Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
What if Evangelical Christians Called Themselves Mormons?
112 Responses to What if Evangelical Christians Called Themselves Mormons?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve linked to your video, and hat tipped your post on Jeremiah Films site
Thank you for explaining this aspect of the differences between LDS and Christianity. The LDS missionaries have returned to my door recently so this will be a perfect topic to discuss with them. Thank you for all you do.
This is to funny, It’s funny only because I have posed this question here on this blog to LDS many times and even called my self mormon. Just shows great minds think alike. Rick b
I don’t know of any Mormons who claim to be Evangelical Christians. Mormons also don’t claim to be Baptists, Lutherans, etc. And none of the denominations of Christianity claim to be any other denomination. The fact is that the term “Christian” refers to a broad religious classification into which many individual religions fall.
Anyway, I prefer the term Non-Traditional Christian to be applied to Mormonism as explained by Orson Scott Card in the following article:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/lets-call-mormons-nontradition.html
Mikey_Petey, can you really lump the various Christian denominations along with mormonism under the umbrella of “Christian”? I seems that the mutually exclusive teachings of Christianity and mormonism would make that sweeping generalization a grave error.
“… can you really lump the various Christian denominations along with mormonism under the umbrella of “Christian”?”
I think so, personally. In my opinion all religions that consider the New Testament to be scripture and worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour would fall into the general category of “Christian”.
I think it might be usefull to have sub-categories (such as Evangelical Christian, Non-Traditional Christian, etc.) under that main umbrella.
There are a number of religions out there that do not believe in the Trinity but do accept the NT and Jesus as their Saviour and Redeemer. For instance there are those that believe in Modalism. I know that most here do not accept them as being labelled Christian as well, but the community outside Christianity do label them, as well as LDS, as Christians. So Yes, they can all be lumped uder the banner of Christian, but they all need to identify their differences when talking about religion.
What defines ‘Christian’ is a very big question. The word was first used in the bible by non-believers to categorise those who taught, followed and accepted Christ as their Saviour, Redeemer and the Son of God. These non-believers did not distinguish between those who believed in a Trinity or those who believed in a Godhead. When it came to throwing the Christians into the ring with the wild beasts it was anyone who professed a belief in Jesus. We see this in the early church – many types of belief systems about God and Jesus. That is one of the reasons why the Nicean council took place. All who fell under the banner of Christian, including Arians, were represented.
But as Mikey_Petey said, there are many denominations in the Christian community and most want to identify with just one of these – eg Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Pentacostal, etc. In my experience, most Catholics want to be just Catholic, not referred to as Anglican or Lutheran. The same with Anglicans and Lutherans, etc. They are all still Christian, but they do not accept the doctrines of the other denominations except the Trinity and Jesus Christ as Saviour. In fact, it has only been recently that the Anglican church where I live allow Catholics to partake of communion in meetings, however the reciprocal is not the same – ie the Catholics will not allow others outside of the Catholic faith to partake of communion. At least that is what my Anglican and catholic friends have told me.
As I’ve mentioned when this topic has come up before, there is no authoritative body that can determine who can call themselves “Christian” and who cannot. I suppose I could find some rationale for calling myself Jewish or Muslim if I worked at it hard enough. However I would think that an acknowledgment of who God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are might have a bearing on who is a Christian. Christians denominations can decide who they will recognize as (being) other Christian denominations. There aren’t many that I know of who would recognize Mormonism as part of the Christian family. Mormoinism is way outside a basic criteria of what a basic Christian belief system is. One good reference book to look at is “Kingdom of the Cults” by Walter Martin. He breaks down the basic doctrines of Chrisitanity and compares various aberrant and cultic groups to that criteria. Here’s a list from Walter Martin’s book “Essential Christianity” a book a highly recommend:
1. The Bible is the Word of God (period).
2. The Trinity; one God, three persons.
3. The deity of Christ-He is God.
4. The virgin birth of Jesus.
5. Jesus died for us-the blood atonement.
6. Jesus resurrection.
7. Saved by grace a part from works.
8. Jesus second coming.
9. The final judgement seat of God.
If our Mormon friends want to sign on to this, I’d be more than happy to give consideration as to if they are Christians. Since Mormonism can’t be found in the Bible, it’s a pretty tough sell for Mormons wanting to be called Christians.
I think Walter Martin, on p. 226 of “Kingdom of the Cults”, makes an excellent summary and conclusion at the end of the chapter on Mormonism when he writes:
“From these facts it is evident for all to see that Mormonism strives with geat effort to masquerade as the Christian church complete with an exclusive message, infallible prophets, higher revelations for a new dispensation which the Mormons would have us believe began with Joseph Smith, Jr.
But it is the verdict of both history and Biblical theology that Joseph Smith’s religion is a polytheistic nightmare of garbled doctrines draped with the garment of Christian terminology. This fact, if nothing else, brands it as a non-Christian cult system.
