Another poster made the claim that since Mormonism has redefined pretty much every aspect of Christianity, it is not a Christian religion. That poster is completely right, Mormonism has redefined pretty much everything, but I'm not so sure that this fact is useful to help us classify Mormonism.

For me, the problem with this argument is that I don't think there is a single modern Christian religion that is the same as the older Christian religions. Virtually every Christian church has redefined some or all of the core tenets of Christianity in some way.

This isn't unique to Christianity either.

I want to know people's thoughts on this. Is change or redefining aspects of Christianity a reasonable metric that would help us define who is and who is not Christian?

Also, just to give a bit of context for this argument, the idea of Mormonism as having redefined everything in Christianity arose over whether Mormons accept the atonement or not within a framework of faith vs works. It might be interesting to continue that conversation as well.

There probably isn't a single modern religion that is the same as the oldest Christian religion. But I think the Eastern Orthodox are the closest thing...

I'm sure someone would disagree with this but it seems to me the Eastern Orthodox are closest to whatever the original may have been.

That is a really cool point.

It is weird, I've been to a lot of Russian Orthodox services, and I even dated a semi-practicing member of the religion, but I don't know much about it.

Very true! I watched Diarmaid Macculloch's documentary series "A History of Christianity", where Eastern Christians basically said that their form is the purist and Western Christianity isn't true Christianity.

I also attended a Coptic wedding which was completely different from any other Christian wedding I've been to (eg., vs Catholic, United and Baptist). The entire ceremony was sung and consisted of long passages from the Coptic Bible which heavily involved a lot of obedience talk in regards to the wife (It was completely translated and outlined in a very thick program for each guest to follow along.)

Also, the Eastern depictions of Jesus are far closer to what he probably looked like.

What do you mean by "original Christianity"?

If you mean the religion of the earliest followers of Jesus, as described in the New Testament, then I challenge anybody to identify ANY religion that exists now or that existed by 300 AD that was the same as that "original Christianity."

The mere fact that church-wide councils had to decide what doctrine was, only a few centuries after Jesus' death, and label all the Christians who didn't agree as "heretics," shows that there was no single version of "original Christianity."

Not then, not now.

The later creeds, adopted by the councils, are not supported by the facts and statements in the New Testament. They are the creations of men, who twisted scripture to support their own doctrinal ideas.

Actually, the original Christianity, was a Jewish cult.

Later Christianity (after the destruction of Jerusalem in the 2nd century) was a largely a product of Paul, the self-appointed apostle who never had known Jesus personally and disagreed on fundamentals with the apostles who had been called by Jesus.

Most modern Christians have no idea about "original Christianity" - they just assume that their version of the religion is (of course!) the original, authentic thing.

Just as most Mormons today think their religion is what Joseph Smith was teaching in the 1830s.

Good point, I guess if you are going to try and go back as far as possible it would possibly be whatever the followers of James were doing. I believe they morphed into the Ebionites.

Of course if Jesus never existed, perhaps the original would be a cult that worshiped a heavenly Jesus who was killed by spiritual forces in the heavens. And then over time this Jesus became euhemerized.

Nobody really knows.

What do I mean by Original Christianity? I mean the same thing you do.

Very interesting comments. Whether it is about linguistics, Christianity or otherwise, I'm always glad when you chime in.

Is your thinking that 'Original Christianity' ranks as the purest and therefore, wins the Blue Ribbon?

My research leads me to the conclusion that the historicity of Christianity is hard to pin down because so few valid sources exist of its beginnings.

Whether it is Christianity or Mormonism, following the facts and evidence is a fascinating mystery to solve.

"Is your thinking that 'Original Christianity' ranks as the purest and therefore, wins the Blue Ribbon?"

Haha, not at all. I'm questioning whether a church can still be considered "Christian" if it has made changes to or redefined previous versions of Christianity.

Interesting points, it can be fascinating.

If you are a Christian, then why not use the criteria that Jesus Christ suggested? Look at the "fruits" rather than the doctrine, or history.

Jesus said you could tell his followers by their fruits, so just take a trip to Haiti or any other disaster and see who is there and how long they stay.

Personally, I'm an atheist, but I vote for the Catholics. Catholic Social Services is everywhere and is the first to offer compassion. Bag of food? No problem. Bowl of soup? We have a soup kitchen. They will usually offer help without the needy person having to wade through a lot of paperwork and embarrassing explanations.

I remember pleading with the Mormon Church in Mason County, WA to help some seniors in need. They said "that is all handled through Salt Lake." So I called Salt Lake, who said it was all handled locally.

Another thing Jesus said is that anyone who hurts children has to answer to him, so the Catholics haven't got it completely right and have an f'd up history, so there's that.


Kathleen Waters

Huh? Mormons think they have authentic Christianity and everybody else apostatized from Jesus' true teachings. So all of the other so-called Christians are actually not the real Christians.

If that sounds twisted, remember it's typical Mormon thought. We are right, they are wrong, and heaven and earth are twisted to fit that mold.

Bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Huh? Mormons think they have authentic
> Christianity and everybody else apostatized from
> Jesus' true teachings. So all of the other
> so-called Christians are actually not the real
> Christians.
>
> If that sounds twisted, remember it's typical
> Mormon thought. We are right, they are wrong, and
> heaven and earth are twisted to fit that mold.

Yep. Here's what Gordon Hinckley said:
'They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.'

Mormons believe they are christians.

The population at large believes mormons are christians.

The people that dont believe mormons are christians are generally just disgruntled christians.

It doesn't really change the fact that mormons still profess belief in Jesus, the bible, and the atonement.

I've Always Told People, if they Wanted to Know What The Early Church was Like ...

Read The Almost Canon, But Not Quite, Shepherd of Hermas!

Hermas' Story was VERY Popular in The Early Church, and Although it is Rather Long, it Contains a Pretty Definitive Account of an Early Christian Community ...

They Spend Most of their Time, Speaking to Converts, Re-Copying Manuscripts, and The Other Activities that Tended to Mark The Pre-Constantine Church!

Was there only one original Christianity? Even
Acts has hints of dvisions between James, Paul and Peter. Then ther were the Gnostics

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was there only one original Christianity? Even
> Acts has hints of dvisions between James, Paul and
> Peter. Then ther were the Gnostics

bona dea is absolutely right. That is the point I was trying to make. James and Peter were probably closest to what Jesus had been teaching (which was a form of Judaism), but they and their followers were scattered when Jerusalem was destroyed. The modern Christian churches, tracing back to the 4th century when Christianity was made the official state religion of the empire, was derived mostly from the Pauline-established congregations of Greek gentiles and was really anti-Jewish, as was Paul.

Remember, too, that Acts reflects very pro-Paul attitudes, and that the efforts there to portray Peter as supporting Paul are probably biased in favor of Paul. Remember also that the epistles with Peter's name on them (which speak highly of Paul's epistles) are most certainly not by the apostle.

This is why I was so surprised to see so many Pauline quotations sprinkled around the SL Visitors' Center. If there was a great apostacy, Paul was primarily responsible for it; so why put plaques around the place spouting his sayings?

"In hoc signo vinces" ("In this sign you shall conquer") sums up the final departure of Christianity from the teachings of that Yeshua guy. He told Peter to put away his sword. How many "Christians" would rather fight and kill in the name of their God than obey Him. Or pray for His hand to guide their smart bombs? Gandhi was more of a Christian than 99% of those who claim the title.

Interesting tidbit of history: the chaplain who blessed the Enola Gay and whatever that other plane was called eventually repented.

ⅽupcakelicker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...He told Peter to put away his sword. How many "Christians" would rather fight and kill in the name of their God than obey Him.

As is often the case, the Bible story often contradicts itself.

Jesus also told his disciples to buy swords, even if they had to sell their clothes to do so. Luke 22:36-38.

He also said that his mission was NOT to bring peace, "...but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Mormonism is a sect that, like most sects, has an eclectic set
of beliefs drawn from various unrelated sources.

Clearly a major source was the Christianity of Smith's day and place.

Clearly another major source was Smith's imagination.

The weird afactual Egyptology, yet another.

All in all, quite a mix.

It's neither necessary nor desirable to examine historic
Christianity when looking at the mix. More important is what
Smith thought he could get away with.

Jesus was a Nazarene, or, in more correctly, a "Nazorean". That sect still exists under the name of Mandaeans. They still call their priests "Nazari" and there are exactly 24 Nazari on earth today.

The theory that Peter did not write the epistles of Peter, or that Paul was the enemy of Christ, are simply theories. There is no way to know for "sure" what the "original" Christians believe. I've studied early Christian writings for 35 years, and, I would say, that the ancient Christians basically believed as do the Orthodox Churches today, such as the Orthodox Antiochian Church, the Coptic Church, etc.

Curse of Cain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus was a Nazarene, or, in more correctly, a "Nazorean". That sect still exists under the name of Mandaeans. They still call their priests "Nazari" and there are exactly 24 Nazari on earth today.

Correct. But whether the Mandaeans have kept the "original" teachings pure and unaltered cannot be known. Nor that they taught exactly what Jesus taught.

> The theory that Peter did not write the epistles of Peter, or that Paul was the enemy of Christ, are simply theories.

Nobody that I know of said that Paul was the "enemy of Christ." The most than can be said is that Paul did not know Jesus personally, never referred to Jesus' teachings nor mentioned any facts about his life. And he had major doctrinal differences with the Jerusalem apostles.

As for the epistles attributed to Peter, that the apostle of that name did not write them may be a theory, but it is well-founded and largely accepted in the larger field of biblical text scholarship (outside inerrantist divinity schools). Just for starters: the Greek is very literary, unlike the language of a fisherman; they are of late date, long after Peter was likely dead; Peter 2 refers to the collected letters of Paul, which shows a late date; Peter 2 tries to explain why the imminent second coming had not yet occurred, which also shows a late date. Oddly, the epistles do not mention the resurrection, of which Peter was supposedly an eye witness.

