[slg]

It's notable that the original list with the extra 180 religions was from Trump's first term, so this is another example of the doubling down on white Christian identity politics that has come to define Trump's second term.

Also one small potentially controversial decision here that I find amusing in a narcissism of small differences kind of way, Mormons aren't considered Christian according to this list.

[jltsiren]

The choice with Mormons is technically correct. Those who use theological considerations to define Christianity generally don't accept Mormons as Christians. For example, the Catholic Church sees Mormonism a non-Christian religion, because it rejects the Nicene Creed. People who base Christianity on cultural identity are more likely to include Mormons in the definition.

[zzo38computer]

It does seem to be common to make LDS not counted as Christianity, although the reason is unclear to me.

Another comment mentions that the rejection of the Nicene Creed does not seem to be the distinction.

I had thought that it is because they have the Book of Mormon, although that is unclear. Orthodox have additional books of the Bible that Catholics do not have, but are still Christian. (Although, I think the additional books that the Orthodox have are still a part of the Bible, and Book of Mormon is different.)

Something that I had heard is that it is because Mormons use a different baptism, which is not Trinitarian. However, it seems that it is Trinitarian, although this trinity is different from that of Christians (even though they still say "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit").

Quakers (which are listed as Christian) also apparently do not use baptism (and reject other sacraments as well). Although the Religious Society of Friends is Christian, they do have differences and not all Quakers are necessarily Christian (or necessarily theists).

So, I don't know.

[jltsiren]

Look at the text of the Nicene Creed. There is a phrase that reads, depending on the translation, something like "one holy catholic apostolic church". That is the core of the issue.

All mainstream Christian denominations are branches of that original church. Some may see each other heretical, but they still acknowledge the common heritage. If you now have a religion that takes some aspects of Christianity, adds something of its own, and rejects the part all those schismatic branches agree on, it does not look like you are a branch of that "one holy catholic apostolic church".

The same applies to Jehovah's Witnesses.

[zzo38computer]

Your reasoning makes sense. However, it is not quite that simple.

As another comment mentioned, "and yet Jehovah's Witnesses are denoted on the list as a Christian faith".

So are Quakers (also denoted on the list as Christian), which (as far as I can tell) have no creed ; and, furthermore, although the Religious Society of Friends is Christian, not all Quakers are necessarily Christian (there are people of other religions as well, as well as those of no religion).

This does not seem to be specific to the DoD list; I have seen this in other lists as well.

[Slothrop99]

> although the reason is unclear to me

Not at all complicated, you don't get to add another book to the bible and claim to be the same religion.

I grew up in a very liberal christian church. Their take on mormons was "really nice people .. still heretics". Obviously there are bigger problems out there.

[zzo38computer]

As I understand, LDS did not add another book to the Bible; Book of Mormon is not a part of the Bible, although (as far as I know) still considered a scripture according to LDS.

(Nevertheless it is the reason I had thought of too (many years ago), although other people have cited different reasons.)

[siliconpotato]

Joseph smith claims to have had a new revelation and the book of Mormon is "another gospel". It's fan fiction for Americans and claims that the church became corrupted and are restoring the true church with their non biblical ideas. As such, their ideas are sufficiently divergent from biblical doctrine they are considered not part of the Christian church.

[Slothrop99]

Well, the New Testament (what Christians care about) is entirely set in the historical first century Roman Empire [0], all places are accurate and known to exist.

The Book of Mormon postulates some fantasy world perhaps not unlike Middle Earth? And also weird theological stuff from 19th century science-fiction? Sorry, that is a different religion.

[0] expect for the last book of revelations of the future.

[Daviey]

Why do you feel it is outsiders role to tell them they are not Christians, surely it's their role to self-determine?

[kelseyfrog]

Curious if your stance extends to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Founded in 330AD, it predates all other canonization councils:

  The Council of Trent (1545–1563) - explicitly laid out the 73-book canon for the Catholic Church

  Council of Rome (382)

  Synod of Hippo (393)

  The two of the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 respectively)

  Council of Florence (1431–1449)

Applying your standard literally, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Ethiopian Bible are the only true Christian religion and religious text because others have fewer or greater number of books.

