some individuals who probably would not want to be called a Mormon, such as a member of the RLDS (CoC). A more precise definition would restrict the term to those who believe Brigham Young was a prophet. This would obviously exclude some individuals who do refer to themselves as Mormons, such as the Strangites. Preciser still would be: a Mormon is a member of the LDS Church. This would exclude all the Fundamentalists. I can embrace all three forms of the word and understand that certain contexts will require me to use the broader or more specific definition.

 

[twopekinguys]

That’ll depend on your definition of ‘up’

Seriously though, I see no problem in having varying degrees of specificity for the same word (after all, most words have multiple definitions). In a very broad sense Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and even “New Age” or “Gnostic” Christians are all Christians. These groups came up out of a Christian context in a Christian part of the world and still have some peripheral ties to Christianity. Mormonism, for example, certainly isn’t Jewish or Muslim!

As we get more specific with our definition (say, use the Catholic definition of “Christian”), then obviously Mormons do not fit the bill.

The same could be said about the label “Mormon”. In the broadest of senses, a Mormon is anyone who reveres Joseph Smith as a prophet. This would obviously include some individuals who probably would not want to be called a Mormon, such as a member of the RLDS (CoC). A more precise definition would restrict the term to those who believe Brigham Young was a prophet. This would obviously exclude some individuals who do refer to themselves as Mormons, such as the Strangites. Preciser still would be: a Mormon is a member of the LDS Church. This would exclude all the Fundamentalists. I can embrace all three forms of the word and understand that certain contexts will require me to use the broader or more specific definition.

Having varying degrees of “specificity” is a very dangerous and slippery slope. Especially when it comes to religion/theology.

Too many times we see mormons using their own meanings for words which are different than those most commonly used. It definitely muddies the waters of a conversation.

You may mean “A”, but the rest of the world thinks “B”. Next thing you know, you have people running around in circles and chasing their tales on issues.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Having varying degrees of “specificity” is a very dangerous and slippery slope. Especially when it comes to religion/theology.

Too many times we see mormons using their own meanings for words which are different than those most commonly used. It definitely muddies the waters of a conversation.

You may mean “A”, but the rest of the world thinks “B”. Next thing you know, you have people running around in circles and chasing their tales on issues.

As muddied as it may be it’s a facet of language that we’re stuck with. If we’re discussing things in a Catholic context then it may make sense to refer to the LDS as non-Christian, but if we’re, say, writing an entry on an encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective and unbiased, who’s the authority to determine that Mormons are not sufficiently “Christian” to warrant using the term?

 

[TexanKnight]

As muddied as it may be it’s a facet of language that we’re stuck with. If we’re discussing things in a Catholic context then it may make sense to refer to the LDS as non-Christian, but if we’re, say, writing an entry on an encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective and unbiased, who’s the authority to determine that Mormons are not sufficiently “Christian” to warrant using the term?

This has nothing to do with “Catholic Context” You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton and his “it depends on what the definition of “is” is.”

Christian has one context. Follower of Christ. Now, does that mean follower of THE Christ or follower of some guy we call Christ?

If the former, the Mormons are not Christian. They follow a morphed Christ who was a brother of satan and the son of a god who used to be a sinful man.

If the latter, then yes, Mormons are Christian because they follow a man invented by js and other lds “prophets” who happens to be named christ.

One of the biggest problems with the lds church and why it fools so many people (including me) is that they used the same words, so they sound mainstream, but the words do not mean the same thing.

 

[Porknpie]

As muddied as it may be it’s a facet of language that we’re stuck with. If we’re discussing things in a Catholic context then it may make sense to refer to the LDS as non-Christian, but if we’re, say, writing an entry on an encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective and unbiased, who’s the authority to determine that Mormons are not sufficiently “Christian” to warrant using the term?

