What are the shared beliefs necessary for ALL Protestants?

[seeker57]

I think Pastor Gary’s explanation was dead-on as well…

Yes, I agree with you, and Pastor Gary, too.

 

[cooterhein]

Well, you are partly correct. Unitarians outside the U.S. are primarily Christian in orientation, many conduct baptisms, and more or less think of Jesus as a great teacher, but may or may not believe in his divinity.

Thanks for giving more info; I’m certainly no expert. I didn’t know there was a great deal of difference between UU in the US and elsewhere.

You are also correct that originally, Unitarianism started in the 16th Century when the Protestant Reformation took hold in the remote mountains of Transylvania in eastern Europe. The first edict of religious toleration in history was declared in 1568 during the reign of the first and only Unitarian king, John Sigismund. Sigismund’ s court preacher, Frances David, had successively converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism to Calvinism and finally to Unitarianism because he could find no biblical basis for the doctrine of the trinity. Arguing that people should be allowed to choose among these faiths, he said, “We need not think alike to love alike.”

I also did not know about John Sigismund. I guess if I know one important Unitarian by name, it should be him.

In the U.S., the Unitarian Universalists are a bit different. however. Unitarians first split from the original Congregationalist churches in New England. These were the churches first founded by the Puritans, although their doctrines were substantially different. Churches with Unitarian beliefs, and Harvard Divinity School, were found in cities primarily in the Northeast. Unitarian Churches removed all mention of the trinity from their worship or prayer early on.

Universalist churches were found in more rural areas. Universalists believe in universal salvation, in other words, no hell, or at least no permanent hell.

Thanks for the details on that. I knew there was a merger, but I hadn’t looked at exactly where each of the two halves came from. Well…a little bit with one of them, but not as much with the other one.

The two merged in 1961 to become Unitarian Universalists. Since that time, many congregations have dispensed with references to Christianity as a core belief, and there is now a greater emphasis on exploring spirituality using many religious traditions, as well as science, reason and human experience.

I did read something about a great deal of optimism associated with the merger, which yielded a group in excess of a half-million. But then the 70s were not kind to UU and there was a sharp decline in adherents. Which was followed by more of a recovery through the last 30 years, along with quite a bit of change to the landscape. Does that sound about right?

Unitarian Universalism in the United States is very much an American innovation, although we do maintain ties with Unitarians in other areas of the world.

Ah, ok. Good to know. I did assume that all the Unitarians merged with all the Universalists to one extent or another, but that’s just in America.

While some UUs consider themselves Christian, many do not. Some believe it has evolved into a religion unto its own.

Kind of seems like the merger is something unique, at the very least.

The number of people deciding to become a UU is steady, at least from the reports I saw about a year ago.

I don’t think the overall numbers are necessarily taking a hit, but I did see something about an aging population where the median age is higher than any religious group can be comfortable with. That may have been more of a localized statistic, though. I spent a few minutes trying to find it again but didn’t run across it. It’s probably not extremely relevant, though- either way, I did overstate what’s happening by calling it “dwindling.” That’s not accurate.

But, I do disagree UUs are monotheistic or that we are similar to the LDS.

With the monotheistic thing, I think I was focusing too much on the roots of unitarianism (like with Sigismund) rather than the American UU entity that we now see. Thanks for filling us in on those details! And the comparison to Mormons was intended to be specific to their Christology, in that Jesus was a created being born of the Father (in some generally non-specific way) and that He wasn’t divine. I don’t know how accurately or specifically this describes the POV of the average UU (or that of Unitarians throughout history), but that was the impression of UU Christology that I wound up getting. If that’s right (please let me know if it’s not), then it would sound rather similar to LDS Christology. Sufficient to make a comparison, anyway. Although I understand that there’s not much else to compare you guys on.

Many of the UUs who are members of my congregation are pagans, and definitely not monotheistic. Others are atheist, so they don’t claim any deity.

