<dusts this off>
Lidless wrote:Any religion that is truly Christian only needs a belief in Jesus Christ and to follow his teachings to be allowed into Heaven.
Ah, but what is "a belief in Jesus Christ" and what are his teachings?
The Mormons are hardly the only cult that refers to itself as Christian but would not be considered Christian by other, well, Christian churches. But any such discussion gets silly (:D) if you don't define basic terms before begining.
First, cult. Cult merely refers to practices and beliefs, ie, a religion, or part of one. The "cult of the saints" is devotion to the saints within the Catholic faith. Cult, by itself, is a neutral term with no value-judgements attached.
Or at least it was. Now, it is used to refer to destructive practices. So, anytime the word "cult" is used, it usually means "destructive cult." A statement such as "my sister has joined a cult" would be followed up with "and now we can't see her any more," not, "and they're having a barbecue on Saturday; wanna go?"
So, on one level, any church or religious affiliation can be labeled a cult (and so, non-Christian) if the way it opperates is deemed destructive or charlatan. Thus, Jonestown and the Branch Davidians of Waco are seen as cults (by pretty much the whole world). This is
regardless of what beliefs inspire such behavior, but usually such cults have a charismatic personality claiming to be God (or Jesus returned) as a leader, so it is generally easy to find theological differences as well.
Some of the classical behavior traits of a cult: the leader is charismatic (this is more incidental, but it's the only way this works); the group works hard to get
all the money of its followers; the leader of the group demands sexual rights to the members (or all the women, or something); the group skips town and changes names if there is a scandal; the group seeks to isolate its members, causing them to sever ties to family and friends who are not part of the cult; the group fosters distrust of society and the government, and basically all non-cult-members; the group tries to control its members' lives directly; the group is esoteric (secretive); the group is focused very much on end-times. Obviously, some of these traits are common to any scam, and some may be true of legitimate religions (ie, you could call Billy Graham or JPII charismatic). But if you have most (or all) of these traits, chances are its a cult.
I do not have enough knowledge of the Mormon church to label them a cult on these grounds alone. But there are hundreds of organizations in the US alone that
do fall under this description, unfortunately. [And no, I didn't get that from TV
] For them, I don't see the need to even get into a theological discussion.
But as far as I know, the only strikes against the Mormons from that list are that they are esoteric, and that their early history definately followed the "skip town" pattern. As I said, I don't think that's enough to condemn the whole group. Fundamentalist Mormons are definately more suspect, because they have charismatic prophets who are interested in sexual control of all the young women in the group (not necessarily for themselves, but still). But the mainstream Mormon church has already said they don't agree with this interpretation of their religion, so I find it reasonable to consider them seperately. FBI-most-wanted-guy is
not a representative Mormon!
Okay, theology. This is the part where the voice of the Christian churches is distinguished from the voices of, say, the government, or other observers. The gov't doesn't care what a group believes, they just care what they do about it - ie, if they start sleeping with children or stockpiling guns, that's a problem.
To be a Christian, you must believe in Jesus, as
TLE succinctly stated. But...what does that mean?
It can mean a lot of things, but at a very, very, very basic level, it means at least this:
- A belief in the Trinity: three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), one God.
A belief in Jesus, fully divine and fully human
who lived, and died, and rose from the dead
so that sins may be forgiven (ie, we can go to heaven).
Reems and reems have been written on what that actually means. But groups that do not affirm these basic truths are not Christians, because they would not be able to recite the Apostles' Creed with a straight face and no squirming. It doesn't mean they don't "believe in Jesus" - they very well may. Take anyone here who identifies themselves as a non-Christian. They may say that they believe Jesus was a real person, or that Jesus had a lot of worthwhile things to say (and wouldn't it be nice if Christians would actually listen to him!) You can "believe in Jesus" in a lot of different ways, and that does not necessarily make you a Christian. Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet (from what I understand), but that doesn't mean they see themselves as Christians!
For these reasons, I think it fair for Christians (as a group) to limit the term "Christian" to those who believe some basic things about Jesus in common with all other Christians. By defining terms (broadly and historically), this allows Christians to call some interpretations heretical, or at the very least "non-Christian." By denying Christians the ability to define the term, the term becomes meaningless. Which, among other things, is not very helpful!
Some groups that are excluded from the label "Christian" using that definition: Unitarians, Unitarian Universalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and possibly Seventh Day Adventists? (I forget what they believe) Certainly Christian Science and Scientology. Ba'hai.
It would be very unfair to label these groups
cults over theological differences, though, because that immediately calls to mind images of people dying in a bunker somewhere. "Non-Christian groups" is sufficient, I would think, unless they really do have the other traits that would make them a destructive cult.
David Koresh said he was a Christian. I say he was wrong. You can accept whatever people self-identify as, but then, what does the word mean?
As for baptism, the Catholic Church accepts all baptisms as, well, baptism (which you only need receive once). To be a baptism: the person performing the baptism must be baptised, water must be used, and the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," must be said (in any language). If someone used something other than water, it wouldn't count, and if you left out the reference to the Trinity, it wouldn't count either. The words of a Mormon baptism are the same, according to
Brian's article, but the intention (or meaning of them) is different, so that would be problematic. After all, baptism is not a "formula," but an act of God, so you have to, well, request it of God.
."
AtYou
