>Then how do they differ from others, like Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc.? Or do they in the eyes of God as you see it?
As late as the Reformation "Christian" doctrine was outlined by the ecumenical creeds. The (Ana)Baptists were universally condemned as heretics.
400 years later Baptists are accepted as "Christian" and the LDS is universally condemned as heretical. I predict in another few generations the LDS will be accepted as "Christian."
By the way, from
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=anabaptist_commune_munster
The Anabaptist Commune of Münster 1534 -1535
. . . In September 1534, suggested by the preacher Dusentschuer, Jan van Leiden was proclaimed “King of Jerusalem”, in an attempt to put the Commune of Münster into biblical tradition, as a Kingdom in direct succession to that of David and Solomon.
The role of Jan van Leiden throughout the months that followed his elevation is highly controversial amongst historians, and demonstrates the difficulties of historiography. The primary accounts of the Anabaptist Commune in Münster were written a few years after its demise, and almost exclusively by sworn enemies of the faith. All contemporary sources vilify the Anabaptists, and especially their two most prominent leaders, Jan Matthijs and Jan van Leiden. Modern accounts, on the other hand, especially those of Socialist writers like Karl Kautsky, have attempted to glorify the Commune which was identified as the prequel to Communist societies.
With the city virtually cut off from the rest of the world, news from within Münster reached the outside very sparingly, and if from the steady trickle of renegades that reached the Bishop's camp, where the the Catholics used any information to bolster their anti-Anabaptist propaganda.
The apparent splendour in which the new King ruled, the community of goods inside the city, and last but not least, the polygamy that the Anabaptists had introduced, were the most popular accusations directed at the rebellious city.
And it was foremost the 'polygamy” that captured the imagination of the people of the HRE, and still does most popular accounts. Rumours about the apparent decline of sexual morals inside Münster spread, or were deliberately spread by its enemies, like wildfire, and especially the conduct of the King who apparently had acquired a whole harem of faithful wives.
There is indeed no doubt that the Anabaptists instituted polygamy for which Kautsky and similar writers offer a simple explanation. By late summer 1534, Münster had about 9000 citizens, 2000 men and 7000 women, most of them left inside the city by their husbands and fathers who had flown. Kautsky argues, that the Anabaptists emphatically attempted to prevent moral disintegration and to protect the large number of single women from sexual assault by the male population, and specially the number of mercenaries inside the walls. By marrying them to respected Anabaptist men, the women's honours could be protected, and the vast majority of such “pro-forma” marriages were never to be consummated. Instead of being the scene of libertine orgies, Münster had set an example for sexual morality. The truth is difficult to establish, but in view of the strict moral codex that most Anabaptist groups practiced, Kautsky's explanation seems the more plausible.
More difficult to explain, is the splendour with which Jan van Leiden conducted his office as the “King of Jerusalem”, more so in the view of dire economical situation Münster found itself in during the siege. Clad in magnificent robes, in stark contrast to the uniform modest clothing that had been introduced for the rest of the citizens,and wearing all the paraphernalia of a “King”, inclusive crown and sceptre, Jan van Leiden made his public appearances into great spectacles. His apologists have argued that Jan van Leiden's extravagance was not of his personal choice, but a clever propaganda move: to demonstrate the earthly splendour of the coming “God's Kingdom”, the King had to set an example. It seems however true, that with the progressing dire situation of the city, the “King”'s role became increasingly dictatorial, and the Commune that by definition should have been egalitarian acquired a despotic rule. Much of the dictatorial measures, that the “King” and his officials applied, were again necessitated by the war, the sometimes brutal oppression of any opposition against the “King” was justified with the experience of previous treason inside the city.
Much has been made of a “proto- communist character” of the Anabaptist Münster, but if it was the realisation of the Utopian tenets of Anabaptism or the demands of a city under siege, is open to debate.
Quite early into the Anabaptist reign in Münster, the new rulers of the city had done away with the usual records of private property when deeds and debt documents had been destroyed. Abandoned houses had been distributed to incomers, means of production were taken into communal property, and the mass feeding of the population was organised. And the more the economical blockade by the Bishop's troops affected the town, the more it became necessary to share the ever dwindling resources. Over the coming months the entire wealth of the remaining population was channelled into the community, to organise the defence and to feed the increasingly starving people.
And food supply became the overriding problem of Münster, the surrounding countryside had been occupied and pillaged by the Bishop's forces, who by late 1534 had closed the siege and prevented any supplies reaching the city. Famine broke out in the city, causing a high number of casualties, especially amongst the children and elderly citizens of Münster.
At the beginning of 1535, the situation had become desperate. It had become obvious that short of miracle and God's intervention, Münster could not hold out much longer.The town was on its own, bereft of any potential allies. Whilst in the previous summer there had been some hope that military relief would reach the city, no such prospect existed now.
The Dutch Melchiorites had tried to organise an army in May 1534, a few thousand men had attempted to assemble in Holland and reach Münster by boats, sailing up the Rhine into Westphalia. But the army had been broken up by Habsburgian troops and no help had ever reached Münster.
In their desperation, the Anabaptists of Münster, turned to the Landgrave Phillip of Hessen, one of leading Protestant princes of the HRE. He was asked to mediate between the two warring forces, but true to his conduct in the peasant War of 1525, Phillip not only refused any negotiations, but even sent troops of his own to the Bishop's assistance. For the princes of Germany, regardless of their confession, it had become all to clear that the Anabaptist rebellion, was shaking the foundations of the earthly authorities of the HRE.
The Imperial Diet of Worms on April 4, 1535 offered its fullest moral and material support to the policy Archbishop Franz von Waldeck. The re-conquest of Münster became an Imperial concern. . . .
