Mormonism: the Fourth Abrahamic Religion

Yeah, that was basically my rationale as well. I still think there are two major ways to distinguish if an offshoot should be considered a branch: (1) different enough and (2) big enough. I would think that the Mormons, JW's, Rastafarians, Christadelphians, and the like certainly fulfill (1). The question is, are there any that fulfill (2)?
 
I'm still curious what the definition of Christianity is, and by what authority that definition was set. :confused: (1) what a bunch of theologists came up with, or (2) the original established church/definition according to the Bible?
 
(1), because that's all we have to go with nowadays, (2) is in theory fulfilled by (1), and in secular terms (1) defines the majority of Christian churches nowadays.

Duh.
 
That's an arguable point, but I'll give it to you. And no need to get tiffy, I'm just trying to get a firm definition of the terms behind the debate. :p
One of the big reason I ask, is that the very premise of the Trinity (as defined by modern "Christian" theologians) is itself of questionable validity. Therefore, if a believe in the Trinity doctrine is a pre-requisite to being considered "Christian" (again, by whom: I'm not sure), then that is to throw out the possibility of the Trinity doctrine being incorrect, and debatable.

Therefore, a religion may subscribe fully to the belief that Jesus (of the Bible) was The Christ/Messiah, in all the capacity that the Gospels (as well as the rest of the Bible) describe, fulfill all the tenets set out by the New Testament, and yet still not be considered "Christian" simply because they may not accept the notion of the Trinity: (specifically the singular essence of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost).

Maybe its just me, but that is a bit ludicrous. An apt analogy (in my mind) would be to announce that a car with no windshield is no longer a car because all cars MUST have windshields.

Perhaps I am wrong?
 
That's an arguable point, but I'll give it to you. And no need to get tiffy, I'm just trying to get a firm definition of the terms behind the debate. :p
One of the big reason I ask, is that the very premise of the Trinity (as defined by modern "Christian" theologians) is itself of questionable validity. Therefore, if a believe in the Trinity doctrine is a pre-requisite to being considered "Christian" (again, by whom: I'm not sure), then that is to throw out the possibility of the Trinity doctrine being incorrect, and debatable.

Therefore, a religion may subscribe fully to the belief that Jesus (of the Bible) was The Christ/Messiah, in all the capacity that the Gospels (as well as the rest of the Bible) describe, fulfill all the tenets set out by the New Testament, and yet still not be considered "Christian" simply because they may not accept the notion of the Trinity: (specifically the singular essence of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost).

Maybe its just me, but that is a bit ludicrous. An apt analogy (in my mind) would be to announce that a car with no windshield is no longer a car because all cars MUST have windshields.

Perhaps I am wrong?

It might be a bit ludicrous to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the core, explicit and implicit message of the New Testament, the message of Jesus himself, is that Jesus Christ is the eternal Word of God made flesh, that Christ and the Father are of one essence and that Jesus Christ came into the world to save people from their sins. Rejecting this is different then saying "I won't give up meat during Lent" or "I won't tithe" (or even I don't want a windshield on my car). It's the rejection of something (the identity of Jesus Christ and his mission) at the center of the faith.

To answer the OP's question, yes, perhaps Mormonism ought to be considered the 4th Abrahamic faith.
 
(shrugs)
That is evidently one interpretation regarding the identity of Christ, and you (and others) are obviously entitled to that interpretation. It is certainly not the only interpretation out there though and MOST certainly NOT a "Fact": there are plenty of arguments in just as many directions. If the message was so explicit and implicit, these sorts of arguments would be moot as the matter would have been settled. As it stands, it has not been settles, and there are different ways of interpreting just what the nature of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost is; all according to the same book of scripture. That was kind of the whole point behind prophets.

I personally view Mormonism as a Christian faith (for crying out loud, look at their name on any one of their church buildings: JESUS CHRIST are the biggest words there). And their world-wide welfare program can certainly be described as "Christian". In the end, I don't think it really matters whether mainstream Christianity accepts them or not; they define themselves as Christians, and by accepting Christ as their Redeemer and trying to live a "Christian" lifestyle, I believe that makes them Christian.
 
Last edited:
It might be a bit ludicrous to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the core, explicit and implicit message of the New Testament, the message of Jesus himself, is that Jesus Christ is the eternal Word of God made flesh, that Christ and the Father are of one essence and that Jesus Christ came into the world to save people from their sins. Rejecting this is different then saying "I won't give up meat during Lent" or "I won't tithe" (or even I don't want a windshield on my car). It's the rejection of something (the identity of Jesus Christ and his mission) at the center of the faith.

To answer the OP's question, yes, perhaps Mormonism ought to be considered the 4th Abrahamic faith.

It is only considered the explicit and implicit message of the text because those sects that interpret it differently are now either extinct or so small as to not have much influence on Christianity as a whole. The success of a particular interpretation of the text does not make it correct only popular.

Back to the OP. I don't think we can wholly define a new religion just by having additional gospels. Catholicism Orthodoxy and Protestantism are all considered Christian yet they all have variations on what books make up their Bible.
 
It might be a bit ludicrous to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the core, explicit and implicit message of the New Testament, the message of Jesus himself, is that Jesus Christ is the eternal Word of God made flesh, that Christ and the Father are of one essence and that Jesus Christ came into the world to save people from their sins. Rejecting this is different then saying "I won't give up meat during Lent" or "I won't tithe" (or even I don't want a windshield on my car). It's the rejection of something (the identity of Jesus Christ and his mission) at the center of the faith.

To answer the OP's question, yes, perhaps Mormonism ought to be considered the 4th Abrahamic faith.

It is only considered the explicit and implicit message of the text because those sects that interpret it differently are now either extinct or so small as to not have much influence on Christianity as a whole. The success of a particular interpretation of the text does not make it correct only popular.

