The October 2008 edition of First Things contains a lengthy article titled, “Is Mormonism Christian?” The article is in two parts. The first was written by LDS Seventy Bruce D. Porter and takes one position; Christian professor and author Gerald R. McDermott wrote the second part, concluding with a different opinion.
After lamenting the poor secular reporting on the LDS Church, Dr. Porter writes:
“All this has led to considerable misunderstanding about what Latter-day Saints believe about the central subject of Christian religion: Jesus Christ and his atonement for sin. One can find innumerable assertions that Mormons do not believe Jesus was the messiah, that they do not believe he atoned for the sins of the fallen human race, and that they believe salvation comes by works.
“All of these statements are false, and they reflect incomprehension of Mormon beliefs and doctrine.”
Dr. Porter continues by explaining various LDS beliefs including:
“Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as the word of God…Our most criticized departure from mainstream Christianity is our acceptance of another work, the Book of Mormon, as the divinely revealed word of God…A vital aspect of Latter-day Saint theology—and its most obvious difference from traditional Christianity—is the belief that Jesus Christ is an individual being, separate from God the Father in corporeality and substance…Latter-day Saints affirm the reality of the virgin birth…Our beliefs regarding the savior’s mortal life are based on a literal reading of the biblical texts…he organized his Church and delegated authority to his apostles to administer it after his ascension…that he suffered in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, that he died for the sins of mankind on the cross, and that he was resurrected on the third day.”
Dr. Porter includes much more about Christ’s atonement, the sinfulness of mankind, and salvation by grace via “receiving Christ as the redeemer and exercising faith in him.” He concludes,
“Are Mormons Christian? By self-definition and self-identity, unquestionably so. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms that it is a Christian-faith denomination, a body of believers who worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and who witness that salvation is possible only by his atoning blood and grace.”
Nevertheless, Dr. McDermott holds a different position. He writes,
“…the true distinction between Mormons and non-Mormons on revelation is not whether God still speaks to his people but whether he spoke to Joseph Smith in a way that reinterprets what he said to the first-century apostles. The question of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the first of two principal distinctions between the Latter-day Saint faith and orthodox Christian theology.”
Dr. McDermott provides a run-down of history and teachings attributed to Christ which are found in the Book of Mormon then asks,
“What are we to make of this history of Jesus? Can we believe that the same Jesus who preached and healed and was crucified in Palestine came just a year or so later to the Americas and said and did all these things?
“There are four reasons this is unlikely.
Dr. McDermott details these reasons with clarity, but I will only list them:
- Corroborating witnesses/lack of witnesses
- Contemporary witnesses/witness removed by centuries
- Inconsistencies between the “Palestinian Jesus” and the “American Jesus”
- “Intratextual inconsistencies” between the Book of Mormon Jesus and the Jesus Joseph Smith developed over time.
He explains,
“At the end of his life, in his King Follett funeral sermon (1844), Joseph Smith prophesied against the Trinity, saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods. While this is now official doctrine, there are no signs of this rejection of the Trinity in the Book of Mormon.
“In fact, quite the opposite.”
Dr. McDermott demonstrates the presence of abundant Trinitarian teaching in the Book of Mormon and concludes,
“If the prophet responsible for the Book of Mormon made cosmically significant changes in his view of God over the course of his prophetic career, one has less confidence in the reliability of his prophecies, particularly those that purport to provide a new history of God on earth.”
Dr. McDermott continues his analysis of “Is Mormonism Christian?” with a discussion about the nature of Christ, summed up here:
“…Mormon beliefs diverge widely from historic Christian orthodoxy. The Book of Mormon, which is Mormonism’s principal source for its claim to new revelation and a new prophet, lacks credibility. And the Jesus proclaimed by Joseph Smith and his followers is different in significant ways from the Jesus of the New Testament: Smith’s Jesus is a God distinct from God the Father; he was once merely a man and not God; he is of the same species as human beings; and his being and acts are limited by coeternal matter and laws.”
When LDS Seventy Bruce Porter concludes his part of this First Things article, he changes the question from “Is Mormonism Christian?” to “Are Mormons Christian?” He declares his verdict that Mormons are Christians who belong to a church that is part of the Christian community, a church made up of “a body of believers” who worship Jesus Christ. He writes,
“To the title Christian a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate—unorthodox, heretical, non-Nicene, different—but blanket assertions that we are not Christian are a poor substitute for informed argument and dialogue.”
Based on the information outlined by Dr. McDermott, to the title of “Christian” as it relates to Mormonism, I would add the simple modifier “non.” But I would be very careful before saying the same thing about an individual Mormon. Dr. Porter has blurred the distinction between the religious system and individuals. This is yet another difference between Mormonism and Christianity. The question, “Is Mormonism Christian?” means one thing to Dr. Porter and another to Dr. McDermott. The LDS website clarifies,
“Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world is a Christian, regardless of differences in theology”
But for orthodox Christians, theology, or Christology, is really a core issue. Whether discussing religions or individuals, the paramount question is always “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15)
Nevertheless, any discussion is useful, and this First Things article is very helpful and well worth reading. Dr. McDermott has definitely not made any “blanket assertion[s]”; he has provided a well-informed and thoughtful argument to answer the question asked by the editors. I leave you with his closing paragraph:
“The intent of this essay is not to say that individual Mormons will be barred from sitting with Abraham and the saints at the marriage supper of the Lamb. We are saved by a merciful Trinity, not by our theology. But the distinguished scholar of Mormonism Jan Shipps was only partly right when she wrote that Mormonism is a departure from the existing Christian tradition as much as early Christianity was a departure from Judaism. For if Christianity is a shoot grafted onto the olive tree of Judaism, Mormonism as it stands cannot be successfully grafted onto either.”
Kudos Sharon. Excellent article. An enjoyable read. I know one of the questions that often comes up in these discussions is “Who gets to decided what’s Christian?” The basic theology and doctrine of Christianity was well established prior to Joseph Smith’s creation of Mormonism. So really, all a person has to do is compare the two religious systems and basic doctrine and see if they match. Since 1890 the Mormon Church-Salt Lake City version- has been working very hard to appear mainstream protestant. This came about because of the desire of Utah to become a state and because of the Reed Smoot hearings in the U.S. Senate. There was also a split within Mormonism regarding Joseph Smith’s post BoM doctrinal changes. This would include the all important doctrine of God which excludes Salt Lake Mormonism and FLDS Mormonism from the mainstream of Christianity. Interestingly, the FLDS doesn’t seem to really care if they’re accepted as part of the Christian family or not. The Community of Christ is more like the original Mormonism circa 1832. Can an individual Mormon be a Christian? That’s a tough question to answer because I would say it all depends on who they are trusting in for their salvation. Are they trusting in the Jesus of Christianity or the Jesus of Mormonism. They aren’t the same. The Jesus that saves is the qualified Savior. If someone believes in someone they name Jesus but this Jesus has none of the attributes of the Savior, they might as well believe in any number of baseball players that have come out of Latin America with the name Jes’us.
And how does this make Mormons unchristian? Let alone unbiblical?
