Mormon's are no longer Christian: Hegseth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drawing lines distinguishing between religions is part art and part science, but I think in this case, it’s reasonable to describe Mormonism as non-Christian.

In the early days of Christianity, there arose a fairly significant dispute between Trinitarian Christians and followers of Arius. The latter group—the so-called Arians—maintained that Christ was not eternal in the same was the Father. To resolve the dispute, an ecumenical council was established—the Council of Nicaea—which settled upon the Nicene Creed. Today, the Nicene Creed is the foundational statement of faith for essentially all Christians.

In the seventh century, Muhammad started Islam, which, like Arianism, maintained that Jesus was the Messiah but disputed the Christian understanding of His Divinity. Early Christian thinkers regarded Islam as something akin to Arianism—John of Damascus, for instance, famously characterized Islam as the heresy of the Ishmaelites. But over time, it came to be understood that Islam was really just a different religion, albeit an Abrahamic monotheistic religion.

It’s not beyond dispute, but it feels eminently plausible that the reason that western thought labeled Arianism as misguided Christianity and Islam as a different religion is because, after Nicaea, people saw Trinitarianism as the price of admission for Christianity. And judged by that standard, Mormonism would naturally fall on the “other religion” side of the line.

The principal rejoinder that I see to this is that Mormons (presumably) want to be seen as Christians. But the same could presumably be said of those guys I see outside the metro with the loud speakers and incense talking about how they’re the true Israelites. And I don’t think anyone suggests that the government would have to take the position that they’re a branch of Judaism alongside Reform, Orthodox, etc.

The other rejoinder I can think of is that Mormonism and Arianism started inside of Trinitarian Christianity whereas the early Muslims were generally not Christians prior to Islam. But that seems like an artificial distinction, and, if accepted at face value; would suggest that Christianity might be labeled a denomination of Judaism, and I doubt anyone is lobbying for that.

Thus, it seems to me that treating Mormonism as a religion unto itself is defensible as a descriptive matter.

Why do you want the government in the business of deciding which religions are the real Christianity and which aren’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing lines distinguishing between religions is part art and part science, but I think in this case, it’s reasonable to describe Mormonism as non-Christian.

In the early days of Christianity, there arose a fairly significant dispute between Trinitarian Christians and followers of Arius. The latter group—the so-called Arians—maintained that Christ was not eternal in the same was the Father. To resolve the dispute, an ecumenical council was established—the Council of Nicaea—which settled upon the Nicene Creed. Today, the Nicene Creed is the foundational statement of faith for essentially all Christians.

In the seventh century, Muhammad started Islam, which, like Arianism, maintained that Jesus was the Messiah but disputed the Christian understanding of His Divinity. Early Christian thinkers regarded Islam as something akin to Arianism—John of Damascus, for instance, famously characterized Islam as the heresy of the Ishmaelites. But over time, it came to be understood that Islam was really just a different religion, albeit an Abrahamic monotheistic religion.

It’s not beyond dispute, but it feels eminently plausible that the reason that western thought labeled Arianism as misguided Christianity and Islam as a different religion is because, after Nicaea, people saw Trinitarianism as the price of admission for Christianity. And judged by that standard, Mormonism would naturally fall on the “other religion” side of the line.

The principal rejoinder that I see to this is that Mormons (presumably) want to be seen as Christians. But the same could presumably be said of those guys I see outside the metro with the loud speakers and incense talking about how they’re the true Israelites. And I don’t think anyone suggests that the government would have to take the position that they’re a branch of Judaism alongside Reform, Orthodox, etc.

The other rejoinder I can think of is that Mormonism and Arianism started inside of Trinitarian Christianity whereas the early Muslims were generally not Christians prior to Islam. But that seems like an artificial distinction, and, if accepted at face value; would suggest that Christianity might be labeled a denomination of Judaism, and I doubt anyone is lobbying for that.

Thus, it seems to me that treating Mormonism as a religion unto itself is defensible as a descriptive matter.

Why do you want the government in the business of deciding which religions are the real Christianity and which aren’t?

"Government" is serious business and serious business doesn't focus on silly religions carried on by money and power hungry jerks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing lines distinguishing between religions is part art and part science, but I think in this case, it’s reasonable to describe Mormonism as non-Christian.

In the early days of Christianity, there arose a fairly significant dispute between Trinitarian Christians and followers of Arius. The latter group—the so-called Arians—maintained that Christ was not eternal in the same was the Father. To resolve the dispute, an ecumenical council was established—the Council of Nicaea—which settled upon the Nicene Creed. Today, the Nicene Creed is the foundational statement of faith for essentially all Christians.

In the seventh century, Muhammad started Islam, which, like Arianism, maintained that Jesus was the Messiah but disputed the Christian understanding of His Divinity. Early Christian thinkers regarded Islam as something akin to Arianism—John of Damascus, for instance, famously characterized Islam as the heresy of the Ishmaelites. But over time, it came to be understood that Islam was really just a different religion, albeit an Abrahamic monotheistic religion.