Those who would consider Mormonism would be greatly profited by a thoughtful consideration of the facts and evidence previously discussed, lest they be misled into the spiritual maze that is Mormonism.”
Mormons fight, like the devil (I might add), to get their religion mistaken for Christianity. That’s the whole point of the blue smoke and mirrors presentation the young Mormon missionary boys make to unsuspecting prospects. If Mormons gave side-by-side presentations of the basic doctrines of Christianity and the Mormon teachings on each, the recruitment process would be over in one quick session. The whole idea of the “we’re Christians too” is to pull the wool over people’s eyes and falsely lead them into the cult. Even life long Mormons don’t know the whole story behind Mormonism.
A few years back my sister-in-law ran into a friend she hadn’t seen for a while. The friend told her that she was going through the “lessons” with a couple of Mormon missionaries. I gave my sister-in-law Jim Spencer’s book “Beyond Mormonism” and told her to have her friend read it. Well, the friend didn’t get half way through it and cancelled the Mormon “lessons”. Getting the full story is not what Mormons are interested in giving the unsuspecting public.
On page 169 of “Kingdom of the Cults” Walter Martin says:
“The average active Mormon is usually marked by many sound moral traits. He is generally amiable, almost always hospitable, and extremely devoted to his family and to the teachings of his church. Sad to say, however, the great majority of Mormons are in almost total ignorance of the shady historical and theological sources of their religion. They are openly shocked at times when the unglamorous and definitely un-Christian background of the Mormon Chruch is revealed to them. This litle known facet of Mormonism is ‘a side of the coin’ which innumerable Mormon historians have for years either hidden from their people or glossed over in an attempt to suppress certain verifiable and damaging historical evidences.”
Walter Martin really says it all and makes a definitive case, in his chapter on Mormonism, as to why Mormonism isn’t a Christian religion. Mormons fall all over themselves to be labeled Christians because that label allows them to present themselves as something they are clearly not.
I don’t know of any Christians who would want to be called Mormons. If Christians did call themselves Mormons, it would be an excellent tactic because Mormons would go to great lengths to explain why traditional Christians can’t be consider Mormons. In-so-doing, Mormonism would reveal itself for what it really is, an aberrent cult trying to pawn itself off as a Christian religion.
This is a true story.
I know a woman who was stuck teaching in a poor inner city school that was rife with gang violence. She feared for her safety but needed the teaching job. She knew she could get a better placement via affirmative action if she claimed african american heritage. So she went into the personel office and changed her race to “black”. The woman processing the paper work looked at her and said, “You’re one of the smart ones aren’t you?” Now the lady didn’t mean, “You’re one of the smart african-americans.” Figure it out yourself.
Now claiming to be african-american didn’t make the woman african-american. When someone makes a claim to be native-american (american indian) for the purpose of being on the tribal membership rolls, they have to prove it. The woman seeking a transfer to another school, didn’t have to prove she was african-american, she just had to claim it!
Mormons can claim their religion is Christianity. They don’t meet any of the basic criteria, but they can claim Christianity as a label. Who’s going to check as to if they worship the same God as Biblical Christianity? I would think that’s kind of a big issue.
The sad truth is, that having rejected the God of the Bible for a man who progressed to become a god, and a Jesus that is not God but like Jehovah Witnesses believe He’s “a god”,(their Jesus cannot save them) Mormons will themselves be rejected at the final judgement. Their god, their jesus cannot save them.
Falcon,
Your statement “…having rejected the God of the Bible…” is a little hollow in reference to ‘the God of the Bible’. As stated in past posts the concept of the Trinity can be supported by the Bible, but the doctrine is not written in there. Thus the Trinity cannot be said to be the only God of the Bible – that is just your interpretation. Others have interpreted it and came up with Modalism, and others again with a Godhead. As far as the JWs go, their God and thoughts on Jesus are nothing like the LDS so you cannot compare them the way you have, but they have another God ideology from their interpretation of the Bible. All of these can be supported by the Bible depending on how one wishes to interpret it. Thus I can say from my perspective it is you that has rejected the God of the Bible.
The way many are trying to keep those with differing beliefs out of the ‘Christian’ banner than the Trinity, are trying to have a monopoly on the name of Jesus Christ and a belief in Him. This is one thing Satan want – a confusion over who believes in Jesus Christ as this keeps people from finding/knowing the truth. If you are right and we are wrong then ultimately you are the only TRUE Christians. BUT if we are right and you are wrong, then we are the only TRUE Christians and for you to remove our right to that name puts you in league with Satan.
I believe in Jesus as my Saviour and Redeemer, thus I am a Christian because I have taken His name on me. I am not a Traditional/Trinitarian Christian but I am Christian. Maybe you can find another tag that defines you better over our beliefs that we will not/cannot use – like Trinitarians. And we must be more diligent in teaching our Godhead properly so there is no confusion.
Ralph,
I was wondering what Churches teach Modalism?