As a believing Mormon, one big issue I have with many versions of “orthodox Christianity” is that they do an abysmal job of advocating Jesus’ self-designation in John 14: the Truth and the Life, as well as the Way. In the case of Jesus, the Life, if salvation is reduced to a belief in Him as a mere symbol of humanity’s ultimate destination, how can we be properly inspired to live the fullness of life that exists in our Father (Matt 5:48)?
As for understanding and worshiping Jesus as the Way to the Father, Mormon theology is the only that I am aware that correctly identifies Jesus as the necessary Advocate to get even a hearing before the Father. After all, Jesus follows his John 14 statement up with the declaration that “no one will (even) come unto the Father except through Me.” Without Jesus, we will not even be justified to stand in the presence of the holy Father to receive a final judgment. Is there anyone out there who can correct me with Protestant theology here? Yet in Protestant polemics it is the Mormons who are continually condemned for slighting Jesus’ sufficiency as Savior??
Sharon, why don’t you consider this theological fact before disparaging Mormon “Christianity” with the modifier of denial. Personally, I am fine with the un-suave, “heterodox Christian.” Anything to distinguish me from a brand of “Christianity” that limits Jesus’ ultimate sufficiency as Savior to those who claim the right book, worship the right name, go to the right sort of congregations. And slander the “wrong” people.
Time to be something more than a babe in Christ, I’d say.
Sincerely,
mutu.
mutu…did you not read the end of McDermott’s piece? What you find in Mormonism is totally unlike historic Christianity OR Judaism. It is a completely different belief system. Neither of those faiths recognize more than one God and neither of those faiths teach that God was a man or that man can become a god.
Can you clarify your comments on the sufficiency of the Savior? As far as I know Protestant/Evangelical doctrine has always taught salvation by grace alone through faith alone IN CHRIST ALONE! Not sure what is abysmally lacking there…
This is a great post, Sharon. There are clearly two questions: 1. is Mormonism Christian? 2. can a Mormon be a Christian? I find myself in a dilemma because my children are Mormons. They believe in Jesus Christ as He has been presented to them. They say all the right words and use the right phrases when talking about Him, but I have to admit that Falcon makes an excellent point: “Can an individual Mormon be a Christian? That’s a tough question to answer because I would say it all depends on who they are trusting in for their salvation. Are they trusting in the Jesus of Christianity or the Jesus of Mormonism. They aren’t the same.”
Trusting Jesus Christ alone is a huge issue in this debate. Christians trust Jesus Christ totally when we say that we are justified by faith, that our salvation is merited through the Work of Jesus Christ, and when we say that we are righteous because the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to us because of His grace. Mormons might say they believe this, but when they add grace as an appendage to their works, their trust shifts from being solely in Jesus Christ to trusting in their own works. Sadly, Mormons expend most of their energy fighting to prove they will be glorified than glorifying God. Sadly, for them, it is not enough to worship God for eternity, they look forward to the day when they will be worshiped by their own creation, a future that will not be realized in light of God’s Word. Romans 10:1-3 could be applied to Mormons. Verse 4 says a lot: “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” It’s for those who “believe,” not for those who “earn” it because we can’t earn grace.
So I guess you’re not interested in answering my questions, LDSTITANIC? That’s ok, I’ll oblige you with yours.
In the case of Mormonism’s understanding of God’s nature as utterly contrary to Judaism, are we talking “Judaism” like the one taught by the J writer, or “Judaism” like the one taught by the P writer? Or are we talking “Judaism” like the one that teaches a synthetic “monotheism” like the Hellenistic Christian Trinity? Oh, wait, now that wasn’t really a Judaic option, now, was it?
Or are we talking Kabalistic Judaism? In this ancient form of Judaism, God, angel, and man are taught as ontologically the same. It’s also well documented that some of the prominent Judaic figures of God’s plurality (the ruling members of His angelic host, such as Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, etc.) are predominantly featured in early Christianity as well as in Kabalistic Judaism—and show up from time to time in Rabbinic thought as well, and very regularly in classical Catholicism. This of course begs the question of why there is no prominent place for them in Protestant thought and theology? Scholars will tell you it’s because these key heavenly figures—and the myths behind them—were nearly annexed out of the “orthodox” Judaic Bible with the ascension of the Priestly writer and his school of thought, sometime during and/or after the Jews’ Babylonian exile. But they weren’t annexed from the popular and heterodox religious thought and literature of some forms of Judaism, like the Qumran community, and the early Christians. This has been a hot topic in biblical scholarship for twenty years now, so why this feeble “monotheism” debate continues is beyond me!
I hope Mormons never read the oneness of God in John 14 & 15 through eyes essentially different from Kabalistic Judaism. If so, we would forfeit our Heavenly Father as the literal parent of his Son, Jesus, and of us all. To do so would be to deny God’s love, and follow Origen’s great “orthodox” heresy of the 3rd century.
This really isn’t that complex. Christianity has a definition of who God is and what His plan of salvation is. Mormonism has a definition of who God is and what His plan of salvation is. Mormonism is Mormonism. It’s a unique religion that bears no resemblence to Christianity. What Mormon folks have to hope and pray is that Jospeph Smith’s creation can gain them eternal life. If you ask Christians what is the hope that is within them, you will get a totally different answer from that which will be given by a Mormon. Mormonism and Biblical Christianity can’t be true at the same time. Years ago I asked my mother, who is a devout Catholic, the standard salvation question: “If you were to die today and Jesus were to ask you why should I let you into My heaven, what would you say?” She replied to me, “I’d tell Him because of what He did for me.” Right answer. End of story.
The devoted Mormon is less concerned with rushing the verdict of God’s final judgment, and more concerned with finding the Eternal Life that Jesus offered to his disciples in the here and now. Furthermore, the devoted Mormon doesn’t have to marginalize Christ’s baptismal covenant to feel secure in the pluralistic environment of modern Christianity. Paul taught “one faith, one hope, and one baptism,” and the devoted Mormon is secure in making his/her covenants to the single “Lord” who represents the single “Father of us all.” He’s the Lord who was alone sired in mortality by our heavenly Creator. And he’s the Lord who alone suffered and died for the sins of us all. He’s not the Lord who assures through a single spiritual witness our place in the eternities. That stuff isn’t found in the Bible. It’s the 18th and 19th century response to the strictures of personal salvation imagined in Calvinistic thought (which, whatever its faults, was much more interested in making head and tail of the New Testament than its Evangelical rebel-child).
In Mormon Christianity, spiritual rebirth in Christ is two-fold. First, it’s a covenantal initiation in which we learn of our divine relation to the Father—the answer to where that mysterious wind begins and ends (John 3:8). Second, it’s the spiritual realization of that identity. But the Eternal Life of the Father is the distinction of an inheritor, not a child. The quest for our inheritance is something that will never end in this life of probation. While we are ideally born of Christ in this life, we are not granted our inheritance until the next. Every Mormon who has parted the Lord’s veil knows this; but only the foolish Mormon would think of themselves as therefore destined for God’s house already. The “predestination” that Paul speaks of in Romans is the mark of the believer and the covenanter; as he reiterates several times, it’s not in any sense a boastful assurance of heavenly entitlement.