The Truth is the Truth, even if no one believes it…a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. In this case, to broaden the definition of Christianity beyond sacramental baptism and belief in the Trinity is to do harm to the word, to the incarnate God who died on the cross, who was resurrected and who ascended into heaven. Only Jesus alone will judge at the end of time. Joseph Smith will have nothing to do with it. There was no apostasy in the Church, let alone a great apostasy that no Mormon can explain.

Mormons conveniently ignore Galatians 1:8. The bible can not be any clearer that a new gospel created by Joseph Smith 1800 years after the death of Christ, led to him by an Angel, is against the Word of God.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

 

[TexanKnight]

The Truth is the Truth, even if no one believes it…a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. In this case, to broaden the definition of Christianity beyond sacramental baptism and belief in the Trinity is to do harm to the word, to the incarnate God who died on the cross, who was resurrected and who ascended into heaven. Only Jesus alone will judge at the end of time. Joseph Smith will have nothing to do with it. There was no apostasy in the Church, let alone a great apostasy that no Mormon can explain.

Mormons conveniently ignore Galatians 1:8. The bible can not be any clearer that a new gospel created by Joseph Smith 1800 years after the death of Christ, led to him by an Angel, is against the Word of God.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Who said the "angel’ Moroni was from heaven?

 

[superwimp]

This has nothing to do with “Catholic Context” You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton and his “it depends on what the definition of “is” is.”

Christian has one context. Follower of Christ. Now, does that mean follower of THE Christ or follower of some guy we call Christ?

I think you have to define Christian based on what the average person will assume if you here someone claim that he is a Christian. The big marketing push for Christianity is Jesus as savior. Now in order to make him your savior it may be necessary to do something (follow him), but this criteria and exactly what it means to follow him will vary from individual to individual, and between religious organizations. If an individual says he is a Christian the average person won't necessarily assume any point of catechism other than Jesus is connected to his salvation.

 

[SteveVH]

I think you have to define Christian based on what the average person will assume if you here someone claim that he is a Christian. The big marketing push for Christianity is Jesus as savior. Now in order to make him your savior it may be necessary to do something (follow him), but this criteria and exactly what it means to follow him will vary from individual to individual, and between religious organizations. If an individual says he is a Christian the average person won’t necessarily assume any point of catechism other than Jesus is connected to his salvation.

I could not disagree more. Truth is not arrived at through a democratic process. Truth is not pluralistic; you have your truth and I have my truth. I cannot call myself a Buddhist if I reject three of the “Five Precepts”. One cannot take a word such as “Christian” and change the meaning to their liking in contradiction to the definition established for 2000 years.

So it has nothing to do with what the “average” Christian thinks. It has everything to do with the definition established by the only Christian Church in existence for the greater part of history. If one does not agree with the precepts of that religion one does not have to join, but one does not establish his own precepts and then co-opt the term “Christian”. It not only causes confusion, but it is dishonest and intentionally misleading.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Seriously though, I see no problem in having varying degrees of specificity for the same word (after all, most words have multiple definitions). In a very broad sense Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and even “New Age” or “Gnostic” Christians are all Christians. These groups came up out of a Christian context in a Christian part of the world and still have some peripheral ties to Christianity. Mormonism, for example, certainly isn’t Jewish or Muslim!

As we get more specific with our definition (say, use the Catholic definition of “Christian”), then obviously Mormons do not fit the bill.

First, it isn’t just the “Catholic definition” of “Christian” Mormonism has to deal with, but the definition
of the Entire Christian Community. No true Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc would iden-
tify Mormonism as “Christian.” Those who do either have no spiritual backbone or are simply ignorant
of what Mormonism is. People who are identified as “Mormon”, “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, the “Oneness
Pentecostals”, or even “New Age” or “Gnostic” are simply not Christians.

The same could be said about the label “Mormon”. In the broadest of senses, a Mormon is anyone who reveres Joseph Smith as a prophet. This would obviously include some individuals who probably would not want to be called a Mormon, such as a member of the RLDS (CoC). A more precise definition would restrict the term to those who believe Brigham Young was a prophet. This would obviously exclude some individuals who do refer to themselves as Mormons, such as the Strangites. Preciser still would be: a Mormon is a member of the LDS Church. This would exclude all the Fundamentalists. I can embrace all three forms of the word and understand that certain contexts will require me to use the broader or more specific definition.