Are there any Mormons here willing to defend Gordon B. Hinckley’s saying that “fundamentalist Mormon” is a contradiction in terms, and that FLDS and the like are not Mormons?
True to the working assumption of Bill’s argument, Mormons seem quite willing to give themselves a free pass when it comes to any doctrinal boundaries around legitimate Christianity. They want to enlarge it so that they can be in it. Yet when fundamentalist Mormons attempt to practice and teach what Mormons leaders did in the pre-Wilford Woodruff era, you get the Mormon Church saying that FLDS are not Mormons, etc.
This is besides the point. No one is accusing Mormonism of claiming to supplant a particular denomination of Christianity, but rather evangelicals are claiming that Mormonism is so theologically aberrant (fostering even the belief that God could have been a sinner) that it shouldn’t even be called “Christian”.
Recall Paul in Galatians 1, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one…”
What we are essentially saying is that we are astonished that Mormons have deserted their ancestor’s heritage in Christ and instead have turned to a different Christianity, not that there really is another Christianity. It is a false Christianity.
I would be content to call Mormonism “counterfeit Christianity” or “false Christianity”, but it wouldn’t be loving or honorable to God’s truth to simply call it “Christian” or “non-traditional Christian”, because that would obscure the nature of the thing. We need negative terms for negative things.
Well, as ususal our friend Ralph has provided us with an excellent example of what we are discussing here. Ralph tells us that:
“I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Redeemer therefore I am a Christian because I have taken His name on me.”
This is typical cultic obfuscation and word games. Now our friend Ralph knows perfectly well when he says what he says, folks with an orthodox Christian frame of reference are going to think that what he means is what we mean. That is, except for those of us who actually know what the definitions are in RalphWorld as opposed to Christianity. Mitt Romney pulled the same Mormon two-step during the last primary campaign when he talked about receiving Jesus as “his Lord and Savior.”
So is Ralph purposely being deceitful when he uses evangelical Christian terms without giving real defintion to what he means? I don’t know but we know that Ralph, by his own past admission, will kill or steal for the prophet so what’s the big deal about lying?
So the Mormon jesus is not the Christian Jesus. Mormon salvation is not Christian salvation, but by using commonly understood evangelical Christian terms, cults can fool people into thinking that “hay, we’re just like you folks”.
So it’s to the Mormon advantage to try and look like mainstream Baptists while hiding the true belief system of the cult.
Ralph just be honest. Show some integrity. Tell people the real story up front about Mormonism and quit coopting Christian terminology. As a result of trying to sound “Christian” Mormons are attempting to seduce people into thinking their religion is something that it isn’t, namely Christian.
My study of the other braches of Mormonism has demonstrated to me that this deceitfullness is primarily a Utah Mormon technique.
If one of my Hispanic neighbor-friends said that same thing, but was referring to a Mexican friend named Jesus who helped him cross the border, can he theferore legitimately call himself a fellow Christian who has taken on the name of Christ?
It is a serious question.
And if another neighbor of mine said he believed in the first-century person of Jesus Christ who died on a cross and resurrected, but thought of him as an alien from Pluto who came to save us from a deadly biological virus that would wipe out the human race, should we refer to him as a fellow Christian?
Do the meaning of words even matter anymore?
Aaron,
It is apparent that evangelicals are attempting to highjack Christianity and put the Bible into a theological straight-jacket.
Evangelical theology circumscribes the definition of “Christianity” so tightly that most of apostolic Christendom falls outside of their adulterated and aberrant definition.
One could say:
“The cults of Martin Luther and John Calvin and all their satanic spawn reject traditional, orthodox, historical, apostolic Christianity and have substituted the true Christianity of the Bible with their own warped Anti-Christ theology that was hatched in hell.”
Sounds kind of silly, but that is precisely the same flawed argument and faulty logic that you are using against the LDS Church.
Frankly, I will let the dictionary be the arbiter of the English language.
Webster’s definition:
Christian
1. a. one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The Free Online Dictionary:
Chris·tian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
I could access other dictionaries but I think I have made my point which is the term “Christian” simply means “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
I know that evangelicals just love to adulterate the English language to serve their own nefarious ends.
Aaron,
You pose the question:
“Do the meaning of words even matter anymore?”
Please, let the dictionaries be the arbiters of the English language.
I personally don’t have any problem with the term Fundamentalist Mormon as it applies to the existing FLDS groups. As a sub-sub-category within the sub-category of Mormonism I think it makes sense. Some other Mormons may disagree with me, but that’s how I see it.
It seems that my religious classification system isn’t much liked by the Evangelical Christians here, but it seems to be the most reasonable way to categorize religions for me.
I am wondering if Christian churches that perform homosexual marriages would also fall into Aaron’s “Counterfeit Christianity” or “False Christianity” sub-categories. If you feel that “Non-Traditional Christianity” isn’t appropriate then maybe “Restored Christianity” works better for you?
I kid.