Sincerely,
mutu.
mutu…I call the apostle Paul to the witness stand…Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
In Ephesians he goes further and says that we are already seated with Him in the heavenlies 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Sounds to me like he believed in personal salvation.
Tell me, how can the same person, the same being be somehow defined as “not the same God”? Is he one being or two?
He has the same name, was born on the same day. Lived the same life. Mormons don’t question the basic facts. Yes, he created the world. Yes, he died for our sins. Yes, he rose from the dead. Yes we return with him as our advocate. We could go on and on.
I will propose that it is not a problem of identity at all, but a problem of definition.
jackg gave us one good example when he said:
“Mormons expend most of their energy fighting to prove they will be glorified than glorifying God.”
Mormons have a very different idea about what it means to glorify God.
Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
This means that Mormons give glory to God when they are successful at overcomming sin (with Christ’s help of course). Without repentance and obedience there IS NO GLORY for God. His glory is our success.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Christains prefer to be saved IN their sins rather than FROM their sins. They give their glory to God via lip service alone. Accept Christ and be saved. Sing glory, glory and God gets all the glory. I will be the first to admit that I don’t get this idea.
The REAL Christian– is the one who is right, REGARDLESS of the debatable characteristics of Christ himself.
When we meet him those characteristics will be clear and QUITE IRRELEVANT. What will NOT be irrelevant is what things we have done that may have actually glorified his name.
My vote? Repentance. If you repent you can be saved from your sins. If you don’t, no amount of lip service will add ANY glory to God.
If JS got that right, they are the real Christians. Case closed. Next?
Cluff…one last time today I call Paul to bear you his testimony…Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
I was saved from my sins when I didn’t even know I needed a Savior my friend. My Abba ran to me and welcomed me home before I could even blurt out my confessions…now that’s a Savior!!
My, it seems ever more clear now how little Mormons truly understand the Christian’s perspective. To them, all we have for us is simply a saying, that we believe! Lip service is we are and all we bring to the table.
At least this is how your description of our faith is presented.
I’ve asked before, but has anyone seen a true Christian who just sat idly by? Is there such a thing?
This cannot be answered by looking at those who say “Yes!” and then quickly fall away. This has to be answered by those who silently live and abide in Christ daily, helping the poor, witnessing Christ’s name, defending the faith, and making a positive difference in the world.
I saw a piece on the news in Denver there is a man who helps homeless kids, and at the end, when it came up he was an ordained minister, it was barely mentioned, and he was very humble about it.
Such Christians often aren’t seen, or broadcast everywhere. Many don’t want it. They just want to serve the Lord.
How does this fit into the article? Probably not directly, but in defining who Christians are, Mormons, seemingly, only see a very narrow part of who we are.
Believing in Christ is important, and the beginning, but it is much more than that. I wonder if they choose to find out what that is…
My favorite article on this subject is by the thoughtful Rob Bowman:
Whaddya Mean, Mormons Are Not Christians? Shedding Light on a Hot Topic
An addendum to my last post.
After rereading it a bit later, I felt compelled to say this: it is natural to look at the Christian who fails as the standard. It is the easiest to see.
Why do I think this is a bad tactic? Well, for any faith, those who fall do not represent what the faith truly stands for. This is as true in Mormonism as it is Christianity. We ought not to do so, and Mormons should be the first to point this out, based on several of their apologies. For what its worth, I rarely see Christians pointing out the weak Mormons as evidence of its falsity, and there are weak Mormons who sin and fall short. Focusing on those who fall away- which is what the cry that all we have to believe is really all about- misses the boat as to what the discussion should be about.
But even more, I am compelled to write this because even as I hold in high esteem those ‘good’ Christians, I am sure that if someone were to look into my life they would see what a sinner I truly am. Though I try to live by God’s way, I fall short, and I fall short every day. Each day I try to get closer to him, but never feel I get there– my sins seem all the worse, not because they are, but because, I believe, of my perception of my sin. It doesn’t matter so much that I sin (sin matters, don’t get me wrong), but it is that I am walking with God that does.
And the point of this is that I imagine each and every Christian here would say the same thing. I can’t help but imagine, either, that the man who runs Denver mission, feels the same way, which is why he was hesitant to speak of his faith.
Christianity is much more than saying “I believe.” But it all comes down to that, too. It is our belief that moves us forward, and our belief that gives us the confidence we have of our eternal place. It is our belief that tells us that our sin is smaller than Christ. Sound contradictory? Perhaps.
But I beg of those who don’t get it to figure it out.
My understanding is that someone who is depending on/trusting in Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross as satisfying God’s requirement for sin, is a Christian. That’s the whole point of the Gospel. We are unable to save ourselves in any way by our behavior. God knowing that, met His own requirement for us. He offers salvation as a gift, which we receive by faith. Paul asks the obvious question, if my memeory serves me right, “Should we continue in sin that grace might abound?” He answers that question by saying “How can we who have died to sin, continue in it?” This is not a case of “If you do “X” amount of good deeds and conform to this “list” of behavioral requirements, then you get to be called a Christian. I think our Mormon friends would be better served if they spent a little more time focusing on who Jesus is and what He did for us on the cross than running around with their behavioral checklist checking off who has (in their eyes) measured up and who hasn’t.
It is tough on laymembers of the LDS church I imagine, to admit how badly in need of a Savior we all need. Why?
Because all this talk of being “worthy”.. “Worthy” to go to the temple. “Worthy” to hold the priesthood. “Worthy” to get married. “Worthy” of God’s grace. It puts too much pressure and too much emphasis on one being worthy enough through their own behavior and not putting complete trust in Christ Jesus and HIS worthiness. All that we are worthy of is death, because of our sin.
Our own desire of righteousness serves as a road block from complete faith in Jesus Christ. That he has done only half of the work and will meet you only halfway once you did your half. The sad thing is that LDS don’t seem to realize that the grace of Christ is sufficient for you NOW, NOT after all you can do.
Jeffrey, I agree. And I think part of the distinction is that no matter how worthy I may be, I am still a disgusting sinner. We all are. Only Christ can get us past that. And he doesn’t meet us halfway. He meets us at the beginning, and helps us walk across the bridge.
It is simple, really. I don’t like to make it complicated, but to fair to the confusion they see, it can be a bit perplexing. How do you earn salvation by simply believing? I don’t know, and can’t explain it fully. But it is that way, and it is that simple.
Romans 10:9-13 says it well.
I also like, in this discussion, Rom 10:3-4. “Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN, THEY DID NOT SUBMIT TO GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”
Anything that adds to Christ’s mission is establishing their own methods, and they do not submit to God. Christ is the end.
Very true. Christ isn’t simply one of the ways, or even part (1/2, 1/8th, 1/16th, 1/100th) of the way. He IS the way. From beginning to end. The beginning AND the end.
To put an analogy to grace and salvation and what makes a true Christian in my perspective is this. (I will be using a virus/symptoms and results for this analogy and so it naturally sounds bad, just a warning, but it proves a point pretty well I think)
You had heard from a doctor (the Bible) that there is a wonderful virus (Grace of God), and you wish to receive that virus (Grace of God). The doctor (the Bible) tells you how to get it, saying that there is only one single person who has the ability to give the virus to you, and all you have to do is come unto that person (Jesus Christ) and embrace him (have faith in Him) that he will give the virus (Grace of God) to you.
