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.”
Cluff,
My goodness, you seem to have us confused with some other idiots. We all know that we sin, even you my friend. Repentance is something that we do. That comes with knowledge of the law and having the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
Yes, there are works involved, but they are not what earns salvation. The works that The book of life is the one we want to be in, not in the other books. The “dead” are the ones not in the book of life, they will be judged by works.
I will leave you with a little something.
Luke 18:9-14
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men- robbers, evildoers, adulterers- or even like this tax collecor. I fast twice a weak and give a tenth of all I get.’
But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
W/LOVE
CRCluff wrote: I will continue to overstate my point– ONLY REPENTANCE saves mankind from the consequences of sin. Christ will save no one IN their sins.
Christ can save no one in their sins? Please define what you mean by save here, because depending on definitions your argument could mean that no one is resurrected. I do not think that is what you meant but taken to an extreme, that is the risk that Mormons take when they put works first.
Also it is clear that you do not understand the biblical doctrine of Grace, that is saving Grace. I think, that’s because you begin in the wrong place, you start with someone who is alive instead of someone who is Dead. We must start from the premise that men are Dead in their sins and trespasses. (Eph 2:1) Of course if you deny this biblical fact, then of course it looks as though men could work for the medicine to fix them, as seen in all religions outside of Biblical Christianity. However if that is the premise we start from then clearly it is grace that saves us, or do the dead raise themselves?
GRCluff wrote: Christians are slackers because their focus on grace will produce fewer works. Then to rub salt in the wound, they insist that works are not needed at all. I wish Paul were here to clear that up.
… First Paul did clear it up, I mean 13 letters, all of which are clear that Justification is by Grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast. Also the notion that “Christians are slackers” … what? Do you mean all Christians, including your definition where Mormons are Christians or no? Let’s be specific, which “Christians” are you speaking of? Furthermore if you mean protestants I am truly sorry you are so misinformed, perhaps you should study early American religious history again. Specifically in the New England area, or perhaps you might like to look into figures such as George Whitfield or Charles Spurgeon.
Lautensack
I stand by my premise that Mormonism cannot be considered a Christian religion because not only do they acknowledge a different God, a different Jesus, a different Spirit and a different plan of salvation but also see the Bible as corrupt and the fantasy BoM as the most perfect book ever written.
The Mormon plan of salvation is suppose to lead those who are worthy, to become a god. This is ananthema in Christianity and beyond any heresy found in the first century.
The plan of salvation in Mormonism is also more than strange. If a Mormon cops out of the godmaker program, they are pretty well free to carry on a life of total debauchery. There is no motivation to lead a godly life. First of all there is no fear of hell because there isn’t any hell in Mormonism beyond the daily grind of the Mormon religious system. The Jesus “covers the rest of my bill” Mormonism, provides the Mormon believer with an endless credit account that will bail them out no matter what they do and still give them some level of eternal reward. A Mormon can have as little as 1% righteousness and expect a 99% bail-out. If Mormonism fails to hook a follower onto the treadmill of a relentless religious system to become a god, the nominal member can put it into cruise control. That’s the problem with a works related system with no real bite.
In Christianity, the believer sees himself as totally lost and helpless in his sin. The Christian surrenders to God’s plan of salvation which has Jesus accepting the penalty for our sin. The regenerated believer than lives within God’s grace. The Christian’s response to God’s sacrifice and the extension of His grace is to follow a life style that reflects an attitude of gratitude for what God has done for us. We have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord. On the Cross Jesus said, “It is finished” which means “the debt is paid”. Coming to faith in Jesus marks our bill as paid in full upfront. Mormonism knows no such salvation.
Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian religion?
We believe Jesus of Nazareth was and is the only begotten Son of God.
We believe Jesus Christ is the creator.
We believe Jesus not only died on the cross, but somehow incomprehensible to us, He suffered and experienced, literally, the physical, emotional, and spiritual penalty for the sins of all mankind.
We believe Jesus not only suffered for all sin, but that He also experienced and suffered, literally, every physical, spiritual, emotional pain suffered by all of mankind that DID NOT result from sin. This he did so He would “know how to succor them.” I have never heard this taught by another group.
We believe Jesus not only suffered these things for all of mankind on this earth, but that He suffered these things for all those worlds which He created, “worlds without number.” Again, no other group teaches this.
We believe there is “no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ.” Alma 38:9
Everything we do is aimed at strengthening our faith in Jesus Christ. We EXERCISE our faith in Him by repenting of our sins, striving to live His commandments, and serving Him. I know of NO other way of EXERCISING one’s faith in Him.
Every prayer we offer in meetings and in our homes is offered in His name.
Every covenant we enter is aimed at strengthening our commitment to Him.
We formally take upon us His name at Baptism and every week thereafter by partaking of bread and water in remembrance of His broken body and spilled blood. In doing so, we promise to remember Him always.
We believe Jesus Christ will return in power and glory to the defeat of His enemies as prophesied by ancient and modern prophets.
We believe Jesus Christ will be our Judge and advocate with the Father.
NO OTHER SYSTEM OF BELIEF ESTEEMS JESUS CHRIST MORE HIGHLY. To understand these fundamental beliefs of ours and claim we are not Christian is simply absurd.
Faithoffathers,
I sense some frustration in your comment here. Fair enough, and I see how frustration could exist when you look at it that way. But one thing your comments left out was who is Jesus?
That he died for us, that he suffered, and that he offers our path to salvation are things he did, and does. But they do not address who he is.
That you worship and love him also does not address that question.
Do you care to address who he is, and not what he has done? Who he is would address such questions as where did he come from? Is he unique? Does he have siblings? Was he created? Is he the greatest being out there? Was he just a man once? Has he always (from eternity on) been God?
So, could you tell us what it is Mormons believe about WHO Jesus was and is?
Thanks.
“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'” (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).
“It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (LDS Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ).
Cluff,
Thanks for giving something specific to discuss. However, it still seems you do not understand our position.
In using the “strongest language possible” you greatly miss the point. First, you misrepresent what works are to us. And then you make an assumption that works lead one to Christ. I admit this is a possibility (which is why I do not take such a hard stance against works as others), but the requirement factor does play a huge role. See, even if we take your belief that I have the opportunity to accept a baptism after my death, I still cannot enter your version of heaven until I do accept it. I have to accept baptism by one with your authority to make it
there. It is required.