I believe it was James in his epistle that said something on the order of “you believe God is One, good, so do the demons and they shudder” and somewhere in the Gospels Jesus encounters this demonic guy and the demons say (paraphase) “what do you have to do with us oh Son of God, have you come to torture us before the appointed time?” So the demons recognized Jesus as being who He is/was and are the demons saved. A big…I DON’T THINK SO!
Andy Watson was telling me about this guy out in the Phillipines who I believe calls himself Jesus….. as having come again. The dude has a big following. I don’t think any of those folks who are following him are saved. And I don’t think we could work-up a case in any of these examples where any of these people (and demons) would have a ligitimate claim on the Christian label.
I always insist, in any endeavor, that folks give me definitions, criteria and standards by which to judge the real from the counterfeit. Since orthodox Christianity has been around for a couple of thousand years, I think we have a pretty good claim on determining what the criteria is for a Christian religion.
Mormonism came on the scene around 1830, a long time after orthodox Christianity had defined what constituted the faith. Mormons don’t get to decide if they’re in the club.
If Jesus has taught us anything, it is that professing a belief in someone does that automatically make one an adherent.
Stuart, would you say that Muslims can rightfully call themselves Christians?
“would you say that Muslims can rightfully call themselves Christians?”
I know the question isn’t directed at me, but I would like to take a shot.
I am not a religious scholar or anything (I took a World Religions class in my first year of University in Canada) but isn’t it true that adherents of Islam consider Jesus to have been a prophet on par with Moses and Noah? Not sure if that is true so correct me if I am wrong.
I think that to be considered Christian you need to believe that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, not just respect and follow his teachings. Mormons fall into this category.
Aaron,
Your question is moot. While Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet of Allah, and they also revere the Virgin Mary, and Jesus’ Apostles and the prophets of the Old Testament; they would never consider themselves to be a part of that aberrant polytheistic religion known as “Christianity” and therefore would never call themselves Christians.
You ask the question: “Do the meaning of words even matter anymore?”
I think one can effectively and correctly use the definition of the term “Christian” as provided by The Free Online Dictionary:
Chris·tian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
This would include the many different interpretations and traditions of the term “Christian” as espoused by various Christian faiths.
My objection is that Evangelical churches, which constitute only a small segment of Christendom, falsely seem to believe that they possess and own the sole copyright and trademark to the terms “Christian” and “Christianity”. These Evangelical churches, out of a profound sense of insecurity within themselves and with their theological intolerance of other faiths, persecute, revile and demonize competing definitions and traditions.
Why is it so hard for Evangelicals to accept that other churches interpret the scriptures differently than they? It is apparent the religious fundamentalism breeds an unhealthy intolerance for the religious views of others.
As I said, let the dictionaries be the arbiters of the English language.
St. Crispin said “let the dictionaries be the arbiters of the English language.” I have to respond to this, even with my limited abilities and proclivity to laziness. In one fell swoop, you have moved us from discussion of theological understanding about very important and historic issues, to the level of online dictionaries. This is misguided, and it dilutes the discussion to one of parry and thrust. Since Antioch, I believe Christians have been labeled as such, and over these long years, the label has stood for specific things. And it still does. And it is widely understood by more than just Evangelicals as to its major components. You make it sound like we are the latecomers and usurpists. You dismiss Evangelicals as only a small percentage of Christendom. By whose numbers are you quoting? Go get a copy of the Encyclopedia of World Christianity and spend some time in it before you continue with these sweeping generalizations.
However, I give you credit for these wild jumps. It makes these posts all the more interesting, even if facts are absent. I’m sorry, but sometimes I just have to laugh at your assertions. I don’t mean that in a mean way. I am trying to say that if you and I were looking at each other, we could identify and cancel out the bluster, put the milk to the side, and get to the meat. s’later…
Jesus is Lord of what, of me but not the world? Of me and the world but not necessarily all worlds? And he is savior from what? A biological virus? The border patrol? “Savior” and “Lord” still need definitions here. Saying that Jesus is Lord and Savior doesn’t make him so in all senses.
Stuart, many Muslims would affirm a belief in the existence of Jesus as well as profess adherence to what they think are his teachings. That fits much of the dictionary definition you have listed. Does that make them Christian?
Before God, people are not morally allowed to gut out the meaning of language, replace it with whatever, and then somehow legitimately retain a label because they keep the terms. If I start believing that Jehovah is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that doesn’t mean I am an Israelite, and if I start believing that the Christian God could have been a rampant, filthy, sexual sinner in the past, that doesn’t mean I am a Christian. But if you follow the logic of some Mormons, loyal worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can indeed be Christians if this Spaghetti Monster’s name is Jesus and was incarnate 2000 years ago.
For example, would you affirm John Dehlin’s redefinition of terms of the temple recommend interview to help non-believers pass the temple recommend interview (cf. staylds.com)?
Aaron,
In answer to your questions about believing in ‘a Jesus’, can I turn the tables and ask you the same questions?