Then through that faith and embracing of that person (Jesus Christ), you receive the Virus (Grace of God). The virus courses throughout your very being, altering your insides (changing of the heart), causing you to experience symptoms (good works, obedience), and eventually you will die (granted eternal life, salvation) because of that Virus (Grace of God), obtained through embracing (having faith) in the person (Jesus christ) who can give you the virus.
So do you see? God knows that the simple act of faith/belief/trust in Jesus Christ, leads you into a life of obedience and good works.
You cant possibly show any symptoms without first having the virus.
You cant obtain a virus by acting like you have the symptoms.
Cluff,
“This means that Mormons give glory to God when they are successful at overcomming sin (with Christ’s help of course). Without repentance and obedience there IS NO GLORY for God. His glory is our success.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Christains prefer to be saved IN their sins rather than FROM their sins. They give their glory to God via lip service alone. Accept Christ and be saved. Sing glory, glory and God gets all the glory. I will be the first to admit that I don’t get this idea.”
Clearly you don’t, so allow me to correct you again. “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
(Rom 5:8) Christ saved us while we were sinners, not because we were inherently righteous. In spite of our righteousness, not because of.
You did an admirable job of demonstrating the false mormon idea of glorifying God. God is glorified in everything HE does, not in anything we do. He is glorified in the cross, in the empty tomb. He is glorified in spite of our works, not because of them. God is glorified when He saves sinners, not when sinners save themselves with “Christ’s help”. This stems from a false notion of who God is. Since you mistakenly think that God was once a man like yourself, it is little wonder that you think you can bring glory to Him by your works. When you see who God has revealed Himself though, no such prideful self-reliance is possible. Your focus is all on yourself and how Christ can help you bring glory to yourself, the Christian is concerned with the glory going to God. That is why we sing “to God be the glory, great things HE HAS DONE”, not that sickening ballad to Joe Smith “praise to the man who communed with Jehovah”. Mormonism is all about self-glorification, Christianity is all about sola deo gloria, To God alone be the glory.
First Things is a great magazine by the way, lots of good articles even if I disagree with it’s Catholic viewpoint.
Mormonism clearly teaches another gospel, GAL 1:8-9
Show me from the Bible alone, o-ya, LDS do not trust the Bible alone, so that poses a problem.
Any way, Show me from the Bible where God was once a man who exalted to God hood. the Bible teaches their is only one God, no more and we cannot be Gods, so how is it LDS believe they will be gods and that their are millions of gods.
what about Jesus saying hell is real and MANY will go their, yet LDS deny this, no 3 heavens are spoken of in the Bible, LDS teach grace plus works, not christians.
what about, no forgivness for those who commit murder? the Bible does not teach this, LDS deny death bed conversion, not taught in the Bible, all this points to a different gospel.
sadly this stuff is not told up front to possible converts, and no, dont start with the milk before meat crap, because, even those of us who understand mormonism find LDS trying to avoid telling us this even if we ask point blank. rick b (LDS priesthood holder)
Rick B,
I used to be a Mormon, so I’ll answer those questions for you.
First of all, the Bible is only correct as far as it is translated correctly. Therefore, we must work from the premise that the Bible is lacking important information that evil men made sure didn’t stay in the Bible, and let me tell you that these evil men did not want anyone to know that you could have scores of wives and eternal sex and even become God yourself, that’s how evil they were. Hope we got that settled.
As for the three heavens, just read 1 Corinthians 15, and you’ll also learn that baptism for the dead was indeed performed by the early church. After all, Paul doesn’t condemn them for the practice. You see, Jesus really saves everyone, but not everyone will live eternally in God’s presence.
Don’t know about the murder question, but death bed repentance is not illustrated with the thief on the cross. He went to paradise, which is not heaven because Jesus later says, “Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to the Father” to Mary as she’s about to hug him. Therefore, the theif went to where he will hear the gospel and then hope for us here on earth to vicariously perform saving ordinances for him. It’s all about works, man.
And, we can’t tell investigators this because, despite your request, they can’t digest milk before meat. Sorry, but there’s no other way to answer this question.
You see, if you really believed in Jesus Christ, you would believe in Joseph Smith, and then you would know that grace is not sufficient for you, or at least until after all your works were tallied to see how short you are in your quest to earn exaltation.
Hopes this helps. 🙂
Jack g,
Please write me at [email protected]
Their is something I want to talk about that I dont want to post here.
rick b (LDS priesthood holder)
Question – Who is qualified to give the true meaning to the term ‘Christian’? Would it not be the ones who first used the word? I have said this many times, it was non-believers who first used the term to describe a group of people who followed the doctrine/teachings of a person called Jesus Christ. They used this term to ‘separate’ these people from everyone else especially when it was a controversial movement which ultimately ended up with being on the wrong end of a stone or circus. Someone was considered a ‘Christian’ by these people if they professed to follow and believe in Jesus Christ REGARDLESS of how they believed in Him or what they taught as His doctrine. The epistles in the NT are there because of improper ideas as to what the doctrine was and what was necessary for salvation, etc. There were groups that believed that men needed to be circumcised, other groups taught a ‘works assisted grace’, and there were other wrong teachings. All of these groups were considered as part of the body of believers by the believers REGARDLESS of what they believed, they were chastised and corrected, hence the epistles. These groups were also considered ‘Christian’ by the non-believers and treated as such. They were not sat down after arrest and questioned things like – “Do you believe in works assisted grace? If so you’re not Christian and we will let you free.” They were Christian as soon as they said they believed in Jesus Christ.
No Aaron, I am not arguing from empty air as you keep saying. I am arguing from history (Jews in WW2 Germany), news (teachers accused of paedophilia) and personal experience. Case in point, the movie “Focus” shows a man and his wife (living in the US at the end of WW2) branded as Semites by their bigoted neighbours because of the way they look and act. They are treated as such with devastating consequences. Good movie, a little disturbing to think it could happen in your own backyard.
Another thing, I have noticed that even you lot cannot agree on which churches can be classed as Christian or not. I know that some of you think the Roman Catholic Church should not be, while others think it should and others again are on the fence about it. If I ask an atheist or a person who belongs to a non-NT believing church (ie non-Christian) they would class all of the churches that believe in the NT and Jesus as Christian, including LDS, JW and SDA as well as the modalist churches. If we leave the definition of the term ‘Christian’ to the non-believers, who first used the term in the Bible, then all of these churches are Christian.
Also, I know that there are at least 3 different definitions of Christian by members on this site. In the blog a while ago about the Biblical definition of Christian, Sharron gave her definition from the Bible and it did not include anything about believing in the Trinitarian make-up of God. The main difference between her definition and the LDS view was the grace alone without works. While others in the following conversations were pushing the Trinity as part of the definition of ‘Christian’.