Second, are we ever saved in our sins? the Bible says so. Just one verse is all you need to know: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. It doesn’t say, “After we stop sinning, Christ died for us.” It says “while we are still sinners…”
See, its not just repentance that saves us. It is our acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice that saves us.
This is the gift (and the Bible describes it as a gift) that Christ gives us. All we need to do is to accept that gift.
Now, I ask you not to jump ahead and look into what happens after. Right now, to borrow the popular Mormon phrase, milk before meat. We are discussing our beliefs now, and we need to establish this very basic and fundamental concept.
Do you understand this and are you willing to continue discussing?
I applaud the attempt here by the Christian posters to get the basics defined. When someone comes to me and says they have a revelation, I always go back and check it by the revealed precepts/standards. If the revelation is not consistent with the standard, I reject it. Modern Mormonism has done a great job of hijacking evalgelical Christian language and terms. Mormonism then claims to be Christian because it uses this Christianese. It’s all meant to sound very protestant and suck in those who really don’t know the meaning behind the words/terms. It’s dishonest, plain and simple. It’s really a form of bearing false witness. Mormons are sinning by ommission when they use these terms without giving a full explanation. Mormonsim is not Christianity just because Mormons have learned to use the language of Christians.
Michael P,
Thanks for your response. I am happy to answer your questions. But I will say that there is a very arbitrary approach by many to exclude LDS from the club of Christians. Some are uncomfortable with our being Christian, and I honestly do not understand this. It is a very big deal to us, and I recognize that it is important to those on the other side too, even if I don’t get why they feel the way they do.
Who is Jesus? He is the only begotten of the Father. He was with the Father in the beginning. He created the earth and the heavens. He was Jehovah of the Old Testament- The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Is He unique? I think what I have stated about Him certainly conveys uniqueness- there being only one of Him.
Does He have siblings? Only in the sense that He is THE Son of God, and we are also God’s children. But He is the ONLY begotten of the Father in the flesh, making Him supremely unique. As a result, His relationship with God is and has always been different from ours. He often said things like “I go to my God and your God,” illustrating this point.
Along with His Father, He IS the greatest being “out there,” and sits on the right hand of the Father. He reigns on God’s throne. He always gives the Father glory and honor.
Was he created? I think the question is was His spirit created, right? We know He was created in the flesh. We refer to Him as alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. We in every way subscribe to these titles. I don’t think we know much about His relationship with the Father as far as spiritual creation. And to tell you the truth, I do not think this is important. We take the Bible literally when it says He is the Son of God.
Was he ever a man? Well- yes, while he was on the earth, He was a mortal, meaning he had the physical capacity to die and to be tempted. But being the Son of God, was different than us- He was sinless and perfect.
This kind of Mormon language is misleading, deconstructive, and unloving. It is unloving because it doesn’t use the clarity available to avoid obfuscation.
There is no official position on whether God the Father or Jesus are the absolute greatest of all beings, and depending on which main view one ascribes to in traditional Mormonism, any given god-being is either
1. One among potentially trillions and trillions of god-beings who are equally powerful and knowledgeable (the Prattian model).
2. One among potentially trillions and trillions of god-beings who are either more advanced in the progression of knowledge and power, or less advanced (the Brighamite model).
Faithoffathers,
Aaron already touched on a point that I see in your discussion. You answer the “right” way but there are a lot of clauses in there.
Can you simplify your answers and remain true to what Mormonism teaches?
I am happy to show you, with great simplicity, what we believe. But first, let me raise some more questions on your response:
Is he unique? Is he, or are there others out there like him? Whether or not we worship them is immaterial. Are there others like him? Can you answer clearly and simply?
Does he have siblings? “only in the sense that…” sounds like a clause… Care to answer more simply? What about Satan? Do you deny the Mormon notion they are spiritual brothers?
“Along with the Father…” Sounds like another clause. So, owuld I be right to say that he is not the only “greatest being” out there? Seems like there is more to your answer. Care to flush that out for us? (of course, keeping it simple…)
Was he created? That you assume I mean spiritual implies yet another clause. I simply meant to ask if Jesus, spiritually, physically, everythign about him, was created. Has Jesus always been? And at that, has he always been “a greatest being out there”?
Was he ever a man was not my question. Was he ever “just a man” was my question. We’d agree that Jesus came to earth to live as man, but there is some confusion in your answer. This is because I thought Jesus had progressed from being just a man to godhood. Can you clarify?
When we have adduced accurately what you believe, in simple and short terms, we can compare what we both believe. But from your answers, it appears there is more underneath what you wrote. It’d be nice if you could clarify this confusion.
It is very clear that the underlying point with all of the discussions is whether or not the Christ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the real Christ. There is much debate over this topic with citations from both sides arguing their stance. One of the most common questions is “what is the LDS doctrine of Christ.” I will try to address this topic.
I will start by using an indisputably authoritative source for Mormon doctrine- the Book of Mormon. I will refer to 3 Nephi chapter 11 which we believe is the beginning of Christ’s visit to the Americas after His resurrection. This chapter is one of the most recognized chapters of the Book of Mormon by LDS Church leadership. It is also the Savior speaking.
3 Nephi 11:31-40.
I do not have room to post all the versus, but I would encourage everyone to read them. This is indisputably (refer to verses 39-40) the Mormon doctrine of Christ plain and pure. Anyone within or without of the church who has or does try to go beyond this is “building upon a sandy foundation.”
BornagainMormon,
According to 3 Nephi 11:31-40, shouldn’t Mormon Prophets such as Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young, et cetera be damned, since they declared more than this doctrine, as verse 40 says: And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Furthermore if such is the case then shouldn’t they be defined as false prophets by the very work they promoted as scripture?
Lautensack
BAM,
Vs. 33, 34, 37, 38: Your Christ establishes a “work” necessary for salvation: baptism. The Bible says: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life (Jn 3:36)”; “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent (Jn 6:29)”; “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life (Jn 6:47); “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [Paul & Silas] said, “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved… (Acts 16:30-31); et al.
Vs. 36: Your Christ says he, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are “one.” So does v. 27. But LDS doctrine is that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are 3 separate beings (First Vision).
V. 40: “Whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil and is not built upon my rock;” In these verses, Mormon Christ makes no mention of celestial marriage, priesthood requirements, sealing, etc. as part of his doctrine—these necessities certainly seem like “more” to me! Thanks, Lautensack, for allowing me to echo your point–you must type faster than I!