I’ll grant you this, because it is Joseph Smith and his teachings that differentiate
what makes a person either a Christian or a Mormon. I feel that Mormonism is a
group of schisms very much removed from Christianity as a whole.

My question is how far from Mainstream Christianity does one have to be be-
fore one is no longer Christian? This is a question that Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Oneness Pentecostals, New-Age/Gnostics, and even Mormons do not have
the right to answer, but it is up to the Christian World to answer.

In Conclusion:

Jesus Christ produces Christians.
&
Joseph Smith produces Mormons.
​

 

[SteveVH]

As muddied as it may be it’s a facet of language that we’re stuck with. If we’re discussing things in a Catholic context then it may make sense to refer to the LDS as non-Christian, but if we’re, say, writing an entry on an encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective and unbiased, who’s the authority to determine that Mormons are not sufficiently “Christian” to warrant using the term?

Brandon, if I decide to join a club, lets say the “Rotary Club”, and after attending for awhile I decide I don’t like the way they are doing things, do you think it would be okay for me to start my own club with a different mission statement and different rules for membership and call it the “Rotary Club”?

We define words and terms so that we can communicate with each other. If the definition of the term is uncertain and subject to the whims of each individual we have returned to the Tower of Babel. We cannot communicate. The evidence of this is found on virtually every Mormon thread on this forum. Most of the time is spent trying to discern exactly what someone means when they say they believe in the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, for instance. At first glance it sounds very “Christian” until you dig a little deeper and find out that what is really believed is completely contrary to the foundational Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Truth is the Truth, even if no one believes it…a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. In this case, to broaden the definition of Christianity beyond sacramental baptism and belief in the Trinity is to do harm to the word, to the incarnate God who died on the cross, who was resurrected and who ascended into heaven.

Is sacramental baptism the sticking point for Christianity? Why not sacramental Eucharist?

 

[SteveVH]

I’ll grant you this, because it is Joseph Smith and his teachings that differentiate
what makes a person either a Christian or a Mormon. I feel that Mormonism is a
group of schisms very much removed from Christianity as a whole.

Mormonism would not be considered to be in “schism”, nor would they be considered heretical. You have to maintain some semblance of Christianity in order to fall into either of those categories. Mormonism is simply an entirely different religion altogether. One converting from Christianity to Mormonism would be considered to be in apostasy.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Mormonism would not be considered to be in “schism”, nor would they be considered heretical. You have to maintain some semblance of Christianity in order to fall into either of those categories. Mormonism is simply an entirely different religion altogether. One converting from Christianity to Mormonism would be considered to be in apostasy.

No no, you misunderstood. Yes Mormonism is an entirely different religion altogether, I was describing
Mormonism as an “umbrella religion” if you will, covering all the Mormon religionS that buy into Joseph
Smith and the Book of Mormon, which includes many different sects. I was talking about the schisms
WITHIN Mormonism :

Main branches of the Latter Day Saint movement
William Bickerton: The Church of Jesus Christ
Sidney Rigdon: “Rigdonites”
Granville Hedrick: Church of Christ (Temple Lot)
Joseph Smith III: Community of Christ
James Strang:
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Brigham Young
Fundamentalist Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr._portrait_owned_by_Joseph_Smith_III.jpg/70px-Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr._portrait_owned_by_Joseph_Smith_III.jpg
Joseph Smith

 

[SteveVH]

No no, you misunderstood. Yes Mormonism is an entirely different religion altogether, I was describing
Mormonism as an “umbrella religion” if you will, covering all the Mormon religionS that buy into Joseph
Smith and the Book of Mormon, which includes many different sects. I was talking about the schisms
WITHIN Mormonism :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ne.svg/600px-LDS_main_branch_timeline.svg.png
Main branches of the Latter Day Saint movement
William Bickerton: The Church of Jesus Christ
Sidney Rigdon: “Rigdonites”
Granville Hedrick: Church of Christ (Temple Lot)
Joseph Smith III: Community of Christ
James Strang:
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Brigham Young
Fundamentalist Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr._portrait_owned_by_Joseph_Smith_III.jpg/70px-Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr._portrait_owned_by_Joseph_Smith_III.jpg
Joseph Smith

Gotcha.