As late as the Reformation "Christian" doctrine was outlined by the ecumenical creeds. The (Ana)Baptists were universally condemned as heretics.
400 years later Baptists are accepted as "Christian" and the LDS is universally condemned as heretical. I predict in another few generations the LDS will be accepted as "Christian."
By the way, from
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=anabaptist_commune_munster
The Anabaptist Commune of Münster 1534 -1535
. . . In September 1534, suggested by the preacher Dusentschuer, Jan van Leiden was proclaimed “King of Jerusalem”, in an attempt to put the Commune of Münster into biblical tradition, as a Kingdom in direct succession to that of David and Solomon.
The role of Jan van Leiden throughout the months that followed his elevation is highly controversial amongst historians, and demonstrates the difficulties of historiography. The primary accounts of the Anabaptist Commune in Münster were written a few years after its demise, and almost exclusively by sworn enemies of the faith. All contemporary sources vilify the Anabaptists, and especially their two most prominent leaders, Jan Matthijs and Jan van Leiden. Modern accounts, on the other hand, especially those of Socialist writers like Karl Kautsky, have attempted to glorify the Commune which was identified as the prequel to Communist societies.
With the city virtually cut off from the rest of the world, news from within Münster reached the outside very sparingly, and if from the steady trickle of renegades that reached the Bishop's camp, where the the Catholics used any information to bolster their anti-Anabaptist propaganda.
The apparent splendour in which the new King ruled, the community of goods inside the city, and last but not least, the polygamy that the Anabaptists had introduced, were the most popular accusations directed at the rebellious city.
And it was foremost the 'polygamy” that captured the imagination of the people of the HRE, and still does most popular accounts. Rumours about the apparent decline of sexual morals inside Münster spread, or were deliberately spread by its enemies, like wildfire, and especially the conduct of the King who apparently had acquired a whole harem of faithful wives.
There is indeed no doubt that the Anabaptists instituted polygamy for which Kautsky and similar writers offer a simple explanation. By late summer 1534, Münster had about 9000 citizens, 2000 men and 7000 women, most of them left inside the city by their husbands and fathers who had flown. Kautsky argues, that the Anabaptists emphatically attempted to prevent moral disintegration and to protect the large number of single women from sexual assault by the male population, and specially the number of mercenaries inside the walls. By marrying them to respected Anabaptist men, the women's honours could be protected, and the vast majority of such “pro-forma” marriages were never to be consummated. Instead of being the scene of libertine orgies, Münster had set an example for sexual morality. The truth is difficult to establish, but in view of the strict moral codex that most Anabaptist groups practiced, Kautsky's explanation seems the more plausible.
More difficult to explain, is the splendour with which Jan van Leiden conducted his office as the “King of Jerusalem”, more so in the view of dire economical situation Münster found itself in during the siege. Clad in magnificent robes, in stark contrast to the uniform modest clothing that had been introduced for the rest of the citizens,and wearing all the paraphernalia of a “King”, inclusive crown and sceptre, Jan van Leiden made his public appearances into great spectacles. His apologists have argued that Jan van Leiden's extravagance was not of his personal choice, but a clever propaganda move: to demonstrate the earthly splendour of the coming “God's Kingdom”, the King had to set an example. It seems however true, that with the progressing dire situation of the city, the “King”'s role became increasingly dictatorial, and the Commune that by definition should have been egalitarian acquired a despotic rule. Much of the dictatorial measures, that the “King” and his officials applied, were again necessitated by the war, the sometimes brutal oppression of any opposition against the “King” was justified with the experience of previous treason inside the city.
Much has been made of a “proto- communist character” of the Anabaptist Münster, but if it was the realisation of the Utopian tenets of Anabaptism or the demands of a city under siege, is open to debate.
Quite early into the Anabaptist reign in Münster, the new rulers of the city had done away with the usual records of private property when deeds and debt documents had been destroyed. Abandoned houses had been distributed to incomers, means of production were taken into communal property, and the mass feeding of the population was organised. And the more the economical blockade by the Bishop's troops affected the town, the more it became necessary to share the ever dwindling resources. Over the coming months the entire wealth of the remaining population was channelled into the community, to organise the defence and to feed the increasingly starving people.
And food supply became the overriding problem of Münster, the surrounding countryside had been occupied and pillaged by the Bishop's forces, who by late 1534 had closed the siege and prevented any supplies reaching the city. Famine broke out in the city, causing a high number of casualties, especially amongst the children and elderly citizens of Münster.
At the beginning of 1535, the situation had become desperate. It had become obvious that short of miracle and God's intervention, Münster could not hold out much longer.The town was on its own, bereft of any potential allies. Whilst in the previous summer there had been some hope that military relief would reach the city, no such prospect existed now.
The Dutch Melchiorites had tried to organise an army in May 1534, a few thousand men had attempted to assemble in Holland and reach Münster by boats, sailing up the Rhine into Westphalia. But the army had been broken up by Habsburgian troops and no help had ever reached Münster.
In their desperation, the Anabaptists of Münster, turned to the Landgrave Phillip of Hessen, one of leading Protestant princes of the HRE. He was asked to mediate between the two warring forces, but true to his conduct in the peasant War of 1525, Phillip not only refused any negotiations, but even sent troops of his own to the Bishop's assistance. For the princes of Germany, regardless of their confession, it had become all to clear that the Anabaptist rebellion, was shaking the foundations of the earthly authorities of the HRE.
The Imperial Diet of Worms on April 4, 1535 offered its fullest moral and material support to the policy Archbishop Franz von Waldeck. The re-conquest of Münster became an Imperial concern. . . .