I have shown documentation from reliable sources, some Christian, that state that the Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible, but an interpretation of what is in it. So although the Trinitarin theology has around 1600 years history as the major Christian doctrine does not make it the correct one.
As far as Pres. Hinckley’s statement goes I’ld have to look at the full quote to gain context of it. As it stands, the way you have written it I do have on opinion of what it means but without the full quote I could be wrong.
Gundeck,
I don’t know which churches teach Modalism, I just know that it is one doctrine that is based on an interpretation of the Bible that is in opposition to the Trinity. I do know that it used to be called Sabalism (or however its spelt).
The main point is that Trinitarians do not have a monopoly on believing in Christ as the Saviour and Redeemer, and as such cannot restrict the definition of Christian to include only themselves and excluding other religions that truely (but incorrectly) hold to the teachings of the NT and believe in Jesus Christ as their Savoiur and Redeemer.
Falcon,
If the LDS church is ultimately correct and you are wrong, then it is you that has the false definitions and 2000 years of tradition will not change that fact.
Responding to Mike_Petey’s comment “isn’t it true that adherents of Islam consider Jesus to have been a prophet on par with Moses and Noah”
Muslims have quite a high regard for the prophet Jesus, and it perplexes them that the “Christian” west appears to pay him such little honor. Unfortunately, this regard does not extend to listening to what Jesus actually said and did. Muslims would flat-out deny that Jesus taught that he was (the One and Only) God incarnate, and they are really discombobulated by the idea that it was the will of God that one of His “top” prophets would be cruxified. The deity of Christ, and the ultimate goal of his earthly mission (to die on a cross) are believed to be ideas that were introduced by an apostate Church. The answer, according to Islam, is that a 14 year old boy (Muhammad, circa 600 years after Christ) gets a theophany and then writes a book with a new revelation that clarifies or restores the true Gospel (I can get the quotes from the Q’uran if anyone is interested)
Just consider these big themes for a moment;
* The superseding of the Bible with a new “revelation”
* The (alledged) reintroduction of “true” works-based religion (do good and you might just get God’s favourable attention)
* The relegation of Jesus Christ from the God whom we worship to a prophet who’s teachings are helpful
…does it sound familiar yet?
I suggest that any or all of these are a radical departure from the historical definition of Christianity.
My conclusion is that Mormonism is the Islam of North America. IMO Joseph Smith Jnr is closer to Muhammad than he is to Jesus.
As Martin said, the Muslims reject the Christian concept of the deity of Christ. This they have in common with the Jews. The Jews do believe that Jesus was crucified – the Muslims deny this. They both share the same view on the resurrection of Jesus Christ in that it did not happen. So, both of these religions can say they believe in Jesus, but one has to “peel the onion” and get to the specifics on what one believes about Jesus.
As Martin alluded to regarding Mohammed, the beginning of Islam have familiar story lines when one is thinking about Mormonism. The angel Gabriel supposedly appears to Mohammed in 600 A.D. Gabriel tells Mohammed he is to “restore the true church.” This also included additional scriptures to follow.
Another example is the Persion boy named Mani. He was meditating in his backyard in the second century when an angel appeared to him and told him “to restore the true church”. A religion was born and it was called Manicheaism. It lasted almost 500 years. They sent missionaries out two-by-two, modified the Bible, their gospel was legalistic and taught that exaltation came about through secret ceremonies.
Sound familiar? It should if one is paying attention. I have no doubt that Joseph Smith probably did see something in the woods in New York, but it wasn’t God the Father and Jesus, but rather an “angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14).
There is only one true Jesus. If not, then Christ wouldn’t have said what He did in Matthew 24:24. Here is a short list of the “jesus” in other religions:
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Michael the Archangel “a god”
Mormons: spirit brother of Lucifer; “a god”
Bahai faith: one of 9 divine manifestations
Unitarians: an extrordianarily good man
Spiritism: an advanced spirit medium
Christian Science: “a divine ideal or principle”
Thus, the Apostle Paul’s warning in 2 Cor 11:4 of “another Jesus”. Christianity has 2,000 years of historical evidence of the true Jesus on its side as stated in the Bible.
Gundeck,
You asked: “What churches teach modalism?”
The largest and well-known would be the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). They are sometimes referred to as “Oneness Pentecostals”. They deny the Trinity and teach that Jesus Christ is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There is only one person (Jesus) and He is all three. This group is not to be confused with mainline Pentecostal groups such as the Assemblies of God which are biblically sound in their teachings and doctrines. They just believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active today. One of the most popular UPC teachers is TV evangelist T.D. Jakes. The last I heard he was still a believer in “oneness” theology.
I’ve been home now from the Philippines for about a month now. When I think of people applying the label of “Christian” to themselves I can’t help but think of all the abstract religious movements going on over there and all claiming to be Christian. One group that I have been keeping tabs on over there through the years is a movement founded by a man named Apollo C. Quiboloy. He used to be in the United Pentecostal Church. Through a series of events he said that the Father appeared to him in the mountains (sound familiar?) and taught him. According to Quiboloy, after that training the “father” told him that he (Quiboloy) is now the “appointed son of god – jesus christ”.