It’s not beyond dispute, but it feels eminently plausible that the reason that western thought labeled Arianism as misguided Christianity and Islam as a different religion is because, after Nicaea, people saw Trinitarianism as the price of admission for Christianity. And judged by that standard, Mormonism would naturally fall on the “other religion” side of the line.

The principal rejoinder that I see to this is that Mormons (presumably) want to be seen as Christians. But the same could presumably be said of those guys I see outside the metro with the loud speakers and incense talking about how they’re the true Israelites. And I don’t think anyone suggests that the government would have to take the position that they’re a branch of Judaism alongside Reform, Orthodox, etc.

The other rejoinder I can think of is that Mormonism and Arianism started inside of Trinitarian Christianity whereas the early Muslims were generally not Christians prior to Islam. But that seems like an artificial distinction, and, if accepted at face value; would suggest that Christianity might be labeled a denomination of Judaism, and I doubt anyone is lobbying for that.

Thus, it seems to me that treating Mormonism as a religion unto itself is defensible as a descriptive matter.

Why do you want the government in the business of deciding which religions are the real Christianity and which aren’t?

I’m the person you’re quoting. I’m just explaining why this might be a reasonable line to draw if you’re already in the line-drawing business; I’m not sure why the government would need to maintain this list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing lines distinguishing between religions is part art and part science, but I think in this case, it’s reasonable to describe Mormonism as non-Christian.

In the early days of Christianity, there arose a fairly significant dispute between Trinitarian Christians and followers of Arius. The latter group—the so-called Arians—maintained that Christ was not eternal in the same was the Father. To resolve the dispute, an ecumenical council was established—the Council of Nicaea—which settled upon the Nicene Creed. Today, the Nicene Creed is the foundational statement of faith for essentially all Christians.

In the seventh century, Muhammad started Islam, which, like Arianism, maintained that Jesus was the Messiah but disputed the Christian understanding of His Divinity. Early Christian thinkers regarded Islam as something akin to Arianism—John of Damascus, for instance, famously characterized Islam as the heresy of the Ishmaelites. But over time, it came to be understood that Islam was really just a different religion, albeit an Abrahamic monotheistic religion.

It’s not beyond dispute, but it feels eminently plausible that the reason that western thought labeled Arianism as misguided Christianity and Islam as a different religion is because, after Nicaea, people saw Trinitarianism as the price of admission for Christianity. And judged by that standard, Mormonism would naturally fall on the “other religion” side of the line.

The principal rejoinder that I see to this is that Mormons (presumably) want to be seen as Christians. But the same could presumably be said of those guys I see outside the metro with the loud speakers and incense talking about how they’re the true Israelites. And I don’t think anyone suggests that the government would have to take the position that they’re a branch of Judaism alongside Reform, Orthodox, etc.

The other rejoinder I can think of is that Mormonism and Arianism started inside of Trinitarian Christianity whereas the early Muslims were generally not Christians prior to Islam. But that seems like an artificial distinction, and, if accepted at face value; would suggest that Christianity might be labeled a denomination of Judaism, and I doubt anyone is lobbying for that.

Thus, it seems to me that treating Mormonism as a religion unto itself is defensible as a descriptive matter.

Yea, but we're now in the 21st century. Santa ain't real, Easter Bunny ain't real, Jesus and Muhhamad were real humans but they are dead and they ain't coming back. Time for everyone to act like smart adults and move on.

“Be smart,” says the poster whose trite cliches are not even responsive to the discussion at hand.

Exactly, anyone discussing religions in a serious context in 2026 needs to have their head examined. The enlightened world is over religious cults.

If I were grounding my argument in what year it is or misusing the word “cults,” I probably wouldn’t go around striking a note of intellectual superiority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least his denomination made the list. My son who is joining the Army next year will be considered "Other Religions."

He signed up for this exclusion. He knows who and what this unqualified, racist, misogynist, classist, religious extremist is, and he signed up to salute and work for him. It's not like your son was hoodwinked.

He signed up to defend the Constitution, like his father, uncle and grandfather did. He'll still be there after Hegseth is gone.

Not if he's a person of color, or gay or trans. Hegseth will not tolerate anyone who is not a straight white man in the military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has an estimated total net worth between $250 billion and $300+ billion, making it one of the wealthiest religious institutions in the world.

WWJD?

A pittance compared to the Catholic Church

We don’t actually know how much the Vatican has, but upper limit guesses could put it equal to the LDS church (300B). The difference is in members. 1.4B Catholics vs 5-1M Mormons. The Mormon church is exceptionally wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drawing lines distinguishing between religions is part art and part science, but I think in this case, it’s reasonable to describe Mormonism as non-Christian.

In the early days of Christianity, there arose a fairly significant dispute between Trinitarian Christians and followers of Arius. The latter group—the so-called Arians—maintained that Christ was not eternal in the same was the Father. To resolve the dispute, an ecumenical council was established—the Council of Nicaea—which settled upon the Nicene Creed. Today, the Nicene Creed is the foundational statement of faith for essentially all Christians.