So there is a variation on what the term ‘Christian’ means and which churches can/not be classed as ‘Christian’ in the Christian community in general. So lets leave it to the Bible and who coined the term first as to the definition.
And RickB, as I have said, you represent only one religion from a large conglomerate of Christian religions. You cannot say you are Catholic, nor Greek Orthodox nor Lutheran (which are Christian religions), just as much as I cannot say I am Pentacostal, Anglican or Presbyterian. So as I have said, your logic is faulty when you go on about this and you cannot say you are LDS.
Sorry my day off ended, and I’m not able to contribute to this thread as I’d like. Never thought the discussions would multiply so quickly, and be so hearty.
I have to briefly answer a point made by Jeffery that I think echoes the sentiments of several others:
But Christ is not merely a personality and figure of mediation before God’s holiness. As I said in my original comment, he is not simply the Way. He is also the Truth and the Life. He who does not faithfully live the Truth and the Life as Jesus accomplished as exemplar Son to his Father, the same will not themselves ultimately be accepted by Jesus as fellow sons of God, and full inheritors of the Father’s glory. To have faith in Jesus means to be faithful to Jesus. While our Advocate before the Father is absolutely free to every soul to ever live (even the very worst of us get an accounting, conversely, the best of us would have no hearing before the Father without Christ), Christ’s judgment (really, his advocacy) for us is not cast until our presence before God is accomplished. Those who deny this deny the covenantal context of the New Testament. Christ didn’t offer a salvation philosophy; he established a salvation church. Both the New Testament and history are very clear on that. To be presently “saved” in Christ means that you have entered into the covenant of knowledge that you will indeed stand one day before the Father and Son in judgment. You have not only accepted Christ as your eventual Advocate before the Father, but you have accepted him as your eventual Savior to the Father. The “hope” of this ultimate reality is the joyful gift that every true Christian lives for (Rom 5:2)
That is the plain message of the “restored Gospel” to the larger Christian world.
Sincerely,
mutu.
Ralph said
But the BoM says
Ok, First off, notice in these verses they use the Word Christian This is a problem, if the Book of Acts is to be true, Why? In my copy of the BoM dated 1920 Down the bottom of the page, it dates these happenings to be Both BC 72 AND 73 If they were called Christians After the death and resurrection of Christ, how Could this occurrence of the Word Christian, take place before Christ was around?
Now Ralph, you break us up into denomintion’s, can you show me from the bible where we get church denomintions? plus why can you tell me I am not an LDS member, but You get mad when I say LDS are not christian?
How come when it comes to christians, you can break us up in denomanations, and say we do not agree, but you forget about the split among you LDS, while you still hold some views and agree on things, like JS was a prophet for example. rick b (LDS priesthood holder)
Mantis. You say this: “He is also the Truth and the Life. He who does not faithfully live the Truth and the Life as Jesus accomplished as exemplar Son to his Father, the same will not themselves ultimately be accepted by Jesus as fellow sons of God, and full inheritors of the Father’s glory.”
Can you explain, then, Romans 3-4? Rom 10:3-4. “Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN, THEY DID NOT SUBMIT TO GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”
I’d like to point out that you make a big jump to say that Christ is the way truth and life and therefore, you must live as he lived to be saved.
Do you live like Christ lived? If I were to look into your life, your thoughts, secrets, emotions, everything about you, would I see Christ?
Rick, RIck, Rick, What are we going to do with you? The question about the chronology of the use of the word ‘Christian’ has been abswered many times, but still you go on and on like a broken record. The word Christ is the greek word for Messiah and both mean ‘the anointed one’. So anywhere in the Bible where it says one of these two words or that phrase, you can substitute one of the others in instead and it still means the same thing. The BoM was primarily written for this day and age (this is recorded in the BoM) and so when JS translated it, the words Christ and Christian and their derivatives was given to him to write down. We do not know the original word used by the BoM people, but this is the translation for it. So the Greek word ‘Christian’ was used first in Antioch, while the people on theother side of the world knew about Jesus and gave Him the title of ‘the anointed one/Messiah/Christ’ but in their own language; which was subsequently written as ‘Christ’ when it was translated into English. Its all to do with the translation, not the use of the actual word.
As for your other question – Are you actually Roman Catholic, or do you subscribe to all of their beliefs? If not then you are not and cannot say that you are Roman Catholic, even though they have many beliefs similar to yours. Is that ‘system’ even Christian according to you? I know some of your peers on this site do not want it to be classed as Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Redeemer, I believe that He is the Son of God and that I cannot live with Heavenly Father after this life except through faith in Jesus Christ. Is that not exactly the same as you believe? The differences come about with what I believe Jesus and His Apostles taught about faith and what it entails. All the other points, except the character of God, are minor points similar to the differences between other Christian denominations. I believe in Christ and I take His holy name on – I am Christian.
Mantis,
Who is Jesus? The Ebionites denied the reality of Jesus’ divine nature. The Bible says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Gnostics denied the reality of Jesus’ human nature. The Bible says “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” The Arians affirmed Jesus’ preexsistence but denied His deity. The Nestorians believed two persons actually indwelt the body of Christ, the human person and the divine person. The Eutychians said both natures (the human and the divine) mingled to make up a third and totally different nature from the original two natures. Christians say in the one person, Jersus Chtrist, there are two natures-a human nature and a divine nature, each in its completeness and ingtegrity, and these two natures are organically and indissoulubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed. He is God. He is not a God.
You are setting up a smoke screen by what you have written. You need to clearly define who Jesus is. It matters not what you write about Jesus until you give a clear indication of who you think He is. If you don’t do that, all you are doing is using Christian sounding language to pass Mormonism off as being part of the Christian mainstream. It all starts and ends with a religions view of the nature of God. That defines Christianity.
Ralph…after reading Bowman’s article I’ll grant you Christian or Mormon Christian. I think what most of us EVs define as Christian is one who holds to the historic Christian faith (the creedal doctrines). I’m sure you would acknowledge that you are not a Christian in that sense of the word. But your point is granted…if a terrorist was bent on killing Christians we would both bite the bullet!
As to the translation issue…any ideas why the words cureloms and cumoms were used since they are not words that anyone seems to understand? If they are mastadons wouldn’t God have beamed that word into the hat?
mutu…did you read any of the Scriptures I posted? Paul uses tenses in a way that acknowledges our salvation as already accomplished. Your “hope” doesn’t sound very promising. I think you haven’t studied Romans chapter 5 inductively in context perhaps.
In putting my kids to bed tonight, and reading the Bible to them as I do every night, I came to Matthew 7. I am curious the Mormon response to vs 7-12: 7″Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
9″Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Its also followed in vs 15: 15″Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”
I think, too, that Falcon hits the nail on the head when he challenges Mutu to define who Jesus is. It is this definition that we must look at.
And Ralph, yes, it is true that Muslims would blow us all up the same. But are they correct in equating us? Are we really the same?
To Michael P.:
Paul is of course talking about why the Jews failed to recognize Jesus’ new revelation as God’s word. Even though Moses prophecied of him who would give them a new Law, the Jews were too caught up in establishing their righteousness through their ethnic fundamentals to realize that the Messiah had actually come to fulfill God’s word to them. And ironically, rejecting him would seal the Law’s fulfillment. I think all us Christians are in agreement on this, No?