His movement starts out with 15 people and has now grown into a world-wide following. He even has congregations here in the United States. He has a compound in Davao City where his church is located. The church is called “Jesus Christ: The Name Above Every Name”. Underneath that label it says this: “Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy: appointed Son of God”.
He teaches that salvation is through him and he claims that John 14:6 applies to himself. He stated that the rapture started on April 13, 2005 and that the Father’s kingdom “New Jerusalem” is here today in Davao City, Philippines. His worshippers carry a Bible, pray in his name and call themselves “Christian”, sing and cry while singing Christian songs with their hands lifted up and talk about Jesus. The problem is that their “jesus” is not the Jesus of the Bible. He’s a Filipino man/nutcase named Quiboloy.
Are these people Christians? I think the answer is obvious – no! What makes a person a Christian is what they believe and who that belief is centered on. Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament is the guideline for testing what is of Christ and what is not. When people don’t use God’s Word (the Bible) to test (1 Thes 5:21), they will be easily duped such as the followers of Quiboloy and people like him: Joseph Smith – false prophets.
Thanks Andy. As always well documented with solid reasoning.
In order to be a Christian, a person needs to worship the Christian God. Mormons do not worship the Christian God. Mormons worship a man who became a god. Mormons acknowledge the presence of many gods making them polytheists. Orson Pratt said if you worship one of the Mormon gods, you worship all of them. Christians are monotheists. Since Mormons worship a different god, and a whole bunch of them by proxy, they are not Christians. We’ve been over this countless times. Evidence doesn’t mean much in Mormonism nor does a systematic approach to understanding the Bible. We keep getting lame conspiracy theories from our Mormon friends as to how a great apostasy took place and all of the Mormon stuff got left out of the Bible and the historical record. What a convenient theory to explain away the fact that Mormonism is the product of the imagination of a guy who claimed to be able to see buried treasure in the ground by the use of his magic rock.
I ‘ve come to understand the cultic mind set in my interaction with Mormons on this blog. Jim Spencer, a former Mormon elder writes:
“For several years after I left Mormonism, I experienced a frustrating sensation that there were places in my mind I could not go. In trying to talk to people about it, I described what seemed to be a steel band wrapped tightly around my mind. Only after considerable ministry and prayer did I experience complete deliverance from the hold of the Mormon cult. As a final act of rejecting Mormonism, I took all Mormon literature out of my home and burned several dozen books in the desert. Only then did I feel completely free. Studies indicate that the average rehabilitation time for former cult members is sixteen months. Long term effects include recurring nightmares and becoming ‘unable to think’.
Is it any wonder that our Mormon contributors here have trouble getting it.
I think what Bill has done in his presentation is flipped the question and asked “Can Christians be considered Mormons?” The answer is quite clear “no”. Why not? Simply because we don’t beleive what Mormons believe. I don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the BoM is an actual account of a lost tribe of Israel finding their way to the Americas, that the LDS Church is the one true Church, and that the Mormon jesus is the Jesus of the Bible. I reject Mormonism on all of it’s main points so it’s obvious I couldn’t call myself a Mormon. The late Gordon B. Hinkley seemed to think that because the LDS church had the name “Jesus Christ” in it, that qualified (the church) for status as a Christian religion. It all comes down to the criteria by which we judge a religion as being within the boundries of the Christian faith.
Mormonism rejects the Bible as God’s final scriptual declaration to man.
Mormonism rejects the God Christians worship.
Mormonism rejects the Savior Christians are depending on for their salvation.
Mormonism rejects the means of salvation defined by Christianity.
Mormonism rejects grace as known by Christianity.
Mormonism rejects the final judgement of God as seen by Christianity.
In light of this, saying that Mormonism is Christian because they use the name Jesus Christ in the title of their church as declared by G.B. Hinkley, is pretty ludicrous.
Mormons want to be considered Christian for the purpose of public relations and recruitment. If it served their purposes to not call themselves nonChristians, they’d do it in a heart beat.
Someone “I come to you in the name of Barak Obama”
Martin “That’s interesting, what does Mr Obama want me to do”?
Someone “Mr Obama wants you to vote for John McCain”
Martin “Hold up, I thought you said you came in the name of Mr Obama”
Someone “I do. I am a follower of Mr Obama”
Martin “But Mr Obama would never tell me to vote for Mr McCain. In fact, all the documented evidence and public statements from Mr Obama’s office tell me the exact opposite. Whatever I might otherwise think of Mr Obama , its obvious you don’t represent him. You can’t speak on his behalf”
Someone “You’re not listening to me. I told you that I come in the name of Mr Obama, and I command you, in Mr Obama’s name, to vote for Mr MCain”
Martin “How can you say that”?