 

[OHCAC]

Here’s another way to look at it – do LDS consider Catholics, Protestants, etc. to be Christians? I used to work with many LDS and when I’d really push them on this point the answer I often got was “no – you are not Christians, LDS are the only true Christians.” Which if you believe in the great apostasy, that LDS is the restored faith sent directly from God to Joseph Smith (JS), that only LDS have a true testimony from the Holy Spirit, etc., that belief makes sense – for the LDS.

Another question would be why would LDS want to be called Christian? And seemingly get so upset when not called Christian when the term is meant in the historic sense (i.e. Christians believe in original sin, believe we are saved through grace alone, believe in a triune God, etc). They don’t believe any of that so why would it bother them if someone doesn’t believe they’re Christian in that sense? I think if we could ask JS, Brigham Young and other leaders of the LDS faith in the 1800’s if they were Christians they would not only say no, but definitely not – we’re Mormons! JS’s report from his supposed meeting with God states “all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. All churches and their professors were corrupt and all their creeds were an abomination in his sight (taken from Wikipedia)." So why get upset about someone from a Christian church with an abominable creed saying you’re not Christian?

There are some musings that I remember reading that 30-40 years ago the LDS church under I believe Hinckley made a big push to go “mainstream” and be more accepted by the populace at large. I would guess that’s when (and it’s only a guess) the common phrase you see regarding the Book of Mormom that it’s just “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” either came into being or was used more widely – again, that’s just a guess on my part. LDS of course would say that it IS another testament of Christ and, according to them, it is. But it’s potentially a way to better fit in with mainstream Christianity and not be seen as odd in your beliefs. And LDS in their 20’s – 40’s now, who grew up in that period, with that push, would also see themselves as Christians and may not be of the mind that Catholics are not. But from my vantage point in looking at historical LDS and JS they would not consider themselves Christian as we see it.

Those on the forum who grew up LDS and converted – any thoughts? And those who are LDS – any thoughts?

From my vantage point a couple things come to mind: 1) it’s not necessarily a fight worth fighting as both camps see what they see through their own set of lenses and that won’t change. 2) LDS need to remember that JS took the first shot at Christianity and his words are insulting – so don’t get upset when Christians say LDS are not Christian. 3) Catholics need to respect the devotion that LDS show to Jesus – even if their theology about Christ is totally wrong according to our theology. It’s the Holy Spirit’s role to touch them and bring them to the faith. We should tell them what our faith tells us is the truth but not judge them too harshly as most I knew/know have a deep devotion to Jesus as they understand Him.

 

[Porknpie]

My question is how far from Mainstream Christianity does one have to be be-fore one is no longer Christian? This is a question that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, New-Age/Gnostics, and even Mormons do not have
the right to answer, but it is up to the Christian World to answer.

egg actly. By some logic, Muslims are Christian because they recognize Christ as a historical person or because they recognize him as a prophet.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

egg actly. By some logic, Muslims are Christian because they recognize
Christ as a historical person or because they recognize him as a prophet.

Right on, but let us still hold that Islam is still in the Abrahamic Family.
Additionally, let’s also consider how Mormonism has gone so far, it isn’t
even part of the Abrahamic Family anymore, that’s how distant the LDS
church is doctrinally speaking. At least Islam testifies that there is NO
GOD EXCEPT THE GOD, and that God has been God from Eternity to
ETERNITY, and is not an exalted created man who likely sinned before,
neither does he have a host of goddess wives.