BAM, I think the statement that “Anyone within or without of the church who has or does try to go beyond [these statements by mormon Christ] is ‘building upon a sandy foundation’” is either naïve or incredibly ignorant!
Michael P,
Thanks for the response. In your mind,the question of whether we are Christians has not been answered yet in my posts. Am I right? I will say at this point that based upon what I have stated, Mormons are Christians, and it doesn’t matter how I answer these additional questions. Wat I have said is absolutely true about our beliefs. A contrary opinion doesn’t change that. All LDS that I know believe what I have explained.
I will attempt to answer your questions, but it does NOT change the reality that we are Christians. You may argue otherwise, but that is simply your opinion.
Satan: he was a spirit child of God who rebelled. He was originally with God. Don’t know many details outside of this. Saying Christ and Satan are brothers is like calling a diamond carbon. I really do not understand the EV fury over this one.
Christ always gave the Father the glory, and hence, I think Christ would say that the Father is the Greatest. As to other universes, etc., don’t know and don’t care. It has absolutely nothing to do with us. All I understand is that God the Father and His Son are the ultimate, greatest beings, and the ones I worship.
Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Outside of that reality, can’t provide any more details.
Christ was only a “man” in the sense that he had a mortal body. He never sinned or did anything lower than God would to. Period-nothing else to say.
I think what I said above is very clear. Your confusion implies you feel I am hiding something- those “deep doctrinal” things that critics focus on. I used no subtle clauses. Those other things DO NOT MATTER. The actual, functional, motivating, and saving things we believe are what I have provided.
FoF said, “Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Outside of that reality, can’t provide any more details.”
So Christ and the Father have been since the beginning of time and beginning of ALL things? That is what Christians believe, but that is NOT what Mormons believe. The Mormon doctrine is that Christ and the Father have been ever since Elohim progressed to his godhood and begat his own spirit children, the first being Jesus. Then together they created this world. This is vastly and radically different from what the Bible teaches.
“Saying Christ and Satan are brothers is like calling a diamond carbon. I really do not understand the EV fury over this one. ” I don’t get it. Calling a diamond carbon? A diamond is made from carbon -are you saying that Satan is made from Christ? That they are interchangeable or of the same substance? That is the fury you observe: Christ and Satan are unequivocally NOT of the same substance. One is the great I AM, the other was created BY Him.
Oh, and “Does He have siblings? Only in the sense that He is THE Son of God, and we are also God’s children.” Wrong. First of all, Mormons believe all human beings to ever walk this earth are spirit siblings to one another and to Christ, all begotten of the Father and a heavenly mother. Secondly, Jesus did have siblings while on this earth (Matt 12:47, Mark 3:32, Luke 8:20). You may argue that Jesus is the “only begotten of the Father in the flesh” but if my mother has a child by a man other than the one who contributed to my genetic makeup, that offspring is still my sibling.
On the site “A Christian wouldn’t do what you do” the point was made to give examples of someone misrepresenting our beliefs – well not to hijack this thread I just want to correct a misrepresentation made here. Falcon said “…also see the Bible as corrupt and the fantasy BoM as the most perfect book ever written.” This is totally wrong. This issue has also been addressed before so please get it right in future. The actual word used in the statement about the BoM is that it is the most CORRECT book, NOT the most perfect. There is a big difference in meaning and connotation between the two. If I understand you correctly Falcon you are a retired teacher. The most correct exam paper is the one with the most marks, is it not? This does not imply that it is 100 percent correct, just that it has the most marks. That is the same about the BoM statement. It is not and we have never claimed it to be perfect. Now next time get the referencing/quoting correct.
This goes for the comments about the BoM saying that Jesus will be born “in Jerusalem”. I have addressed that above – all of the verses in the BoM state that Jesus will be born “AT Jerusalem”. And as I pointed out, the dictionary meaning of the word ‘at’ allows the statements in the BoM to be correct, especially with the way we live our lives and refer to paces these days, again as I pointed out above.
So there are 2 misrepresentations I have pointed out that are easy to prove and correct because the person/people giving the statements are not quoting the references properly.
Ralph, if the sources about the translation process of the BoM are true. I believe it was Oliver Cowdery that said when translating, the words would appear in the hat, and unless they were written down correctly, the word would not disspear, so as to be translated free from error. I’m sure your familiar with that quote but if not, let me know and I will source it.. I’m about to leave work so I dont have time to look it up.
But if that is true, the word not disspearing until written down correctly, wouldnt the BOM be perfect? Free from error?
Jeffrey,
We are discussing the misrepresentation of what the LDS church teaches and what is our doctrine. Yes I know of the accounts of how the BoM was translated and I understand how you bring up the IMPLICATION that the BoM is perfect because of that. BUT official doctrine and teaching about the BoM has always been that it is the most CORRECT book, NEVER the most perfect. Even in the BoM it says that there are imperfections within it because of the imperfections of the men who wrote in it. So as I said, quote the references correctly (or is it perfectly?) so you do not misrepresent what we teach. And what is officially taught and deemed doctrine can be and sometimes is different to the implications of various items you can find. Note again, you are basing your last post on implications, read the official teachings and doctrine for what is actually taught and doctrine.
In a ‘reverse’ scenario, I can say that the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity is that you all become a conglomerate with your God just as Jesus is right now, ultimately making God a multiplicity not Trinity. This comes from the verses in John 17:21-23 when Jesus asks God “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” Now that’s the implication from these verses, but that is not what is taught nor is it doctrine in your faith. And no I didn’t come up with this myself, I have seen it on other websites that are either Muslim or Atheist, so it is something that others conjecture about Christian beliefs and doctrine because of what they have read in your own sources.
I just have to say that i am a mormon! my mom is hindu. and i know that god is with my mom just as much as he is with me and with my muslim cousins. I love my church. There are a lot of misconseptions and a lot of haters and i dont see why… I know Jesus is my savior! and i love love love him so much. so if you have any questions. Mssg or go to mormon.org.
faithofourfathers wrote: Those other things DO NOT MATTER. The actual, functional, motivating, and saving things we believe are what I have provided.
