Are Mormons Christians and, if so, what makes them such a distinct branch?

Depends who you ask.

I believe Mormons are Christians. They believe Jesus is the son of God and that Jesus is their savior. For me, that’s all I need to consider a religion part of Christianity.

Evangelical Christian sects tend to consider the Mormon religion to be a cult, but they also take issue with the Catholic religion, and I really find it horrible to question the Catholic belief in Jesus Christ.

There might be sects of Christianity some Christians disagree with, or even find abhorrent, but I’m not sure we can say those groups aren’t Christian? Maybe we can? That’s something to ponder not only for Christians, but any religion. Are the terrorist Muslims really Muslims? Are atheist Jews really Jewish?

Does it matter?

As far as Jehovah’s Witness, in my opinion they are Christians, the too believe Christ is their savior.

The Mormons have a sacred text, The Book of Mormon. I don’t know whether they also follow the Bible, or just use their own book as an interpretation.

Of course they are.

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses both believe in the divinity and gospel of Jesus Christ, which would, strictly, make them Christians. Since their religion isn’t based on Catholicism, that also strictly makes them Protestants.

The part other Protestants disagree with, that separates them from other Protestant denominations (such as Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists), is that both of these sects have holy texts that are separate and distinct from the Holy Bible.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the Book of Mormon, which was first published by convicted fraudster and conman Joseph Smith in 1830. It was made up off the top of his head and dictated to someone who could write (Smith was illiterate), and then made up all over again (differently) when the translator’s wife destroyed the first copy. This book presumes to tell the “history” of the Christian religion in North America from 2200 BC to 440 AD. Seriously.

Their version of the afterlife is significantly different as well – Mormons have true believers inheriting their own planets to rule. Basically if you’ve ever watched the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, that’s a decent primer on Mormon beliefs.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses use the same books of the Bible as other Christians, but they have their own translation: The New World Translation. This translation doesn’t jive particularly well with any other commonly used translation of the Bible. This goes for things like the word “happy” being used instead of “blessed” in the Beatitudes – which while isn’t a great change does make some of the lines a bit weird. (“Happy are they that mourn..” I think not, actually.) And bits about the divinity of Jesus have been changed. They don’t believe in the Holy Trinity, and place Jesus a bit under God inthe holy hierarchy.

Witnesses don’t believe in Hell, they believe the end times started in 1914, and on Judgement Day exactly 144,000 peoples’ spirits will be resurrected to live on Earth 2.0 afterward (so try to be one of his favourites).

Mormons also believe that the Garden of Eden was in western Missouri. I shit you not.

Observing from my point of view as a Jew – yes, both Mormons and Witnesses are Christian. Christ is a central, or at least a strong, piece of their theologies. But they’re sort of on different sides of the spectrum.

I make no pretense of understanding either of their beliefs, just as have no rational explanation for the Hasidim or Neturei Karta in my own religion.

A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, so, yes, I suppose so.

Where is Eden supposed to be anyway? Somewhere in the Middle East I assume? Why not MO though? I have put out there that it seems odd to me that everything happened over in the Middle East, but God expects the whole world to be aware of His presence.

Because Adam and Eve didn’t land in Missouri. They weren’t native Americans. They were Middle Eastern. Plus they aren’t even real and neither is the Garden of Eden.

It’s not odd that everything happened in the Middle East. They’re the ones who invented the religion. They wrote the Bible. They simply incorporated their personal bits of history into it, and gave it supernatural overtones.
They didn’t incorporate Krakatoa blowing up or Mount Vesuvius or anything else that happened on any other continent because they didn’t / couldn’t know about any of it.

God doesn’t expect anything because he doesn’t exist. Humans want the world to know about him because a belief in God lets them control people.

This guy
says they are, plus how they are different.

As I understand it, you can be a fan of Jesus all day long, but in order to be a Christian you have to believe he suffered on the cross, died and then rose from the dead.
It looks like the Mormons start there, and kept going.

Mormons are Christians. They differ from the garden variety Christian branches because they believe that Joseph Smith was another prophet of God, giving extra guidance to the bible…new guidance from God, so to speak. That is captured in the Book of Mormon.

@JLeslie

It’s not really odd. The culture that the Abrahamic faiths originated in lived in the Middle East. That was the world as they knew it. Just like how with the Dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikkism…) everything happens on the Indian subcontinent because that was the world as they knew it.