Someone “I received a fax directly from Mr Obama”
Martin “I think Mr Obama might have something to say about you misrepresenting him like this. Now that he’s president, you’d better apologize and make your peace with him”
etc etc
(with apologies for the anachronisms and total absence of geo-political correctness)
Andy,
You are right, I didn’t think of the oneness Pentecostals. Generaly when I think of modalism I think of dispensational modalism or sequential modalism but the oneness Pentecostals do have there own brand or take on an old heresy.
Aaron,
You ask: “many Muslims would affirm a belief in the existence of Jesus as well as profess adherence to what they think are his teachings. That fits much of the dictionary definition you have listed. Does that make them Christian?”
I respond by stating that the dictionary definition I cited specifies that a Christian is one: “Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.” A muslim obviously does not follow “the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus” and thus is not a Christian and nor would he consider himself to be a Christian and indeed would be highly offended if someone called him a Christian.
You state: “Before God, people are not morally allowed to gut out the meaning of language, replace it with whatever, and then somehow legitimately retain a label because they keep the terms.”
I wholeheartedly agree. That is why Jesus Christ Himself said in reference to the creeds of men: “all their creeds were an abomination in His sight” and that the religions of men “draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
I put my faith and trust in the living words of Jesus Christ, the creator and saviour of the world. I reject the vain philosophies of the men such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Nicene Council.
In view of the words of Jesus Christ can we rightly consider evangelicals and their warped theology to be Christian? I think not.
Mormons have been trying to wedge their way into mainstream American society since the end of the 19th century during their drive for statehood and the Smoot Hawley hearings. The U.S. Senate held hearings to determine if Smoot Hawley should be seated as a U.S. Senator from Utah. Mormonism was the main topic of discussion, specifically the practice of polygamy. The Mormons made a decision to dump polygamy and there-by gain acceptence as a state. That one act (supposedly) repudiated the teaching of Joseph Smith and subsequent “prophets” of the Mormon church up to that point. We know that the SLC branch of Mormonism has been sealing modern day deceased excommunicated polygamist along with, I believe, their multiple wives.
So a peaceful cooexistance was achieved between the Mormons and polite society at the end of the 19th century. Mormons not only dumped plural marrage but they went from being collectivistic in their economic approach to being unabashed capitalists. In order to gain acceptance Mormons have also had to learn how to “hide” their religious beliefs within the context and language of mainstream Christianity. But now that prospects (and others) can easily access information about Mormonism, it’s becoming more difficult for Mormons to hide what they believe. America isn’t much of a mission field for Mormons any more. They need to seek converts outside of the states. This places a strain on the coffers of the American based Mormon church because the folks in the poor countries can’t kick-in much money to keep the program going. As we know, feeding the Mormon money machine is very important to the boys who sit in the big tall buildings in Salt Lake City.
Appearences mean everything to Mormons. The “Christianity” label is all part of the ruse.
Martin,
It is apparent that you are as ignorant of Islam as you are of Mormonism.
You state: “according to Islam, is that a 14 year old boy (Muhammad, circa 600 years after Christ) gets a theophany and then writes a book with a new revelation that clarifies or restores the true Gospel”
This is completely false.
Muhammad was 40 (not 14) when he is allegedly visited by the Angel Gabriel (this was not a theophany). Muhammed did not write the Qu’ran immediately after this visitation but rather according to Islamic tradition the Qu’ran was dictated to Muhammad over a 20 year period. The Qu’ran does not claim to clarify or restore the “true Gospel”.
You falsely claim that: “Mormonism is the Islam of North America.”
This is such an absurd statement and reveals your complete ignorance of either religion.
You try to connect the LDS Church with Islam by stating:
* The superseding of the Bible with a new “revelation”
This is false. The Book of Mormon does not claim to supersede the Bible but rather is Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
* The (alledged) reintroduction of “true” works-based religion (do good and you might just get God’s favourable attention)
This is false. The LDS Church (being true Christianity) is a religion based on: Faith in Jesus Christ; Repentance; Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost; and enduring to the end by keeping holy covenants and ordinances.
* The relegation of Jesus Christ from the God whom we worship to a prophet who’s teachings are helpful
This is false. Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God the Father and is the head of the LDS Church.
It never ceases to amaze me at just how ignorant Mormon “critics” are of even basic LDS doctrine, history, and practices.
David was having some trouble posting, so I’m posting his comment for him:
—
“they would never consider themselves to be a part of that aberrant polytheistic religion known as “Christianity” and therefore would never call themselves Christians.”
From time to time Muslims have used that argument – that they are the true Christians because they follow the teachings of the true Christ. Conversely, I could argue that I am a Muslim because I believe in submission to the one true God. I could also argue that I am Jewish as many Jews are converts to Judaism, my Savior is Jewish, and Christianity is the true Judaism.
It should be noted that in other world religions there is a fair amount of “policing” that goes on. An Sunni Muslim would probably not call a member of of the nation of Islam a “Muslim”. More than likely he/she would classify the Nation of Islam as not Islam. If it makes Mormons feel better, we also call other groups “not Christian”.