Also, Mormon teachings are fundamentally conservative in nature. UU teachings are anything but conservative in nature.

Just thought I would point that out.

Very good to know, and thank you for pointing there.

 

[cooterhein]

I thank you for all this information! One point, however: is it really true Mormons are not monotheistic, as you state? That I never knew; but I also didn’t think they weren’t regarded as Christians by other groups.

They aren’t monotheistic, although they aren’t exactly polytheistic, either. What they are is henotheistic, which means they only worship one god (“Heavenly Father”) while believing in the existence of other gods (albeit not worship-worthy). It could be described more specifically as monolatristic (latria is a familiar word for Catholics). It means they only give latria to Heavenly Father, but they do believe in the existence of other deities. There’s even a three-part godhead, of sorts, but it’s comprised of three deities of which only one is worthy of worship. (Details on the Holy Spirit are not as well-defined as those on “HF” and Jesus; the topic of the Holy Spirit’s deity is not as clear a call. So I am engaging in some over-simplification at the moment, although I do tend to think that discussion among Mormons would eventually lead to the conclusion that the HS is a god).

Generally speaking, however, Jesus is readily defined as “a god” along with any Mormon that’s attained godhood through exaltation or theosis, and the LDS material on angelic beings is such that they’re more like members of a “council of the gods” rather than heavenly servants. There’s also sufficient basis for saying most Mormons believe HF has/had some sort of heavenly father of his own as well as (probably) a heavenly mother. Details on them (and the prospect of a wife for Heavenly Father) are extremely limited, though. Anything beyond a general belief in the probable existence of such beings would be a bit of an overstatement.

That said…none of these beings are worshiped by Mormons, although they are acknowledged as “gods” in one sense or another. The big focal point you’ll get from any Mormon, however, is on who they worship. All worship is for HF and can only go to HF, and it’s all for Him alone. Mormons do have an interest in presenting themselves (one way or the other) as “true, restored Christianity” or as “one other form of Christianity,” so you’ll be hard pressed to find a Mormon who voluntarily leads with details about the various gods whose existence is confirmed although latria is denied. And even when you direct the conversation away from “who you worship” to “how many gods exist,” it’s something that maybe half of Mormon missionaries will engage with while the other half (or so) will evade or redirect. It’s not really a selling point; if talking to a Catholic, they’ll probably want to start off with paragraph 460 of the Catechism. Ease you into it that way.

 

[meltzerboy]

They aren’t monotheistic, although they aren’t exactly polytheistic, either. What they are is henotheistic, which means they only worship one god (“Heavenly Father”) while believing in the existence of other gods (albeit not worship-worthy). It could be described more specifically as monolatristic (latria is a familiar word for Catholics). It means they only give latria to Heavenly Father, but they do believe in the existence of other deities. There’s even a three-part godhead, of sorts, but it’s comprised of three deities of which only one is worthy of worship. (Details on the Holy Spirit are not as well-defined as those on “HF” and Jesus; the topic of the Holy Spirit’s deity is not as clear a call. So I am engaging in some over-simplification at the moment, although I do tend to think that discussion among Mormons would eventually lead to the conclusion that the HS is a god).

Generally speaking, however, Jesus is readily defined as “a god” along with any Mormon that’s attained godhood through exaltation or theosis, and the LDS material on angelic beings is such that they’re more like members of a “council of the gods” rather than heavenly servants. There’s also sufficient basis for saying most Mormons believe HF has/had some sort of heavenly father of his own as well as (probably) a heavenly mother. Details on them (and the prospect of a wife for Heavenly Father) are extremely limited, though. Anything beyond a general belief in the probable existence of such beings would be a bit of an overstatement.