So by this logic, if you have a friend named John, and I have a friend named John, and have some things in common, such as their name, or even birthday, they must be the same person even if just below the surface my friend lives in England and yours lives in Alberta, mine is of African descent and yours is Caucasian, mine is a 6’10” professional basketball player and yours is a 5’9″ accountant. No one would dare confuse these two as being the same, yet this is exactly what Mormons do when they claim to be Christians. They confuse the very person and work of Jesus Christ with some other person called Jesus who did things that the Historical Jesus of Christianity never did and didn’t ever do thing’s the that the Historical Jesus of Christianity did. So while we are both speaking of a person named Jesus, it is not the same person, while we both call Him the Christ, we mean totally different things by the title. Yet for some reason Mormons think that these two different persons, are one and the same, and therefore can make the claim we are Christians, when in fact a Mormon is as much of a Christian as a Muslim is, since they too claim to follow His true teachings (Sura 5:46). Neither the Muslim Jesus nor the Mormon Jesus is the Christian Jesus and as such neither can be classified as Christians, to do so would be greatly deceptive.
Lautensack
Ralph,
Yes you did address the issue of “at”. You gave us the typical horseshoe and hand grenade response. I hope that is not close enough for you, because I wouldn’t rely on that. You do know that there are 200 verses that use the word near to put it into close proximity to an area or object. Other than that: in, of, at, to, were used to show specific areas or objects.
I was hoping that you might address the “conception” issue. It(BoM) states pretty clear that the spirit overshadowed and then the conception took place. There is no one else mentioned.
If you are going to pull things out of context, how are you going to understand the true meaning of it? If you would of printed the fore and aft verses, you could not have even made it sound like you wanted it to, that tactic truly saddnens me. Those verses had everything to do with the body of beleivers, not multiple gods.
W/LOVE
4givn,
What can I say, but I can’t help it if the dictionaries agree with me about the meaning of the word ‘at’.
There was someone else mentioned – it says that she will bear the Son of God – not the Holy Ghost. Like I also said, I know people who have conceived by the power of IVF, does that mean the petridish is the father? As far as ‘overshadowed’, well the gynocologist overshadows the woman when he is doing his bit – does this mean he is the father?
As far as the ‘out of context’ verses, like I said, I took that from some non-Christian websites. That is what they think of Christianity and the Trinity doctrine, not me. All I was saying to Jeffrey was to look at the actual teachings, not take other things and present them as doctrine when they clearly are not – even if there is an implication within them.
Ralph…since this thread is probably nearing it’s end I’m still wondering whether Mormons believe both male and female are made in the image of God…and if so why doesn’t God have both sets of body parts?
Or does Mormonism teach that only males were made in God’s image? This would seem to square with their relatively “womb service” role in the CK.
Ralph, why should we accept the testimony of Muslim’s or atheists? Muslim’s believe the Trinity is Father, Son, and Mary, Sura 5:116. Most prominent atheists believe religion is a plague and thus rather than seeing the unity of scripture they look for what they perceive as discontinuity.
Though this is off topic and will probably get snipped, you mentioned verses 21-23 of Jesus High Priestly Prayer. The passage makes no sense if we seek to understand it outside of a biblical understanding of the perfect relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Son and His Church. We see these parallels through out John 17, the five main ways that we see Jesus saying He is unified with the Father in this passage, note these are not the only ways He and the Father are one, that apply to the Unity between Him and His Church. Let’s start in Verse 21 we see Christ is unified with the Father, and He prays for unity of His Church, then He does something crazy in the next few verses, He explains the specific type of unity. In verse 22 we see that just as the Father shares His glory with the Son, so the Son shares His with His Church, a form of unity. In verse 23 and 26 we see that the Father loves the Son, and so the Son loves His Church, again a form of unity, this time of love. In verse 25 we see that the Son knows the Father, and so His Church knows the Father, once again unity, this time of knowledge. I also suggest verse 18 where the Father sends the Son, so the Son sends the Church, another example of unity, the unity of mission. Now are these all the ways the Father and Son are united, or the Son and His Church are united? I would submit not, however they are the forms of unity prescribed in John 17:21-23 (plus verse 18) To twist the text into a passage that Christians are going to become taken up into some collective unconsciousness or that Christians will become Gods in their own right, is absurd and eisogetes something into the text that simply not there.
Lautensack
FoF: thanks for giving us more of your insights into your faith. One question: is the incarnation of Jesus different than the ‘incarnation’ that other humans experience , and if so HOW, and be as specific as you can be (granted, we are all fleas trying to figure out the rhino). And: are Jesus and Satan basically the same KIND of being, but one of them (Jesus) chose wisely and was exalted, while the other (Satan) chose pride and fell ?? Can you add to that ?? Again, you are always saying ‘learn Mormonism from mormons’, well, here’s a good opportunity for you. Have a great day. GERMIT
For those who may not have access to a Book of Mormon, I will provide the text of the verses I mentioned in my previous post.
3 Nephi 11:31-40
“Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
And again I say unto you, ye must repent and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.”
Germit,
Good questions. I will answer to the best of my ability. But understand- some things we simply do not know, and that is OK.
The incarnation of Jesus. He was physically the son of the Father and Mary. I assume that means He had the Father’s DNA as well as Mary’s. So He was like man in having mortal DNA, etc. from a mortal mother. But unlike us because He had genetic inheritance from an immortal, perfect being. This gave Him the physical capacity to die and be tempted and have an earthly experience. Yet, He had all power and authority based on who He was and His perfect, sinless life.
This combination made it possible for Him to endure and suffer the atoning sacrifice for mankind. Having all power, He was able to keep His body and spirit united throughout this experience. The Book of Mormon teaches that any other mortal would have not endured this for any length of time. Having a mortal body also made it possible for Him to voluntarily “give up the ghost,” or die after it was all accomplished.
Jesus and Satan: Jesus is the only perfect Son of God. The only one capable of being commissioned to do what He did. Satan was a child of God- a spirit being who at one point lived with the Father, as we all did. He rebelled and became who he is. I do not believe Jesus and Satan were EVER on the same level.
Outside of this, I do not think anybody knows more about this. And I will say that it doesn’t matter at this point. We probably know a tiny fraction of what there is to know about God, the atonement, the eternities, etc. God has not revealed everything there is to know. We can get lost in speculating about details that don’t merit so much attention. This is not an escape- it is, I think, a reasonable view of the gospel. I have enough challenge in living and understanding the basic principles of salvation, let alone the mysteries of eternity. Ours is the challenge to live by faith according to the things we do know.