In the seventh century, Muhammad started Islam, which, like Arianism, maintained that Jesus was the Messiah but disputed the Christian understanding of His Divinity. Early Christian thinkers regarded Islam as something akin to Arianism—John of Damascus, for instance, famously characterized Islam as the heresy of the Ishmaelites. But over time, it came to be understood that Islam was really just a different religion, albeit an Abrahamic monotheistic religion.

It’s not beyond dispute, but it feels eminently plausible that the reason that western thought labeled Arianism as misguided Christianity and Islam as a different religion is because, after Nicaea, people saw Trinitarianism as the price of admission for Christianity. And judged by that standard, Mormonism would naturally fall on the “other religion” side of the line.

The principal rejoinder that I see to this is that Mormons (presumably) want to be seen as Christians. But the same could presumably be said of those guys I see outside the metro with the loud speakers and incense talking about how they’re the true Israelites. And I don’t think anyone suggests that the government would have to take the position that they’re a branch of Judaism alongside Reform, Orthodox, etc.

The other rejoinder I can think of is that Mormonism and Arianism started inside of Trinitarian Christianity whereas the early Muslims were generally not Christians prior to Islam. But that seems like an artificial distinction, and, if accepted at face value; would suggest that Christianity might be labeled a denomination of Judaism, and I doubt anyone is lobbying for that.

Thus, it seems to me that treating Mormonism as a religion unto itself is defensible as a descriptive matter.

Yea, but we're now in the 21st century. Santa ain't real, Easter Bunny ain't real, Jesus and Muhhamad were real humans but they are dead and they ain't coming back. Time for everyone to act like smart adults and move on.

“Be smart,” says the poster whose trite cliches are not even responsive to the discussion at hand.

Exactly, anyone discussing religions in a serious context in 2026 needs to have their head examined. The enlightened world is over religious cults.

If I were grounding my argument in what year it is or misusing the word “cults,” I probably wouldn’t go around striking a note of intellectual superiority.

And how would you use the term "cults"?? Which hate group are you affiliated with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The principal rejoinder that I see to this is that Mormons (presumably) want to be seen as Christians. But the same could presumably be said of those guys I see outside the metro with the loud speakers and incense talking about how they’re the true Israelites.

An excellent anology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has an estimated total net worth between $250 billion and $300+ billion, making it one of the wealthiest religious institutions in the world.

WWJD?

A pittance compared to the Catholic Church

We don’t actually know how much the Vatican has, but upper limit guesses could put it equal to the LDS church (300B). The difference is in members. 1.4B Catholics vs 5-1M Mormons. The Mormon church is exceptionally wealthy.

The difference is in centralized wealth and generational wealth. Most of the Catholic Church's wealth is not owned by the Vatican.

The Catholic Church has generational wealth which has accrued over thousands of years. It owns huge tracts of the State of Maryland. If you think the Mormon Church, which, comparatively was born yesterday, has more money than the Catholic Church, you are naive.

[Anonymous]

that's crazy. LDS 300B and The One True Church is only 4X that.

The Vatican (Holy See): The central administration of the Catholic Church holds an estimated $11 billion to $12 billion in total assets. The Vatican Bank itself manages roughly $3 billion to $5.4 billion in client and institutional assets.Regional Dioceses: The vast majority of the Church's wealth is held by individual archdioceses, parishes, and religious orders worldwide. For example, the Catholic Church in Germany holds an estimated $47 billion to $265 billion in assets, largely driven by its state-sanctioned church tax. In Australia and France, diocesan wealth is estimated at over $23 billion each.Global Real Estate & Art: The Church is considered one of the largest landowners in the world, holding an estimated 71 to 81 million hectares globally. It also holds countless historically priceless properties and art collections (such as St. Peter's Basilica and the Sistine Chapel) which are listed with symbolic or €1 values on balance sheets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe it's for the best....christians have a really bad name with kegsbreath evangelical nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Come on MAGA tell us all how you "voted for this". Such morons you all are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least his denomination made the list. My son who is joining the Army next year will be considered "Other Religions."

He signed up for this exclusion. He knows who and what this unqualified, racist, misogynist, classist, religious extremist is, and he signed up to salute and work for him. It's not like your son was hoodwinked.

He signed up to defend the Constitution, like his father, uncle and grandfather did. He'll still be there after Hegseth is gone.

The constitution might not be there...right now no one is defending the actual constitution. Wake up

[Anonymous]

The cultists and the fundamentalist wackadoos are learning in real time why the Founding Fathers enacted the First Amendment.

The US is a Christian nation, they say. Ignoring that at the time of the Founding, we were only a few generations removed from one sect of Christians lighting other sects of Christians on fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cultists and the fundamentalist wackadoos are learning in real time why the Founding Fathers enacted the First Amendment.

The US is a Christian nation, they say. Ignoring that at the time of the Founding, we were only a few generations removed from one sect of Christians lighting other sects of Christians on fire.

Exactly. Now we're having to re-establish the need for rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. So unnecessary if people would just read history. All of these norms were created in reaction to terrible precedent.