> There is no way to know for "sure" what the "original" Christians believe.
> I've studied early Christian writings for 35 years, and, I would say, that the ancient
> Christians basically believed as do the Orthodox Churches today, such as the Orthodox Antiochian Church, the Coptic Church, etc.

Interesting - you admit that there is no way of knowing, and yet you proceed to tell us. And in all those years, the Orthodox Churches did not change a single thing?

The Mormons claim that they are teaching "original Mormonism." Do you take their word for it? (Rhetorical question)

I have studied early Christian writings for a long time, too. And they show great disagreement about what the writers thought was the TRUE ("original") doctrine.

As bona dea and RPackham and others have pointed out, the very story of Christianity's origins is *about* there not being one kind of Christianity. Paul via his epistles to this and that place was trying to find some sort of standard to the question what is and is not Christianity. And the communities he was writing to pre-date him and had different ways & thoughts & etc.

That *is* "original christianity". Like all cultures, it was a contested culture.

The contested nature of Constantine's time doesn't help, either. it isn't "original" and it didn't gain uniformity after all.

The only reasonable metric that I can see comes from two sides: if one is within a certain christian tradition, then it is appropriate for them to decide for themselves what is and isn't christianity using their own as a standard; if one is outside christianity, then there is no choice but to call them all Christianity, since they all in some way or another share the same roots no matter how weirdly different their branches and leaves are from the branches and leaves next to them, and besides, from the outside, upon what basis can one say this or that is or is not Christianity? The insider at least has a basis to make the claim.

http://www.the-pope.com/how_old.html

If you are a Lutheran, your denomination was founded by
Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the
year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your denomination
was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because
the Pope could not grant him an annulment from his true
and lawful wife, Catherine of Aragon, with the right to
re-marry.

If you are an Eastern Orthodox, your church was taken from
the Catholic Church in 1054 when the Pope and an Eastern Patriarch excommunicated each other.

If you are a Presbyterian, your denomination was founded
by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your denomination
was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If your are a Congregationalist, your denomination was originated by Robert Browne in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your denomination was launched
by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are LDS or "Mormon" (Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith Jr. started your religion
in Palmyra, NY, in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your
denomination to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam
in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize
Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your denomination in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began
with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the
year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker
Eddy as its founder.

If you are a follower of the Church of Scientology, your
group owes its origin to L. Ron Hubbard in Washington D. C.
in 1952.

If you are a Seventh Day Adventist, Mrs. Ellen Gould White inaugurated your group in the United States in 1860.

If you are a Jehovah's Witness, your religion was invented
by "Pastor" Charles Taze Russell in 1874, incorporated 1881.

If you are a worshipper at the Iglesia ni Cristo,
Felix Manalo instituted your sect in the Philippines
in 1914.

If you call yourself a Mennonite, your movement was named
after Menno Simons, a Catholic priest for 12 years, who
left the Church to join the conservative Anabaptist wing.

The Amish, started by Jacob Amman around 1693, are just
one of many different church bodies within the Mennonite community in the U.S.

If you are a believer at the Vineyard Chrstian Fellowship,
your denomination was started by Ken Guillickson and Keith
Green in Santa Monica, California in 1974.

If you are a member of Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith began
your congregation in Costa Mesa, California in 1975.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene", "Pentecostal Gospel", "Holiness Church", "Pilgrim Holiness Church", your denomination is one
of the many thousands of new sects and religions founded by
men within the past several hundred years.

If you are a Novus Ordo "Catholic," your church spun off the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the 1960's Robber Council, Vatican II.

If you are a traditional Roman Catholic, you know that your Church was founded in the year 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ, the
Son of God.

If you are Jewish, Abraham became the first Jew when God promised him: "I will make you a great nation...".
Your religion was founded by God in the Jewish calendar year 2049 (1711 BC), over 3700 years ago. God revealed Himself to the Jews through the Prophets and promised to send a Messiah. Jesus Christ, a Jew from the House of David, came to this world as His only begotten Son in fulfillment of the scriptures.

Also, another website to look at if anyone is interested.

http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/figure1.pdf

This has been an interesting thread to follow. After a good think, I think I can come up with two things that make a sect Christian or not Christian.

1. The sect claims to be Christian as opposed to something else. (In the case of Mormonism, there are some problems here as the church, and even Joseph Smith seem to have made conflicting claims at various times.)

2. You believe that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is some form of substitutional atonement by which human beings are saved from sin.

I don't know where the Mormons stand on #2, though I would hazard to guess that there is more than one answer for what the answer was historically and that there may be currently than one expanation promoted within the church. If there is an official position, I'd like to hear it, because Mormon theology tends to be pretty fuzzily defined when you drill down to specifics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMEz63hUSW4

The original...