Back to the OP. I don't think we can wholly define a new religion just by having additional gospels. Catholicism Orthodoxy and Protestantism are all considered Christian yet they all have variations on what books make up their Bible.
 
It is only considered the explicit and implicit message of the text because those sects that interpret it differently are now either extinct or so small as to not have much influence on Christianity as a whole. The success of a particular interpretation of the text does not make it correct only popular.

Back to the OP. I don't think we can wholly define a new religion just by having additional gospels. Catholicism Orthodoxy and Protestantism are all considered Christian yet they all have variations on what books make up their Bible.

Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy share the same New and Old Testament books and they share the core belief in the person and mission of Jesus Christ that I stated above.

Look, I'm only trying to define terms, as asked for by a poster above, not debate them, nor to say who's "in" or "out" of Christianity or any religious faith. For this thread, I think that that's where this needs to be left.
 
Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy share the same New and Old Testament books and they share the core belief in the person and mission of Jesus Christ that I stated above.

Look, I'm only trying to define terms, as asked for by a poster above, not debate them, nor to say who's "in" or "out" of Christianity or any religious faith. For this thread, I think that that's where this needs to be left.
I'm sorry if I sounded accusatory. I just was trying to point out that defining Christianity solely by the tenets of those sects that are ascendant today is problematic. Which i guess is the problem. So many groups have defined themselves or been defined as Christian that the only thing that can be said to be a commonality is the importance of Jesus (or Yehoshua or Christ or whatever) to their beliefs.

On the matter of religious texts while the Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox texts are majority similar they do have differences based on what Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal texts they accept that the others don't.

I think the problem we are running into is that there does not seem to be a clear line where a group goes from a sect to a different faith. Lacking such a definition I think I will have to settle for saying Mormonism is a new sect that might be defined as a new faith at some point.

PS It just struck me that it might be that this problem might derive from the fact that Christianity is so large that like American big tent parties what is a new sub-group for it would be a completely new independent group for a smaller religion.
 
Hm. I guess ultimately Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity not unlike Druze/Baha'i from Islam, Samaritanism from Judaism, etc. It's simply not different enough. Mormonism really is similar to Islam, however- it's a Christian-offshoot based on a single prophet who claimed angelic revelation that later became desert based and drew highly from its surrounding culture (Americans). Mormonism is really different looking from mainline Christianity, but I guess at the end of the day it really isn't as different as Islam is.

I'd still like to see some more different major Abrahamic religions spring up, but that's for another thread.
 
Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy share the same New and Old Testament books and they share the core belief in the person and mission of Jesus Christ that I stated above.

Look, I'm only trying to define terms, as asked for by a poster above, not debate them, nor to say who's "in" or "out" of Christianity or any religious faith. For this thread, I think that that's where this needs to be left.
My apologizes for begging the question, but my understanding of the doctrine you laid out (specifically the idea of the Trinity), is one of the key messages of the Nicene Creed, rather than being explicit to the New Testament as you suggested. If subscribing to that Creed (as THE authoritative interpretation of the New Testament) is your definition of Christianity...

I'm sorry if I sounded accusatory. I just was trying to point out that defining Christianity solely by the tenets of those sects that are ascendant today is problematic. Which i guess is the problem. So many groups have defined themselves or been defined as Christian that the only thing that can be said to be a commonality is the importance of Jesus (or Yehoshua or Christ or whatever) to their beliefs.

On the matter of religious texts while the Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox texts are majority similar they do have differences based on what Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal texts they accept that the others don't.

I think the problem we are running into is that there does not seem to be a clear line where a group goes from a sect to a different faith. Lacking such a definition I think I will have to settle for saying Mormonism is a new sect that might be defined as a new faith at some point.

PS It just struck me that it might be that this problem might derive from the fact that Christianity is so large that like American big tent parties what is a new sub-group for it would be a completely new independent group for a smaller religion.
My thoughts as well.
 
Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy share the same New and Old Testament books and they share the core belief in the person and mission of Jesus Christ that I stated above.

Look, I'm only trying to define terms, as asked for by a poster above, not debate them, nor to say who's "in" or "out" of Christianity or any religious faith. For this thread, I think that that's where this needs to be left.
Ever heard of the Deuterocanonical books?
 
Most except the strictest KJV-only type Protestant sects either accept the Deuterocanon as useful as historical context or partly inspired. That's different from adding an entire series of books like the Koran or the Book of Mormon.
 
Yes, I have. I've even read them. They are not part of the New Testament however; they are Deuterocanonical not Canonical.
Well of course, no one's claiming that they're part of the New Testament... Deuterocanonical doesn't mean "non-canonical", it just refers to the fact that these books are not as well attested to in certain sources as the "Protocanonical" books.
 

Hnau

Banned
As a Mormon, I would consider our religion the Fourth Abrahamic Religion: its different enough, has additional revelations, scripture, etc. But we also worship Jesus Christ... so wouldn't we be Christians as well? I'm not quite sure how it works, this classification.
 
My perception is that as it presently stands "Mormonism" has it's feet in both camps - it can be considered a Christian denomination based on it's use of agreed Christian texts; and also a new religion based on it's use of a new text not accepted by any of the (other) Christian denominations.
For it to become fully the 4th AR then it possibly needs to reject some of the older Christian canon and expand it's Mormon one.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Do I think Mormonism is a separate branch of Abrahamic Religions? Well yes, but I think it's unlikely to be seen as the fourth Branch as long as it is so small and regional limited as it is. There's several other religion which could be seen as the fourth branch and some of them are larger than Mormonism and more global, until one of these become a rather large religion, I doubt any of them will seen as more than a interesting offshot of the three Abrahamic Religions.
 
Top