[Slothrop99]

Nah, from a more intellectual protestant tradition -- they were not fighting doctrine and I remember at least a couple of those from Sunday sermons.

None of that remotely resembles the Book of Mormon, so honestly you are just really shitty at whatever you are trying to do.

[kelseyfrog]

It sounds like you're ok with adding books to the bible so long as you're the one doing it. If you're not willing to accept the consequences of your own rules, they aren't rules, they're justifications.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> Something that I had heard is that it is because Mormons use a different baptism, which is not Trinitarian. However, it seems that it is Trinitarian, although this trinity is different from that of Christians (even though they still say "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit").

I had not heard that so I looked it up:

-----------

Catholic baptism:

“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The matter is the water poured over the head of the recipient. Traditionally, the one being baptized has water poured over them or is fully emerged in water three times.

Source: https://ascensionpress.com/blogs/articles/the-ultimate-guide...

(Some) Protestant baptism:

Each candidate is presented by name to the Celebrant, or to an assisting priest or deacon, who then immerses, or pours water upon, the candidate, saying

N., I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Source: https://www.bcponline.org/Baptism/holybaptism.html

(Some groups do it differently, but this seems to be common.)

Mormon baptism:

73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-test...

-----------

I am not an expert, but they all seem mostly the same to me?

[zzo38computer]

Yes, I had seemed to remember something different but I looked it up and yes it is still trinitarian, although apparently the working of the trinity is different (although this different working of the trinity is not apparent by the words of the baptism) which allegedly makes it not a valid Christian baptism (according to some Christians, including the Catholic church).

[pseudalopex]

Trinity means the 3 are 1.[1] Mormons believe the 3 are separate.[2]

Baptism does not mean water baptism exclusively.[3] What other sacraments did the Nicene creed mention?

The purpose of the new list was to exclude many groups. Christian Quakers exist does not mean non Christian Quakers do not exist. And the category was copied from an older list without much thought plausibly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

[2] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/d...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_with_the_Holy_Spirit

[slg]

And yet Jehovah's Witnesses are denoted on the list as a Christian faith. So whatever the distinction that is being made here, it isn't simply rejection of the Nicene Creed.

[ajcp]

one core tenant of Christianity is that Christ the Messiah obviates prophecy. No denomination of Christianity (AFAIK) considers the LDS as true Christians...except for the LDS themselves

[defrost]

Just to clear this up, all the various "Christian" ministries that embrace modern prophecy and prophets are, therefore, not actually Christian?

  From the beginning of the Assemblies of God, prophecy has been affirmed as a spiritual gift for the Church today. Since the Day of Pentecost, the Church has functioned as a prophetic community. Any Spirit-filled believer may prophesy while discernment and judgment of prophecy belong to the full body of Christ.

~ https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Modern-Day-Prophecy

( no vested interest here, I've got Wagyl riding shotgun on the stagecoach of my life )

[slg]

And to make it clear since you didn't say it, Assemblies of God is on the list categorized as Christian while the LDS Church isn't, so this doesn't appear to be the distinction the list makers had in mind.

[CobaltFire]

Had to look Wagyl up. Thanks for teaching me something new!

[defrost]

Glad that was of interest, the works of Wagyl are held sacred to some: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djEqLRdqScM although many entities vie for riding shotgun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThLdUGczSNw

[asplake]

Not a core tenet [note 1] at all - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_continuati...

[note 1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/tenant-vs-tenet-diff...

[LastTrain]

That is actually quite useful if you are wanting to drive a wedge between LDS and Trump - there goes Utah and eastern Idaho

[herewulf]

Those places have never liked Trump, as immoral as he is perceived, but they consistently put their conservatism first when it comes time to vote. I don't see this situation changing any time soon.