^^No, I don’t mean it’s odd that everything took place there according to the Old Testament and New Testament. I mean, if there really is a God, why would He only let the people of the Middle East in on his greatness, and only they would have the ability to worship Him and go to heaven, until the word spread. It’s another huge flaw in the Abrahamic religions in my opinion.

The Garden is not on this planet.
Eden is in another solar sysrem. When Eve and Adam sinned, they were cast away, doomed to live out their lives, and breed new generations on Earth.
To return to Eden, one must wait for their mortal bodies to die, and their soul must be pure in order to be accepted.

@Patty_Melt – There’s literally no documentation anywhere supporting the idea that Eden is in another solar system.

The most the Bible says is that they were cast out and the entrance is guarded by angels holding swords of fire.

There’s also nothing anywhere stating that anyone can ever return to Eden.

So, I’m not sure if you made it up yourself or if you heard it in some Sunday service, but that’s not in any Bible I’ve ever read.

I am not Mormon.

Here’s a quote from an LDS website. “...the ancient Garden of Eden was also located in Jackson County.” (in Missouri)

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question/what-do-we-know-about-the-location-of-the-garden-of-eden?lang=eng

I double checked in a couple of other places and apparently this is the acccepted location- at least according to them.

The garden was The Garden Of God, aka Paradise.
Since Paradise is supposedly another name for Heaven, they were apparently cast from Heaven, the place where souls are believed to go… providing they qualify.
No humans of modern times have determined for universal satisfaction, the location of the garden, dubbed Eden, not by God, but by Hebrews.
I have seen quite a lot of Missouri, but never have I seen any angels guarding any garden with swords.
If people all over the world are allowed their own interpretations of the Bible, then I don’t believe anyone has the right or authority to tell me I am disallowed from my own interpretations.
Can anyone prove to me there is no solar system with a planet named Paradise, or possibly Heaven?
The Bible does state that Adam and Eve were cast out from Paradise. The Bible does state that God approved souls will be received in Heaven.
What I said fits that.
My interpretation of the location of Paradise is just as valid as anyone else’s, until disproved.

@Muad_Dib Thank you for a wonderful explanation. I understood that somehow Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses were not considered mainstream Christians—if they were Christian at all—so I was wondering what set them apart.

@Patty_Melt -

I’ll start off with saying I don’t believe Eden exists at all. However, if you do believe in it, it’s because the garden is documented in a specific storybook. That storybook goes through quite a bit of trouble to detail the creation of the “heavens and the earth”. In Genesis, God looks at a cubic assload of water, and says “OK, break it up”, and calls the space in between the two bits of water “Heaven”.

and god said “let there be a firmament in the midst of these waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

It then goes into agonizing detail about how the part that isn’t Heaven became Eden.

And God said “let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”, and it was so. And God called the dry land “Earth”.

So… if we’re using the holy text that describes the thing you’re claiming to interpret as proof… I’d say your story is solidly disproven.

Not that I much care, but it always makes me terribly sad to see Christians that don’t know what their own book says.

That book also associates the Tigris and Euphrates rivers with Eden, so there’s that as well.

It is all storybook to me.
“Called it Earth.” Which solid mass of rock and dirt would that be?
Earth is what lots of people call the planet where we currently reside, but it also is a word used to mean simply soil.
It is allllll up to interpretation.
When people try to be quite literal with the Bible, the flaws leap forward in abundance.
One problem is basic definition of words, which changes many ways in short order.
If one hundred years ago, or today, in certain circles, you asked someone where they keep their tack, they would respond, “In the barn of course.”
Mostly these days the question would get someone to point to a bulletin board, or desk drawer.
Bible never said Eve gave Adam an apple. It says fruit. We have been taught to assume it was an apple.
Bible didn’t say a whale swallowed Jonah, it says big fish. Maybe we are talking whale shark, since whales are mammals, and sharks are fish.
Oh, and the Bible doesn’t say under The Heaven, as a name.
It says the heavens, as in apart from…. the sky? Space?
You see how variance between name and general description make a difference?
Not only haven’t you, nor Bible disproven me, you have simply cited more examples of definition/name discrepancy.

Tigris? Euphrates? When do you suppose those rivers were named?

Look, I believe most of the Bible is a work of fiction, but I am looking at it in the context of giving believers of the god of Abraham, that includes Jews, Christians, and others who claim their beliefs start with the books of Moses the benefit of beliving the scriptures are authentic.

My favorite guide for poking fun at the Bible is the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible They also have annotated versions of the Koran and Book of Mormon. It does a good job of going through the text and pointing out peculiarities. They also occasionally point out some of the well written material. Did you know that Genesis contains two contradictory Universe creation accounts?