FoF: thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply. I’m not deathly ill, but I’m going to leave your post ‘as is’, and wait till I’m home, print it out and read it a time or two before responding. Maybe BornAgain’s posts are working on me, I don’t feel like wrangling about anything today. One thing I will state, again, is that I cannot see our two views as in any way compatible. I can well imagine that to you it is ‘absurd’ to not be considered christian, but to me it is equally absurd for the BOTH of us to be considered christian. That’s as ‘contentious’ as I get today. I’m reading “Blue Like Jazz” on my break and see many parallels to many of our posts within. See everyone tomorrow. GERMIT
Faithoffathers,
Thank you for the responses as well. I am not seeking to say you are wrong here. That I think that is not really relevant to me pushing these questions. My purpose is to differentiate our vews of Jesus.
They really are far apart.
For instance, the views on Satan and Jesus: whether or not you think it is important misses the point. To us, Jesus created Satan. Satan is simply a fallen angel, and Jesus, being God, created the angels and thus created Satan.
But even in that short description, we develop another distinct different: Jesus is God! Jesus is not the result or birth of anything, he is God. He is as much God to us, the very same in every way (only the personification, quite literally) of the Father. Thus, Jesus is viewed, by us, as not only the Father’s son, but the very Father in human form.
From that, Jesus created us, and we cannot be his brothers or sisters.
You also say this: “Those other things DO NOT MATTER. The actual, functional, motivating, and saving things we believe are what I have provided.” In response, I hope you see that these things do matter. Who Jesus is and how we relate to him is of prime importance. That you think that Jesus was with the father from the beginning, yet was his son, is a logical fallicy that directs to how we view him.
If he was with him from the beginning, He’s God. If he wasn’t, he, too was a created being. That you are not clear on it, saying the details you cannot say, infers you don’t know the answer, or are hiding something.
I can give the answer, fully and confidently: Christ was with the Father (since he is the Father) at the beginning.
What is Jesus’s relationship to Satan? He was his creator.
Are we Jesus’s ‘siblings’? No! We are his creation.
How we react to our creator is different to how we react to our brother no matter the example he sets.
How we are to view our creator is important in determining how we worship him.
Do you see this?
Cont’d…
Also, Faithoffathers, the “clauses” I spoke of perhaps could better have been worded as footnotes. It this ‘this is what be believe, but…’ idea that was implied in your responses.
Even in the last response to me it can be inferred that there is more to it than what you say.
This is not the case with Christianity. Jeses, the second part of the trinity, is God as much God as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, in spirit, in nature, in essence, in physicallity. They are one in the same.
We do not have the footnotes.
For example, our belief in faith alone (something you really try to ascribe to) is exactly that. There is no additional clause, and here it is a clause, that it only becomes true after all you can do.
Works are important to us, but they add nothing. Baptism is baptism, and nothing like baptism is baptism, but only if done by one with proper authority. Heaven is heaven, and nothing like heaven is great, but there’s a better heaven.
Why do I discuss this? Well, to distinguish Christian thought from Mormon thought. The two are decidedly not the same.
The clauses, the footnotes, are essential to truly get to what Mormonism is. Without them, you don’t have a true picture of what your faith believes.
That Jesus is possibly one God out of millions you argue as not important. But it is still a possibility, right? To us, there is only one God, bottom line. There are no others out there, period. To say that there are is to minimize the one true God. Whether or not you say that the others don’t matter because you only worship the one still denies the true uniqueness of God. If there are others out there, he’s not unique.
And the concept suggests that we worship different Gods, a different Jesus.
Faithoffathers, I appreciate that you seek to find commonality, but there is really very little. I find that Mormonism puts up the front that you’re just like us. But you’re not. And these differences are big.
Michael P,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree there are significant differences between our beliefs. I am not trying, nor do I feel compelled to find commonalities where they don’t exist. But I feel most if not all of the critical literature from other religions do not appropriately represent our beliefs on this topic.
We believe Christ is literally Gods Son, taking the Bible literally. This gets to the three personages with one purpose idea (another topic). I think if you surveyed all Christians, a significant percentage of them believe Christ is literally God’s son.
We believe Christ created the earth, the heavens and our physical bodies. We also believe He becomes our spiritual Father through conversion and spiritual rebirth.
Faith/works. We believe we are saved by grace. But we must follow Christ and exercise faith in Him to have this grace. In other words, it is conditional. We must meet the terms God set. We exercise and strengthen our faith by repenting, keeping the commandments, and serving God. Take away these things, and how does one develop greater faith? There is no good answer for this. Think about it.
As far as other systems, Gods, etc. If we assume we believe there are limitless other “systems” etc., does that really make us unchristian? Even if those other systems have absolutely nothing to do with, nor will ever have anything to do with us, you still say we are not Christian? So many of these complaints seem an arbitrary basis on which to make this judgment. How about those who believe Christ is black. Are they Christian.
I do not try to be like other Christians. I love those things that set LDS apart. I am hiding nothing. But I prefer that our beliefs are represented fairly without inordinate weight placed on obscure doctrines that really do not govern who we are or why we do what we do.
I do appreciate honest, respectful discussion.
Faithoffathers,
Again, I appreciate what you are saying. I really do. I understand how frustrating it must be for you to have us deny you the term Christian when Christ is so dear to you.
What I am trying to point out is why, on a fundamental basis, we cannot both be equally Christian.
The complaints are not arbitrary. They point to essential tenats and beliefs that define the nature, and thus the person of Christ. When you admit the possibility of millions of other gods, this is no small deal to us when our Christ, the Father, declares unequivocally that there is but one God, and when Christ says he is the beginning and the end, and the alpha and omega. Again, it minimizes God.
The Trinity (I don’t wish to go off on that right now, but do wish to use it as an example) is also a key factor in differentiating us, with large consequences. If Christ is the Father, don’t you think that profoundly changes who he is and our relationship to him? Also, that Christ is the literal son of God is true, so they are accurate, but that’s only half of the story– he’s also God the Father, and they’d tell you that, too.
I do not expect you to accept what I say, and do expect you to continue to claim Christianity as much as we are Christians. What I aim for is for you to see why we object and why we think you are not Christians. And that reason is because your faith is completely different, up and down the list. Christ being black is hardly germain, but his being a separate God is. Do you understand this?