Christ answered the “end of the Law” because he lived a life of utter holiness (answering the righteous demands of the Law) and thereafter suffered for the sins and pains of humanity so that he might qualify as their righteous advocate before the Father (allowing him to sanctify sinful man to God’s holiness). In the Law of Moses, bc of Israel’s sins at Sinai, they thereafter covenanted outside the inner temple, just as they did at the mount. In Christ, New Israel covenanted within the veil, before God—as they were originally suppose to. Those covenants will be answered in heaven just as they are established on earth; this wasn’t the case with Moses’ Law.
A jump in Evangelical belief, I know. But not in Pauline belief.
It’s a spiritual gift I’m afforded every day. It’s not what you see that counts, it’s what I and Christ see; the Spirit as my witness.
To LDSTITANIC:
Actually, I already explained that Paul speaks of fulfillment in present tense because he is referring to the covenants that his Christian audience has already made. They didn’t have some Bible at the time that spelt out their theology. What they had were their covenants in Christ, such as baptism and annointing–the basic Christian initiation right up till the 4th century–and in Eastern Orthodoxy, beyond.
In Rom 6:2,10-11 it says “How can we who have died to sin go on living it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?…The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”
Because of their baptismal covenant, Paul and his flock had already died in Christ, and had already been resurrected in Christ (in a covenantal sense, they lived in a resurrected state, as every good Christian should view their life through faith in their Savior).
That Paul elsewhere refers to his Roman flock as being “saved” let’s me know that at least some of them had been more than simply baptized, however.
Sincerely,
mutu.
mutu…why do you suppose he uses Abraham for his example of justification by faith alone? Abraham was never baptized. When God “cut” the covenant with Abraham he put Abraham to sleep my friend. When Jesus “cut” the New Covenant in His blood we were dead in our sins. He did it all. We have but to walk thru the pieces of His flesh (the veil) and accept the free gift He offers…Blessings till tomorrow!
To all:
AARON: The Rob Bowman article is, in my view, worth copying and passing around, I plan on doing that for the circle I run with. I like his “dual definition” approach, because the word ‘christian’ really does mean many different things depending on who is using it, and under what circumstances. I found the article helpful, I’m curious what the LDS take on it was.
RALPH: you can beat the drum for us to use the word as the Romans did, (and as a history lover, you get classical appreciation pts), but for most people ‘history’ is what the Jonas Bros were doing in middle school….no wait…that’s like, ANCIENT history. May as well find out how people are using the word TODAY, even if that is a departure from the original meaning; knowing the history IS important when reading what they were saying BACK THEN about the ‘christians’: part of knowing the historical context and all that.
Mutu: your posts are interesting, but kind of cryptic (to my feeble brain, at least). I think you will bump into the PRESENT LAVISH GENEROSITY of our God and Father. Yes, the gospel is both NOW and NOT YET, but you lean so far on the NOT YET, that your gospel is not sounding like good news. I’ll pick this up later…welcome to Mormon Coffee if I haven’t already said so. Do you have anything to add on the Magic thread? Does John Gee make the case that you would for JS alleged magical involvment?? Just wondering.
The simplest way to define what a Christian is is to ask the question that Jesus Himself asked in Matthew 22:41-42:
“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?”
That’s the million dollar question and depending on what your answer is will determine whether or not you are entitled to that label/title. Mormons are disqualified for the following top 10 reasons because they believe:
1. Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer.
2. Jesus is A god.
3. Jesus’ blood cannot atone for all sins.
4. Jesus is a created being as the offspring of a male and female that eternally progressed and became gods.
5. Jesus cannot be prayed to directly.
6. Jesus was a polygamist (as taught by early Mormon leaders).
7. Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Ghost.
8. Jesus Christ was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).
9. Jesus only fulfilled part of what is required to be with Heavenly Father, with the rest being contigent on the individual Mormon to complete.
10. Jesus came to the Americas after his resurrection and established His church over there (to which there is no historical proof whatsoever outside of the Book of Mormon account which also itself can’t be verified anywhere outside of its own covers).
Christianity does not recognize any of the above stated. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Greek or Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. We are all in agreement on the central points of the faith which are in direct opposition to the above stated Mormon beliefs. Nobody outside of Mormonsim recognizes Mormons as true, historical Christians.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moonies, Unitarians, Bahai’s, Muslims, Spritists, etc., believe in Christ, but it’s the wrong one and each has a different Christ just like the Mormons.
Matt 22:42 is the #1 most important question: Who is Jesus? If you have this wrong, then nothing else matters. You’re lost.
Michael P,
The body of your first two posts on this thread was very good. I wish there were more posts focusing on our conviction to the Savior instead of so many that seem to be heavily steeped in semantics. I honestly believe many Mormons feel very similarly to your expression in that post. Unfortunately, the semantics seem to dominate the conversation creating a divide which I do not believe really exists among the majority of Christians- including Mormons. There are very many Mormons who are humbly dependent upon the Lord Jesus Christ with very little regard for the semantics of the issue, and I believe this is true of other Christians as well. It is one of the greatest disappointments of my Christian life to see followers of Christ allow semantics to divide them.
To falcon:
Our astute ante-Nicene Fathers (whom modern Protestants somehow favorably swallow despite their being the Popes and Cardinals of their day) gave us a great rundown of which ancient Christian sects didn’t cut it theologically, and why. I certainly hope they got these poor folks’ essential doctrines straighter than the average Evangelical publisher gets Mormon doctrine. But knowing human nature and the tendencies of ethnic polemics, I doubt it.
In any case, what our early Patristic Fathers left us of these early Christian sects is often all we have to go on. As a Mormon Christian, I’m glad I’m present to account for my Christology. (Not that it should greatly surprise many on this board.)
Jesus was indeed the Word spoken of in John’s prologue. That is, he had a pre-existence, and he was both “with” God, and “was” God. Of course, the ambiguity and the apparent sublimity of this prologue keeps scholars in each successive generation busy trying to verify the ancient theological premise behind it. And Mormons (surprisingly??) have their own take.
Jesus, like the rest of us, was a literal son of God conceived in the preexistence (making sense of Rom 8:16 & Acts 17:28-29), and was therefore “with” God in the beginning. But unlike the rest of us, Jesus in the beginning was chosen as God’s agent among His heavenly host. Therefore, Jesus was unique among the host in that he “was”/became God then and there. He was not simply formed as a human manifestation of a figureless, immaterial God. He was conceived (again, like us all), as a literal child of a fully spiritual, fully material parent (the ideal clearly expressed by Paul when describing the risen Lord in 1 Cor 15:44-45). As Jesus plainly says to his disciples, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Like a good Kabbalist Jew, Philip didn’t think of a material Creator as a foolish idea. And neither did a good many of Christians before the Neoplatonic crack down in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
mantis,
Thank you very much for articulating why Mormonism is not Christian. The early Church defined clearly who God is. Now, religious groups need to decide if they buy into what the apostles taught and what the Church Fathers affirmed over and over again or if they want to side with those holding to a heretical view. Mormonism has decided to side with the early heretics against Christianity and then insist on being called Christians. Consider this:
“The tradition of the apostles can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles (and their successors) in the churches down to our time-none of whom taught or thought of anything like the heretics’ mad ideas.” Irenaus of Lyon 130-200 “Against Heresies” Christian History issue 51 Vol.3 p.31
So on the one hand, I am glad that you articulated clearly that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Biblical Christianity and therefore (Mormonism) cannot be considered a Christian religion. On the other hand, I am saddened that Mormonism has seen fit to down grade God to an exalted man and Jesus to a type of super hero who can’t save men from their sins. As an aside, my opinion is that if Mormons thought that calling themselves Hindu would increase their stature and recruitment efforts, they would claim that label also.