So you have a personal alternative interpretation of a work that you don’t believe in, based on alternate definitions of words in the English translation of Aramaic copies of bronze-age folklore that was passed on by word of mouth for who knows how long before someone finally wrote it down…

… And we’re supposed to take that interpretation as equally valid as that of established scholars?

Sure. You got a problem with freedom of folklore?
Mine works better than Heaven being everywhere besides planet Earth and its atmosphere. It fits what the Bible says. It is not my fault you are trying to use modern definitions for centuries old words, phrases, and practices.
There still is nothing solid to refute what I said.

@Patty_Melt “Tigris? Euphrates? When do you suppose those rivers were named?”

A few thousand years ago actually.

Before, or after the great flood?
Oh, sure. The entire planet was flooded, then went right back to its former landscaping.
Puhleaze!
I’ve been to a town called Paris, but I’ve never been to France.
Stuff gets named, renamed, and reshaped.
Many scholars challenge the name and location of the rivers mentioned in the Bible.
Some believe the garden is now under water.
Oh, and I am not the only one who goes with the interplanetary outcast story.

What are you on about?

How can anyone point to landmarks of any sort today, and say they had anything to do with the garden of Eden?
If the Bible is to be believed, the planet flooded, which would change the appearance of virtually everything.
Whatever rivers were to have existed while Eve and Adam lived, would be gone once Noah and minagerie disembarked the ark. Maybe Noah liked those names, and seeing two rivers he liked, gave them those names.
If you are going to believe the Bible to the extent of a description of The Garden Of God, then you would also have to believe the great flood changed everything.

This entire argument is nonsense.

For the record, I feel you have every right to believe whatever made up bullshit you like, whether it’s based on anything or imagined wholesale.

Just don’t go sponsoring laws stating my kids have to learn about it in school.

Deal?

@Patty_Melt I doubt any of the people arguing with you believe the Bible as written.

There is physical proof that priests waaaaaay back tinkered with the Bible when it was in the possession of only priests. Large portions were eliminated, and nobody knows what was said in those parts.
Some stories match up with other recorded sources of history, and are likely accountings which are true, or mostly so.
The thing is, as written, the Bible cannot be taken literally in its entirety.
Many pieces are left up to individual interpretation.
Any religon which does not contradict the Bible, but does claim the Bible as the root of their beliefs, can be called Christian. Some have other names for certain religons, but no single one can possibly claim full accuracy.
Some recognize one day as the Sabbath, and others a different day. Since none of us could be certain beyond all doubt, any day is good, so long as it it kept in the sort of reverance indicated.
What matters?
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Love thy neighbor.
Jesus wept. (Proving it has always been okay for men to cry.)

@Muad_Dib Does that mean I would have the right to say that we shouldn’t sponsor laws that teach evolution? How about Humanism? How about gay rights or transgenderism or even liberalism?

@seawulf575 – that is an argument I’d cheerfully rake over the coals in a relevant thread. However, we’re in the General section and I’m afraid that would be off-topic here.

@seawulf575 , You can say whatever you damn please. Say the sky is really pink or that we should all wear beanies with propellers. Acting on your statements to pass actual laws is an entirely different matter and beyond the scope of this thread.

My apologies if I got off topic. I was merely responding to the statement @Muad_Dib made: “Just don’t go sponsoring laws stating my kids have to learn about it in school.” It just seemed so one-sided.

It is the job of schools to impart knowledge to students. The theory of evolution, for example, is accepted as factual by scientists. That means that the theory has withstood tests that could have falsified it. You can check here for more on this. In particular, notice the final paragraph of the introduction:

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

This is all I have to say on this.

@LostInParadise so what about philosophy? That is all opinion yet is taught at great lengths in schools and universities? You see what I am saying….you can’t support one side of the education argument and negate others without being one-sided.

Areas like philosophy and art fall under a separate category. It is understood that what is expressed stands outside of science. None of it can be confirmed by experiment, but society has determined that certain views are worthy of examination. In such cases, it is acceptable to include theological arguments provided that, like the other arguments, it is understood that they are subject to personal belief.

No one will threaten you to burn you at the stake for not embracing Aristoteles as your lord and saviour.

But no one mentioned teaching religion in a science class. My point is that schools SHOULD be for teaching all sorts of things and particularly teaching kids how to think critically. They should NOT be for teaching only one train of thought. And laws should not be passed that preclude specific lines of thought. Ok, granted, we don’t need a modified shop class teaching kids how to make bombs and man traps, but that would be a silly extreme.