I don’t think we can move forward in any meaningful way until we reach some agreement on these things.
Thanks for the discussion, btw.
I don’t know why, but this is all very plain to me and it should be to the Mormons who post here. Just answer one simple question; Do biblical Christians and Mormons share the same view of who God is?” The answer is no. It’s plain. Now if we don’t agree on who God is, how can we be the same and be placed in the same category as Christians. It’s illogical to even consider both religions as Christian. Are Hindus Christian? Are Buddists Christian. Mormons have been attempting to obscure the differences between biblical Christianity and Mormonism by using evangelical sounding language. Joseph Smith didn’t want anything to do with biblical Christianity. But since about 1890, Mormonism has been trying to make themselves look like mainstream protestantism in order to be acceptable to those outside of their church. There are Zero similarities between Mormonism and biblical Christianity. Mormonism is Mormonism period! One of the best charts I’ve seen is the comparison in doctrine between Salt Lake City Mormonism, the Community of Christ (formerly Reorganized Church…..) and the Temple Lot. Would the Salt Lake City Mormons be OK with one of their members transferring to one of these Mormon sects? Would the Salt Lake City Mormons be OK with one of their member transferring to a Methodist Church? If we’re all Christians, what’s the big deal.
MichaelP, I know you do not want to get into a discussion of the Trinity, but I believe the way you described it leaves one to assume you believe God the Father is God the Son. If you would allow me to clarify the doctrine lest our Mormon friends believe us to be modalists, a heresy stating that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has always stated that there is one Being of God comprised of three distinct and individual Persons. So the basic truths of God that give us the doctrine of the Trinity are that there is one, eternal, unchanging God. This God is comprised of three persons, Father, Son, Spirit. These persons are never identified as one another, though they are in one another. All three persons are identified as being fully Deity, that is the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. Hope this clears up any confusion one might have.
Lautensack
P.S. I am not seeking to debate the Trinity on this thread, simply clarify the Christian Doctrine there of, and as one might note it is quite different from the Mormon concept of Trinity.
I don’t know why, but this is all very plain to me and it should be to the Christians who post here. Just answer one simple question; Do Jewish Christians and Greek Christians share the same view of who God is?” The answer is no. It’s plain. Now if we don’t agree on who God is, how can we be the same and be placed in the same category as saints? It’s illogical to even consider both religions as Christian. Are Hindus Christian? Are Buddists Christian. Greek Christians have been attempting to obscure the differences between first century Christianity and the Christianity of Constantine by using evangelical sounding language. Peter and John didn’t want anything to do with greek Christianity. But since about 215, hellenized Christianity has been trying to make themselves look like original Christians in order to be acceptable to those outside of their church. There are Zero similarities between the Christinity of the Greeks and the original Christianity. Greek theology is greek theology period! One of the best charts I’ve seen is the comparison in doctrine between saints in Israel and the saint of Helen. Would the saints in Israel be OK with one of their members transferring to one of these greek sects? Would the Israelite saints be OK with one of their member transferring to a Church in Rome? If we’re all Christians, what’s the big deal?
…. CRCluff… what? Do Jewish Christians and Greek Christians have the same view of God, Yes. Jewish Christians believe that God is Trinity, that is not to be confused with modern Judaism which denies this. Also the Greek Orthodox Christians believe that God is Trinity. Don’t take my word for it, look it up, I’ll even provide links at the end of the post. The difference between the Eastern and Western concepts of the Trinity is what is known as the Filioque clause, that is Western Christians believe that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son where as the Eastern Church holds that the Spirit only proceeds from the Father.
Also Peter and John didn’t want anything to do with Greek Christianity… well I guess that depends on what you mean by Greek Christianity. If you are speaking of the Gnostic heresies arising then I would agree, hence why John wrote his Gospel, which if you read is very Greek, as it was written to them. Also they were both Bishops in very very Greek cities, Rome and Ephesus. You say there are Zero similarities between the Christianity of the Greeks and Original Christianity, again I need you to define both of those terms, because if you assume Christianity was Mormonism, then wouldn’t this very statement make you want to distance yourself from us “Greek Christians.” Also I suggest you read Tertullian, the guy who coined the term Trinity, he HATED Greek Philosophy, at one time stating rhetorically “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Your post is full of empty arguments that have no validity whatsoever. I can see you are upset, but please try to be rational, and if you do have facts cite your sources.
Lautensack
Trinity Links:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8029.asp
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Statements-of-Belief.aspx
http://www.pcanet.org/general/beliefs.htm
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
Cluff…sounds like you did some reading on the original first century groups. Actually most of the modern Messianic Jews have no problem with the Trinity. There are a few that don’t accept it.
However, if you look into the Hebrew mindset you will see tremendous differences between them and Mormonism. Hardly a good argument for your being the “original” Christianity. For example, Jews know that there is only ONE high priest at a time. They also know there is only ONE temple which is a demonstration of God’s throne. They also know there would only be ONE place on earth to build this temple and that is in Jerusalem.
Wowzers, Cluff. As has been discussed, I think you need to give a little more meat to your statements there. They are conclusions that are not at all backed up.
You also asked what’s the difference? Are you paying attention? Can you answer that your Christ and my Christ are even remotely similar?
Point upon point, we see differences, most are quire significant.
And Luatensack, I agree. I hope I did not distort the Trinity too much. I find it a really difficult topic to discuss with clarity. The Father, Son, and Ghost are indeed separate (hence the term) but they are also one, and they are more than simply united in purpose. They are, the way I look at it, the same being expressed in three physically different ways. You probably know all the analogies, and that none are fully sufficient.
But here I chose to focus on their oneness to clarify the differences we have with our Mormon friends, who view them one in purpose, but as three separate beings. The Trinity makes up three not just united in purpose, but in every other aspect as well.
Hope that clarfies my position and reasoning.
WOW! Seems like there’s a lot of flailing around happening with our Mormon poster. Kudos to you Christian folks who have far more patience than I do; taking your time to lay out very directly and clearly why Mormonism is not Christianity based on the differences in the doctrine of God. I keep looking for Mormonism in the early Church and even within the early heretics, but alas I can’t find it. I’m curious, Joseph Smith seemed to have a pretty conventional protestant view of the nature of God when he wrote the BoM. This changed as he got-up his prophetic steam, dumped his seer stone and went right for direct revelation. Anybody have any idea what his influence(s) were for the radical change he made in his view of the nature of God? Because when he began professing this new doctrine of God, he took a giant step away from the 19th century evangelical protestant view of the doctrine of God presented in the BoM. It doesn’t appear that he was too concerned about being part of the Christian Church or even being a Christian.