LDSTITANIC,
I do not know what those 2 words are/mean and I do not care because they are not relevant to my salvation. On the other hand Jesus Christ is essential to my salvation so I would think that His name would be translated into what we are familiar with so we know the book is about Him and not try to introduce another term for His title of Christ/Messiah and stumble over a prolonged reason why it wasn’t interpreted into current English use. I do agree that we are different in some respects to the ‘Traditional’ Christian groups, but we do teach those differences to those investigating the church.
Germit,
The word ‘perk’ in today’s use means to vomit. ‘Fag’ is a cigarette and a homosexual. ‘Fanny’ is the female external genitalia. Well at least that what these words mean here in Australia. Get my drift? The non-Christians still use the word the same as it was used by them in Biblical times so those who gave the word existance still use it to mean the same – it’s not ancient history.
Berean,
There are 4 Bible dictionaries I know of that say out right that the Trinity as described by the Nicean and Anathsian creed is not found in the NT. One of these dictionaries is the Harper’s which is written by the BSL, a very prestigious Bible scholar group. There is the Trinity, Modalism, LDS and JW theories on God’s character all derived from the Bible. If those 4 dictionaries are correct then is the Trinity really the Jesus/God of the Bible?
Ralph…my point would be that Joseph Smith either made those words up or more likely copied them from some other source. If you can’t trust him with small details why would you trust him on matters affecting your eternal destiny?
Also…don’t you find it bizarre how the peoples of the BoM were given such clearly defined advanced notice of Christ (his name and so on) but the Jews of the first century were mostly blind to the coming of their Messiah?
Germit…I’m glad I’m not alone with mutu. I tried to respond to what I could pick out but he isn’t easy to read…mostly it sounds like he has been reading Bart Ehrman or some other obscurantists that take the “winners make the rules” approach to history.
Mutu: I don’t want to be guilty of talking about you while you are in the room, could you please leave????…..just kidding. You are one exotic and well read cup of non-caffeinated tea, my friend, could you dumb down your posts here and there so a plough boy like myself could rebut now and again. If I could figure out the points you are trying to make, I could clumsily try to refute them, please remember that to some of us, velvet Elvis is art, and the Pontiac is still up on blocks in the front yard/weed patch.
Ralph: you haven’t thot thru the definition thing: you are only half right. Yes, many use the word as the Romans, but not all, maybe not even most. Do you demand that we all use the words ‘perk’ and ‘fanny’ as they do in Outbackville, or DO YOU ADJUST TO WHERE YOU ARE?? I’d say (and Rob Bowman suggests) that we adjust to where we are and know how are AUDIENCE uses the word, that seems fair minded and charitable to me, knowing that the word certainly has OTHER meanings, some that even CONFLICT with meaning #1 or #2. This is not relativism, it’s facing the evolution of a word problem in a way that is honest and respectful, or at least that’s how it seems to me.
No takers on the magic thread?? Come on guys….maybe we can get John Gee himself over here on a stipend or something….GERMIT
Take a closer look at Romans 8:16 and its context—it is absolutely devastating to the common Mormon usage. The verse preceding, 15, describes us as “sons” by “adoption”, not by sexual or procreative union between a male god and a female goddess. The status of Christians as “sons” by “adoption” is contrasted with the New Testament teaching (including Romans 1) that Jesus is the unique Son of God. Hence, he is more often called “THE Son” and the “only begotten son”, not merely “a son”.
Jesus is not just “like the rest of us”, because we were “adopt[ed]” and he wasn’t. There is no mention whatsoever of the “rest of us” pre-existing our conception here on earth. In fact, in the Gospel of John Jesus is repeatedly set apart as uniquely pre-existing and uniquely “from above” (cf. the testimony of John the Baptist in chapter 1, the interaction between Jesus and Nicodemus in chapter 3, and the interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees in chapter 8). “He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me” (1:15). Jesus was “before” us, and he is from “above”. We are from below. “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man” (John 3:13).
As for Acts 17:28-29, I can see how easy it would be to put Mormon theology into that if that was the only passage you had. But reducing God to a being merely of the human species who is in need of sexual or procreative partners completely misses the point of the text. In context Paul was simply trying to expand the view of God in his audience from something inanimate to something personal and living—hence, drawing a connection between the Creator and his unique creation. In light of the rest of the Bible, there simply isn’t any heavenly mother(s) for Heavenly Father to copulate with, and Yahweh does not need a sexual partner to create humans. Whereas traditional Mormonism teaches God didn’t actually create and doesn’t actually sustain the existence of people (as intelligences are eternal and were existent far before the Mormon deity achieved godhood), Acts 17 teaches that in God we live and move and have our very being. My very being, my very fundamental existence is dependent on the Creator. In Mormonism, this simply isn’t true.
To take the saying of Jesus in John 14:9, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”, and interpret it as a statement of the Father’s physicality is a gross, egregious, tragic error in light of the theology and context of the Gospel of John. The larger theme is that, by his word and deeds and character and power, Jesus perfectly ἐξηγήσατο (exegetes, exposes, reveals) the Father (John 1:18). As John made clear in 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Not “full of the same eye color, dimples, hair style, chest hair, muscular structure”, etc., but “full of grace and truth”. If you want to “see” the Father in the person of Jesus Christ, don’t look up at a portrait in your ward, rather look into the words and deeds of Christ recorded in scripture.
To briefly address some other things brought up on this thread: of course you can’t find the exact linguistic formula of the Trinitarian creeds in the Bible, but so what? What we care about is meaning, substance, and implication, not mere rhetoric. I would highly recommend the talk given by Ron Huggins, “Those ‘Abominable’ Creeds”.
Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-8),
Aaron
Bornagain.
Thank you. I do think that sometimes in such a debate the ideas get lost through the trees, so to speak. It is easy to forget the bigger picture. In this case, it is our relationship to Christ that is the big picture.
However, to get there, we cannot and must not forget the trees. The details do matter. When I say I believe in Christ and following him I mean something very different than what you mean when you say the exact same sentance.
I mean that I give all my life to Christ, who has met me at the beginning of the bridge and allow him to guide me across it. Mormons, though, given the “after all we can do” clause, think that they have to meet Christ half way across that bridge. This very thought has expressly been stated here.
Further, defining who Christ is its at is base hugely important. When I say Christ I mean God, the Father in human flesh, the physical showing of the Holy Spirit. When you say Christ you mean a third personage, separate and distinct, though united in purpose with the Father and the Spirit. You mean that Christ is a physical son of God, and is somehow beneath God.