Oooooo, I would sign up for bomb class.
Fuck with me now, Kelly!

@Patty_Melt

Your entire argument rests on ignoring the cultural context in which the Bible was written. Fair enough if you want to do that, but don’t expect anyone to give your argument much consideration.

@seawulf575 What’s your goal for teaching creationism? You want the children taught that some religions believe it? If it’s taught, can be it be taught along with the statement that it is not supported by science and evolution is? I guess it would be more of just a teaching about various beliefs on the topic of how life came to be and how it evolved, or didn’t.

See, most people who want creationism taught, they want their belief, their religious belief, taught to others with the goal of either reinforcing that religion or converting people to that religion. That’s the problem. The intention is unacceptable. Even if the original person purposing it doesn’t have that intention, it falls in the category of slippery slope. The town that has a large population of deeply religious people might see it as permission to teach creationism, and not teach evolution, and teach to the Bible they choose.

Separation of church and state is pretty important, it is one of the main fundamentals of what makes America America. It is an extremely special quality of America, that was part of the brilliance at our founding. It made us different and set us apart from other countries in the world at the time. Let’s not screw it up.

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in a philosophy class. It is one viewpoint, and in its weakest version, cannot be disproved by science. It cannot be taught as science because it does not pass the falsifiability test. Just as important as it is to teach specific parts of science, it is important to make clear what separates science from non-science.

Cultural context?
An all powerful god dictates a book to people who must use words like masses, and multitudes because they are incapable of conceptualizing large numbers.
This god can create a human from dirt, and non clone another from a rib, but needs ghost writers to get him published?
Obviously the culture was incapable of fully perceiving many details, thus the holes in the telling.
Why should I be expected to believe the parting of the red sea, but not interstellar travel?
I am absolutely observing the culture of origin. The story was written by primitives who were only capable of limited perception, so they greatly minimalized, and even omitted certain details to fit with their limited understanding.
My views allow for full explaination of why so many details don’t mesh.

Now you’re just being obtuse for the sake of it.

Translation: “I recognize that the book my beliefs on is hopelessly flawed despite claims that it was dictated by an all-powerful deity, but instead of accepting that fact I’ve decided to play mental gymnastics in a half-hearted attempt to have it make sense”.

@JLeslie I believe in teaching our children/young people options that are out there. To teach only evolution totally ignores the beliefs of those that believe in creationism. If you want to get into it, that would be Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That’s an awful lot of people. But I would suggest going beyond that. Why not have a comparative religion class in which Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, atheism, Buddhism, Taoism and a variety of East Asian religions are discussed. Why not let the kids see what is out there in the world? Why is it so scary to let the kids see what is in the world? Why is it so important to limit it to only one aspect? As for a difference between science and religion, I could go on for hours on that one. In the end, there really isn’t any…not really. That’s for another topic.
As for the separation of church and state: That is a misnomer that many people in this country have. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can’t discuss religion in public settings. What it does say is that the government is not allowed to establish a national religion, leaving each person able to worship as they see fit, if they see fit. We have allowed that to be totally warped into some odd thing that makes a private prayer in a public place a sin. Not the intent or the wording.

@LostInParadise but in the end, evolution as a basis for how we came to be cannot be proven either. Neither can the big bang theory or any of the major scientific themes. That is the problem. If you go with evolution, we have the missing link…that which takes us from being ape to that which makes us man. It has never been found so the theory cannot be proven. Ditto that for the big bang theory. It works great until you get to the point where you say “so how did all the stuff come into being before the big bang?” At that point there is no answer so again…the theory has holes. So to claim science has the answers if just as hokey as saying the bible it true as it is written.
My personal belief is that the truth is somewhere in between the two. Science talks a lot about random events, but if random events drove everything, we wouldn’t have scientific laws. We couldn’t possibly have rules for how things work if it is all random. We would have total chaos. Instead we use science to identify the laws and the order of how things work but never really get to the point of why there is order in the first place.

@seawulf575 Comparitive religion I’m fine with at the high school level. Putting creationism in with evolution, and teaching creationism like it’s equivalent to a valid scientific theory I’m not.

Believing in God and creationism doesn’t help figure out how things work. How the universe came into being, DNA, medical diseases, etc. that’s what we teach in school.