That said…none of these beings are worshiped by Mormons, although they are acknowledged as “gods” in one sense or another. The big focal point you’ll get from any Mormon, however, is on who they worship. All worship is for HF and can only go to HF, and it’s all for Him alone. Mormons do have an interest in presenting themselves (one way or the other) as “true, restored Christianity” or as “one other form of Christianity,” so you’ll be hard pressed to find a Mormon who voluntarily leads with details about the various gods whose existence is confirmed although latria is denied. And even when you direct the conversation away from “who you worship” to “how many gods exist,” it’s something that maybe half of Mormon missionaries will engage with while the other half (or so) will evade or redirect. It’s not really a selling point; if talking to a Catholic, they’ll probably want to start off with paragraph 460 of the Catechism. Ease you into it that way.

Thanks again for the info. This is all so new to me. One more question, since you seem to know a lot about Mormon theology: where do Mormons get this notion of other gods, whom they don’t worship, from? Is it from revelation as written in the Book of Mormon, or is it derived from the Hebrew Bible and/or The New Testament, or from other, traditional sources? The notion that Judaism (and also, Christianity) was not always monotheistic has some truth to it (I believe) at least in regard to Judaism. However, if I recall correctly, Judaism was not yet a religion when polytheism was still practiced; rather, a kind of “proto-Judaism,” with a different name altogether. I’m basing this only on a television show I saw a while ago that discussed the topic; I haven’t verified it. Perhaps it is a good question for the Jewish Forum!

 

[Zooey]

Interesting… I didn’t know, for example that Quakers weren’t baptized…

Quakers have what they call “spiritual baptism”, and “spiritual communion”, and do not have any actual sacraments at all. Nevertheless, the conservative Quaker is theologically close to mainline Protestant.
Liberal Quakers are probably closer to Unitarians, though here I definitely yield to our UU poster, whose contributions to this thread, by the bye, I appreciate.

 

[Ryan_Love]

I am not Catholic and I do not swear my Loyalty to any church or Jewish temple. The only thing required to be a true christian is to follow the Ten commandments as they are written in the bible. 2.Believe in Jesus christ as savior. 3 believe in the Holy Trinity that is God. Swearing loyalty to a church is how orthodox religion controls its followers. All orthodox Religion can keep it doctrine to itself. If Christ cared so much for doctrines, then he would of observed all the old Jewish Doctrine. like the washing ones hands tradition, but it turns out a lot of those doctrine were man made. Just like most religious doctrines of today. The most important obligation to god is to obey god and god alone. Only God can receive prayers and only Jesus can ceded for you and forgive sins. “nobody comes to the Father but through me” Jesus said. That means even in the Torah when a Jewish person prayed to god he really prayed to Jesus to get his prayers answers because Jesus is god. now things have changed, Christ introduced himself. some of us have rejected him and few have accepted him. and here we are today arguing over stupid stuff when the most importing thing Is Jesus Christ.

 

[meltzerboy]

I am not Catholic and I do not swear my Loyalty to any church or Jewish temple. The only thing required to be a true christian is to follow the Ten commandments as they are written in the bible. 2.Believe in Jesus christ as savior. 3 believe in the Holy Trinity that is God. Swearing loyalty to a church is how orthodox religion controls its followers. All orthodox Religion can keep it doctrine to itself. If Christ cared so much for doctrines, then he would of observed all the old Jewish Doctrine. like the washing ones hands tradition, but it turns out a lot of those doctrine were man made. Just like most religious doctrines of today. The most important obligation to god is to obey god and god alone. Only God can receive prayers and only Jesus can ceded for you and forgive sins. “nobody comes to the Father but through me” Jesus said. That means even in the Torah when a Jewish person prayed to god he really prayed to Jesus to get his prayers answers because Jesus is god. now things have changed, Christ introduced himself. some of us have rejected him and few have accepted him. and here we are today arguing over stupid stuff when the most importing thing Is Jesus Christ.

Thanks for your interesting perspective, Ryan. But, I must caution you, you’re going to get letters!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It will indeed be a swollen mail-bag!

Thanks for your interesting perspective, Ryan. But, I must caution you, you’re going to get letters!