See, its not all semantics. The differences are real, and therefore the application is also huge. You believe you can become a God. Do you really think that the application of following God’s will is the same as when I try to follow God’s will? Are our minds in the same place?
If I expect to be led by God completely, and my goal, and expectation is to be with God for eternity, and that will cause more bliss and joy than we can possibily ever imagine, what are my motivations? Then you follow God because it is a requirement and do things, even if doing so humbly, to earn a place in the celestial kingdom, where you will be a God, what are your motivations?
Can we really say they are the same? That the process is the same? Do our minds meet?
You can argue that both produce good people, but does that matter? Sincerely, does it?
germit,
In a pedantic effort to bully us intellectually, manti struggles to grasp the simple idea that a life of obedience is the result of salvation. He still thinks obedience earns salvation. You and I, and the other Christians on this blog, understand the simple phrase “justified by faith,” and we can rejoice that we are saved by the grace of God. This is so elementary because the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is not a burden, rests on Jesus Christ always being God, never created, coming forth from the Father, humbling Himself and taking on the form of man through a virgin birth, preaching the kingdom of Heaven, dying on a shameful cross for us, then rising again as the Resurrected LORD. That’s the gospel, and the reason it’s good news is because all we have to do is believe. That’s it. And you and I, simple thinkers, get it. We’re kind of like the woman of ill-repute in the Simon’s house, we bow the knee and confess Jesus as LORD because we get it. We demonstrate our faith through obedience because we love Jesus. The Pharisees of that day had lots of knowledge, but didn’t get it. The same can be said for the Pharisees of our day. That’s why we pray for them and engage them in dialog. Keep up the good work, my brother. You are Spirit-enlightened and empowered!
(sorry for the double posts)
Mutu, I’ll second the motion for you to dumb your thoughts down a bit. Us evangelicals are a bit slow 🙂
Nah, while I am not sure I understand everything you posted, I certainly get the feeling you like to use “Christianeze”. But such use of langauge doesn’t mean much if you can’t apply it or explain it to someone who doesn’t understand.
To be fair, it can fool a lot of people. It is even a pet peve of mine when evangelicals use it too much. Simplicity is good, I think, and your posts are not simple.
While I await your simplifies answers, I want to point out that you did not comment on the phrase to all who believe at the end of Romans 10:4.
Further, that was a nice dodge of my question as to what we would see. Would Jesus have dodged the question? Rather, did he? Do you wish to remain hiding behind the line its between you and Christ? Why? I can’t make you answer, but I can ask the question.
I’ve already answered– people would not like what they saw of me. And to expandI think I am better than so many, I often look at pretty women with a second glance, I get jealous, I don’t pray unceasingly, I often try to get out of doing things, I procrastinate, I get angry at dumb things, I don’t go the person I am angry with before the sun goes down… Should I continue?
I, too, like the article by Rob Bowman that Aaron pointed us to. And I grant that “Christian” can be (and is) used in various ways. The LDS Church and its members prefers the word in its broader, inclusive form, but that is not the way it has been used historically by the LDS Church and its leaders. Recall Brigham Young, et al., referring to non-Mormons as “so-called Christians” (e.g., Journal of Discourses 8:171, 199, 24:185; History of the Church, 1:xl). Or LDS apostle Bruce McConkie’s assertion that Mormons are the only true Christians, that Mormonism is Christianity and Christianity is Mormonism (Mormon Doctrine, 513). Or past LDS prophet Ezra Taft Benson saying, “This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth…” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 164-165). Since the LDS Church feels free to use the word “Christian” in a narrow sense, there is no basis for complaint when non-Mormons also use the word in a more narrow way.
Having said that, as others here have stated, the real issue is not what we call ourselves (or want others to call us); before we can find our proper place we must answer, “Who is Jesus and what do I have to do with Him?”
*Slightly off-topic and subject to deletion* Mutu keeps harping on the physicality of God but does Mormonism teach that only males were made in the image of God or males and females (as per Genesis 1:27)? Wouldn’t this necessitate God being a hermaphrodite? Also, has anyone found out more about this idea that the early Christians believed God had a body? Other than the incarnation (which is something entirely different) I can’t track anything down on this? Cluff…any quotes? I think it was you that brought that up…
Ralph said
So then, how come LDS do not like People lumping RLDS, or FLDS or other LDS offshoot groups in the group of LDS? They say the same as you did.
Now You are wrong, you can use the same words, it is the meaning behind them that shows a great difference.
The Jesus you believe in, was once a man, My Jesus Is and always was Eternal God, never created.
Your God is One of Millions, My God is the only one.
Your god, Lies and cannot keep things straight,
My God does not lie.
If you really follow LDS teaching, then people who commit murder can never be forgiven.
You believe works play a role in your own salvation.
You believe you jesus is the brother of lucifer, none of the above do I believe.
LDS teach in more scripture is of/from god.
I do not believe this.
so yes you and me do not agree, we do teach different things that are major and effect our salvation. Rick b (LDS priesthood holder)
Amen Sharon, good quoting of authoritative LDS church leadership. It is true they have a much more narrow view of what constitutes a Christian than that of the LDS posters on this blog. But lets go a step further and look at the possible reasoning.
Back in Brighams time, church leadership had no problem seperating themselves from traditional Christianity, and in fact had said some very nasty things about traditional Christians and the leadership (i.e. “whoremasters”).
Imagine Monson saying that stuff at next conference about traditional Christianity. Do you have any idea how big of a PR mess that would cause?
Now in Monson’s time here we have the subtle “Well Christians today have some of the truth, but not all of it, they don’t have the restored gospel we do.”
Quite a big difference from Brigham to Monson, correct?
Even though Brigham Young was abrasive as all outer darkness, at least he shot straight, and didn’t water down the stark differences between the traditional Christian faith and the Mormon faith. He created a line that these days, Monson and the gang attempt to blur with half-truths and try and justify it with the “milk before meat” argument.
Old Mormon Authority – “We are the true Christians, you are not, and your damned.”
New Mormon Authority – “We are all Christians, you, me, everyone, yay lets clap hands but let me share something with you that you’re missing.”
Get the point?
So you see, LDS posters, traditional Christians these days have to fight off what they view as heresy with even more zeal now because the current LDS PR system is getting a little too close to what we view as truth, in order to become more accepted among other faiths. Like a Chameleon that we know is there, but many others don’t, and before they are even given a chance to notice the big differences, you’re tongue comes up and snatches them up.
Jeffrey,
You make great points. The only problem I see is that Mormons will try to say that the message is contextualized to a different generation of Christians, and that the language of BY would be inappropriate to use, today. But, no matter how Mormonism is portrayed or presented, it is still packed with heretical teachings that converts don’t hear about until after they’ve confessed their faith in JS as a prophet of God. By this time, they believe in the Church and accept anything they hear (most of them, anyway). And, I agree with you that we need to fight off such heresy with even more zeal, today, at the expense of being called names and labeled. So, keep up the good fight, my brother in Christ!