One of the biggest problems is many Christians believe in creationism and not in evolution, they won’t even consider the science. While other Christians see no problem with both—that God created the Universe, and evolution is part of God’s creation. The latter group shouldn’t have any problem with only teaching evolution, so I assume you are in the group that simply doesn’t accept evolution as a possibility.

You ask why am I afraid to let kids be aware of all the options? I don’t mind older children knowing the beliefs of others, but I am closed minded when it comes to young children, and to teaching religious belief like it’s fact. I won’t interfere with how you raise your children religiously and don’t interfere with mine.

@seawulf575 “but in the end, evolution as a basis for how we came to be cannot be proven either. ”

Can be, has been. It has been proven beyond question.

@Darth_Algar Really? Where is that missing link that ties us to apes? Oh, and here’s a thought…if evolution is the only answer, why aren’t there living examples of the missing link? There are apes and there are men, but nothing in between. If evolution was the answer, wouldn’t apes have disappeared? Or, if the transition was not complete, wouldn’t there be living cases of the missing link? I wholeheartedly agree that things adapt over time to different things…weather, threats, etc. For instance, man has advanced over the past couple hundred thousand years. But where did man come from? Evolution has not been proven on that point.

The proof is in the DNA. Nobody has found remains of a missing link, but there is proof of a continuity in DNA.

But @JLeslie you see? You are doing exactly what I clocked @Muad_Dib on. You are saying that teaching kids what you think is right is okay…presenting it as fact with no other options…but someone else’s opinion isn’t okay. So only after we brainwash them for what…6 years? 10 years?...is it okay to present a different view point…one that is held by millions on the planet. And not just okay for your kids, but for all kids, regardless of how their parents feel or believe.

But kids aren’t learning about evolution in grade school. It typically isn’t until 8th grade or after that evolution is actually taught in schools. So if it is okay at that point to start talking about evolution, why isn’t it also okay to present other ideas?

@Patty_Melt And by DNA, Cows and Dolphins are closely related. The point? It isn’t proof…it is similarity. There are close similarities between chimpanzees and humans. But you can look at a chimpanzee and see that. But that doesn’t prove we descended from chimps. It proves we are similar to chimps.

The fact that you don’t understand evolution does not falsify it.

I started learning about evolution in 6th grade. I would prefer to leave evolution out of the compulsory curriculum than put religion in if I have to choose. I’d be willing to leave it for the elective science classes for kids going the science route. I’ve never really used my basic knowledge of evolution, my major was marketing.

No one is stopping you from teaching your kids about your religion.

@seawulf575 , You just don’t seem to understand the idea of falsifiability. What distinguishes science from non-science is that science conducts experiments that test hypotheses. If the experiment does not confirm the hypothesis then it is dropped. Can you think of an experiment that similarly test creationism? Of course not. Creationism is not science and has no place in a science course.

One thing about science is that there will always be questions. Just like a annoying two year old, you can always ask why. At some point, you have to say that we have gone as far as we can for the moment. The Big Bang theory is an extraordinary theory and has been tested and confirmed. Not knowing what came before the Big Bang does not nullify the theory.

As for the missing link, several have in fact been found – several species intermediate between chimpanzees and humans. Have we found the one single common ancestor? Does it really matter. See this

I want to apologize…I seem to have dragged us all way off topic. I would love to continue this debate in another thread, though. Happy Thanksgiving to you all!

@seawulf575

A lack of understanding of a subject does not invalidate that subject. That you’re looking for a “missing link” demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution. There is no “missing link” between man and ape, because man is an ape. And I’m not speaking metaphorically. Literally we are an ape species.

Further, the term and concept of the “missing link” is a non-scientific idea that long pre-dates our understanding of evolution.

^^I might change my last post to “if anything we need more information about evolution taught in schools.”

@JLeslie The answer to your question about why everything happened in the Middle East is easily explained.
Other cultures had other religions and gods to explain all The Things. The Abrahamic religion slowly dominated them all, thanks to a bunch of help from Rome. But other religions, especially in the Far East, weren’t touched by it. They still hold to their ancient beliefs and explanations of “miracles.”

I know. I know technically why.

So are you asking “why” from a spiritual level @JLeslie? Or are you offering it up as proof that it’s all bologna?

Bologna, to use your word. I’d rather just say it doesn’t really make sense.

Right. Just one of too many unanswerable questions I had about the church. I finally realized there was only one answer that made any sense. It was kind of sad to lose that though.

No, they are one branch of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses. All of them use different sacred texts. Mormons’ main book is the Book of Mormon that is not recognized by Christians or other Abrahamic religions.