It’s kind of sad seeing our Mormon friends dig around trying to find anything that would justify their belief system as being Christian. I don’t know why they just don’t satisfy themselves with being heretics rather than trying to find a heretic to identify with and than try to call it Christianity.
You have to REALLY pay attention if you want to keep up with Bro. Cluff now. The date 215 in my post SHOULD have provided a clue.
I am discussing the differences in theology between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians after the last apostle died. They varied greatly on the many of the same concepts that continue to disqualifiy Mormons from being Christians.
I just took falcon’s text about Mormons not being Christians and applied it to the 1st century theology held by Christian Jews and 3nd century belief stuctures held by Greek Christians. I found it spot on in reverse. Shouldn’t that tell us something?
To quote that topic from “Are Mormons Christain”
While rejection of the literal truth of the New Testament witness is seen as a trivial thing or at least as a negotiable issue in many modern Christian denominations, rejection of the philosophical tradition created by the Hellenized church is another matter-that, for the excluders, puts the Latter- day Saints outside the Christian pale. Thus, under the historical exclusion the Latter-day Saints are accused of being “non-Christian” not because they reject the biblical Christ and his church, but because they commit the more serious “sin” of rejecting the philosophers. In much of modern Christianity the message of Christ and the message of Plato have become practically indistinguishable.
One of my revered non-LDS teachers in graduate school, W. D. Davies, once described Mormonism as an attempt to return to Christianity as it was before its Hellenization. While many Protestants attempt to reform Christianity by giving up the papacy and returning to the church of the conciliar period (A.D. 325-787), the Latter-day Saints seek to restore primitive Christianity by giving up Hellenism and returning to the Church of the New Testament period.
Why does that make us non-Christian? The real Christian theology on the nature of God left with the Hellenization period in 3rd and 4th centuries.
I think one of the main issues with this topic has to do with definitions and language. When critics from other churches or places like this site make statements such as “the mormons are not Christian,” the listening public is hearing something different than what those critics are actually saying. Those critics are refering, of course, to the issues we are discussing on this thread. The average Joe public hears these statements and thinks “oh- mormons don’t believe in Jesus,” or “they don’t think He was divine?” or something actually quite different than the truth.
I sincerely believe those vocal critics recognize this at some level and are OK with it. And this is very dishonest.
I also think the average Joe would respond if he knew what we really believe and say, “Oh- I didn’t know that,” and not make nearly as much of it as ya’ll do.
I have no problem disagreeing on doctrine and theology, but I do have issues with incorrect perceptions about the LDS church resulting from this phenomenon.
Faithoffathers,
I still think you are missing the point, and really, really want what you say to be true.
What you are saying here is that you don’t care if lay persons here your doctrine and get something different from what tradition Christianity teaches. In fact, you seem to think it is a good thing.
But if you look at what I laid out, I never said you don’t believe in Jesus or that Jesus isn’t divine. I said your definition of Jesus is different, and your take on his divinity is different. I also claim that to equate our forms Jesus both cannot fall under the Christian umbrella. One of us is right, and the other is wrong. They are too different to be the same Jesus, even if we both believe in a divine being we call Jesus.
The focus on definitions is to give the lay person an honest view of what each side believes and does not sweep the differences under the rug. I think most people would appreciate that rather than finding out later on. It seems many converts leave because they find out its not really as they were led to belive.
I can tell you, also, my parents a number of years ago almost joined the LDS church, but backed out as they learned more about what you actually believe. In other words, the initial impression was great. Doubt grew as more was learned.
GRCluff, first Tertullian wrote the following on the Trinity 197 AD, So also, that which proceeds from God is God and Son of God, and both are one. Likewise, as He is Spirit from Spirit, and God from God, He is made a second by count and in numerical sequence, but not in actual condition; for He comes forth from the source but does not separate therefrom.
Second the writer of your source clearly does not understand the philosophical systems he is trying to describe, LDS or Orthodox since the beliefs of the original reformers had far more platonic elements within them, philosophically speaking, than those of the catholic church. Also current LDS beliefs are very platonic as well, seen in the Church structure and the great chain of being, that is their doctrine of eternal progression, which is simply a neo-platonic version of Plato’s theory of the forms. In this sense Mormonism is far more Hellenic that Christianity. Even though you attempt to provide a source it lacks evidence. He does not draw connections between Modern Christianity and Hellenistic thought, he simply makes assertions.
Third if you seek to argue that post third century Christianity is Hellenistic such that it is no longer Christian how do you explain Ignatius, a student of the Apostle John, writing the following in AD 110, For that reason they were persecuted, inspired as they were by His grace to convince the disobedient that there is one God, who manifested Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ, who is His Word proceeding from silence, and who was in all respects pleasing to Him that sent Him.
I leave you with the Words of Ireneaus 190AD, a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John The Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them.
Lautensack
Michael P: your posts have been very solid, I hope we’re not dragging down your law school grades here at MC. I liked your last post above, and the goal of giving the ‘lay person’ an honest view of both sides, and letting them make an informed decision . The LDS have often said that information coming from sources like MC is ‘tainted’, but I would encourage an interested seeker to read from many sources , including the Bible, BoM, PoGP, etc…. As a christian, hopefully sensitive to whatever impression ‘Joe average’ is getting, but I’d hesitate to make that the arbiter of what I do and how I do it. I don’t think my Mormon friends would want to sign off on that either. Bringing up the differences does not necessarily make a person ‘negative’ or ‘anti’, and it is doubtful that Joe Avg can EASILY pick these up him/herself somewhere down the road. It’s no easy job to FAIRLY depict another religion, but that is the job BOTH sides are faced with, and hopefully some of what we’re learning here at MC is how to do exactly that. I’m not trying to make this sound like an excuse, but your religion often reminds me of getting the ‘right’ recipe for meatloaf or something: everyone loves their mom’s…..
Anyway, the LANGUAGE problem seems to loom often, so I think we agree that how words like ‘christian’ are used, as well as many others, will make this no simple task. GERMIT
Germit, Michael P,
Appreciate the responses. Don’t know if I am communicating effectively. What I am saying is that I believe that if you took all Christians in the world (or non-Christians) and taught them all about the LDS theology (to whatever degree you desire), a very significant percentage would agree we are Christians, even if they don’t exactly agree with us. It is religious zealots like us that squabble over these details and make such distinctions. And yes, you insist we worship a “different Jesus” because the differences are big enough to you. I believe the differences in LDS theology are not big enough to most people for them to state we are not Christians.
Which brings me to a an honest question. Why the insistence on denying the LDS are Christians? We either are or aren’t. But why do you care? Why does a person spend time at this site arguing over this? There are so many groups, cults, religions with theologies/doctrines that could be criticized. Why the LDS church? Is it a threat somehow?
I can easily explain my efforts here- my religion, which is near and dear to me, is being criticized and I naturally want to defend it. I spend no time criticizing any other religion. I am not being argumentative here, but really have wondered about this and would appreciate any thoughtful, honest response.
Last response of the day. Till tomorrow!
In the second century, in the struggle against heresy, the debate came down to an issue of the church’s authority. The Gnostic heretics and the church authorities were in agreement that the “true” message was the one taught by Jesus. The Gnostics, however, made a claim that secret access to that “true original message” was their’s through a succession of “secret” teachers. The Church, however, claimed to have the original gospel and Jesus’ true teachings. In-the-end, the debate came down to the authority of the church pitted against the claims of the heretics.
The succession of the apostles became very important. So, if Jesus had some “secret” information, he would have passed it on to His disciples to whom, in the end, He entrusted the Chruch. The apostles would have in turn also passed along this secret, true information. So the second century Church, which claimed direct apostolic succession denied the existence of any “secret” teachings of Jesus. So the bottom line was that the Gnostic claim to “true”, “secret” teachings was false.
Mormonism presents their argument concerning the restored gospel in much the same way as dis the Gnostics. Actually there is a legacy of “prophets” claiming “true”, “secret”, “precious” truths that they have had revealed to them. Mormonism is no more Christianity than was Gnostisism. Heresy is heresy whether it’s in the second century or the nineteenth. The authority of the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ still stands against it.
Germit,
Thank you. I agree that fairly representing anothers faith is often very difficult, and presenting the faith so an “average Joe” can get a true sense is also very difficult. Not only that, but I agree that we shouldn’t hold the avergage Joe as our standard. Rather, we should hold to what we know is right.
The reason I think defining the terms is important when discussing Mormonism and traditional Christianity is because the same terms really do mean such different things. For one to get an accurate picture of Mormonism you have to know what the terms actually mean, and they don’t mean the same thing as commonly known in Christianity.
So, faithoffathers, why then do we make this such a big deal? Because we feel you lead people down the wrong path using our language. We feel it is a distortion, and dishonest, to pass your faith off as everyday Christianity when it is in fact very different, and, to be direct, wrong.
Don’t assume that this means we do not like Mormons. I am joining the J. Reuben Clark Law society because of its focus on morals and ethics in the study of law. JRC was started at BYU. I have no problems with Mormons themselves, unless of course, like anyone, act rudely or inappropriately (which does happen– with everyone).
To end, as others have said here, you are free to believe what you believe. We object so strongly because you try to equate your faith with ours when no comparison is really warranted. We agree that there are other faiths out there that are wrong, and we’d do the same if they were so vocal about being “Christians,” too.
Hope that helps to put it in some more perspective for you.
FoF: reg. your post above
your logic seems to be: since the greater world at large makes no big deal about most,if not all, of the finer doctrinal distinctions and is ready to own us (the LDS) as ‘christian’, why should we ev.christians not follow suit?? I think that’s a rough sketch of one of your points. Well, again, I don’t want “joe avg.” to be calling the shots for me. It’s not that I don’t care at all about what he/she thinks and believes, but I don’t get my marching orders from a group that uses their bible for a trivet in the kitchen, and a coaster in the TV room. We live in a POST-christian culture, and I don’t expect large amounts of GOD-sent discernment from my six-pack neighbor, that doesn’t make them the enemy, by the way, just spiritually muddled. It’s been posted here several times, but yours is NOT the ONLY enemy to orthodoxy that we contend with, I’ve mentioned Eckhart Tolle a few times, but this list is long and getting longer: granted those who post on MC are focused in (for now, at least) on your church, but the challenge you bring is not, and has NEVER BEEN unique to Mormonism and Joseph Smith. There probably is not a single error within Mormonism that hasn’t been offered before or is currently being offered in some other form, so we do NOT have you in a unique category, I don’t know if this is good news or bad news to you. As to being critical to our faith, this is the lipstick lady thread on rewind: your faith and the CLEAR teaching of many of your past leaders, and a few of the recent ones, are all UNASHAMEDLY critical of our faith, for good cause because the two are oil and water, there is really no REAL agreement, only a superficial and specious agreement. This is not me being cranky: when the fine print is held to the light, even Rob MIllet is brought to hem, haw, and concede this very thing. I know this doesn’t seem neighborly or tolerant, but we pound these points home (hopefully while NOT pounding on people) ‘cuz truth/ love matter
In chapter 9 of the Book of Acts, Luke recounts the episode of Saul on the road to Damascus. The well known story were a bright light flashes, Saul falls to the ground and Jesus speaks to Him is familiar to most. The short of it is, Saul is converted and becomes Paul. Paul details his story in the Epistle to the Galatians. He talks about going off to Arabia for three years, meeting with Cephas(Peter)in Jerusalem, and then going away for 14 years before returning. Paul says that “…it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.” What we see here is Paul who had the gospel “revealed” to him, submitting it to the apostles in Jerusalem and checking out if he was on the right track.
The rest of the Epistle is Paul explaining the gospel he preached and a confrontation he had with Peter at a later date regarding certain aspects of that gospel and treatment of the gentiles.
Two points: you can’t find Mormonism in Paul’s explanation of the gospel he preached. Secondly he had the humility to submit it to those in authority to be sure he was on the same page as they were. The apostles did not practice Mormonism. Paul’s lament to the Galatians was that they were following a different gospel. He pleads with them: “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you-but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.” He could be writing this to Mormons. They have left the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ for another gospel. A gospel not Christian in any way, shape or form and yet they want to be called Christians. Mormonism is way outside the bounds of Christianity. It bears no resemblance to the Christian gospel. Mormons do not worship the same God as Christians and the plan of salvation is totally different.