What I find highly interesting is that Mormons have changed their tune on this one. Let the historical record show that their was a time when Mormons trumpeted that we were apostates and that they were not just a Christian sect but true restored Christianity. Either Mormonism is Christianity or it is a fraud; if it is the church of the Lamb then I, and every other non-Mormon “Christian” belong to the church of the Devil.
Seriously, whatever happened to Mormons calling themselves Mormons? Why don’t they follow their church’s advice (given to members of the media) and refer to themselves as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Martin, Muhammad was not 14 when he supposedly received his (supposed) revelation. I believe the biographies on Muhammad say he was about 40.Although, the similarities between Islam and Mormonism have been noticed before by others. At one point Joseph Smith even identified himself with Muhammad.
“This is such an absurd statement and reveals your complete ignorance of either religion.”
I find that often, though not always, those who cry “ignorance” are the most ignorant of all.
I quote Joseph Smith Jr at a speech he gave in Far West Missouri,
“I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”
The quote and a discussion about it can be found here:
http://www.mrm.org/second-muhammad
Actually, here it is Joseph who uses a double plural- the AlCoran – when it shoud simply be – The Coran, or Al Coran. He did this type of thing with Hebrew when in the 1830 Book of Mormon he renders “seraphims” (2 Nephi 16: 2-6) it should be “seraphs” or “seraphim”
“This is false. The Book of Mormon does not claim to supersede the Bible but rather is Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”
No one ever said that that the Book of Mormon or the Koran claims to supercede the Bible (actually even the Koran claims to confirm it) but that is indeed how Martin and many others see it and to say that is not an innaccurracy.
“This is false. The LDS Church (being true Christianity) is a religion based on: Faith in Jesus Christ; Repentance; Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost; and enduring to the end by keeping holy covenants and ordinances.”
No one ever stated that Mormons do not require faith in a Christ for exaltation/heaven. The claim, which is an accurate one, that down through the years LDS leaders have taught that works are a necessary part of the equation. But I do like how you called your church “true Christianity”.
The problem for our Mormon friends is that there is not even a hint of Mormonism in the NT or in the historical record. So this idea that they are “true Chrisitanity” is not only falacious but a tale of monumental proportion. Most Mormons learn these little slogans down at the wards and repeat them just like the four points of their canned testimony. Evidence doesn’t mean anything in Mormonism. What matters is that Mormons accept and repeat what they’ve been told. So if the leadership says there was a great apostasy and Joseph Smith restored the orignial Gospel they just do a big “gulp” and repeat it. We know what passes for Mormon scholarship works in their own limited world, but in the real world it’s Mormon junk history and junk science. The sad thing about Mormonism is that when folks figure out they’ve been lied to, too often they end-up becoming atheists. Mormonism can’t hold anyone who has any intellectual curiosity and some resistance to brain washing. No, Mormonism is not Christianity.
Our hope in writing here is for the questioners who are beginning to figure out the whole sordid tale of Mormonism.
St Crispin wrote “The Qu’ran does not claim to clarify or restore the “true Gospel”.”
Here’s a selection from http://www.submission.org/suras...
The Quran: God’s Message
to the Jews and Christians
[5:15] O people of the scripture, our messenger has come to you to proclaim for you many things you have concealed in the scripture, and to pardon many other transgressions you have committed. A beacon has come to you from GOD, and a profound scripture…
Gross Blasphemy
[5:17] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary…
Only God Can Author the Quran
[10:37] This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than GOD. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.
Some time ago, I blogged my reading of the Q’uran here http://web.mac.com/martin_jacobs1/iWeb/The_Martin_Homepage/Quran_Blog/Quran_Blog.html but I only got about half way through it. I’ve got no secrets on the matter. If you’re going to engage me on this subject, you’re going to have to do so with chapter and verse.
David Whitsell,
I came to my conclusion that Momonism is the Islam of North America after reading remarkably similar statements from the LDS movement and the Q’uran regarding Christianity and its prophet, Jesus Christ. A short list would include the following;
* Soon after the apostles left the scene, the Christians started to go wrong by worshipping Jesus
* The Christian scriptures have been corrupted and misrepresented
* A new prophet is needed to “restore” true religion
* New inspired scripture
* Absolute loyalty to the prophet
* Justification by works
* Theism
Of course, there are many similarities between Joseph Smith Jnr and Mohammad, including their habits of collecting wives. For instance, both would claim to recognize Jesus as a prophet, but neither comprehended Him (John 1:5).
I was not aware that Joseph Smith Jnr actually aspired to being like Muhammad. Why would he do that?
Ralph wrote “I have shown documentation from reliable sources, some Christian, that state that the Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible, but an interpretation of what is in it.”
We’ve been over this and I don’t understand what you hope to gain from it. Its as if you have read the New Bible Dictionary, but didn’t get past the first sentence, which reads “The term ‘Trinity’ is not itself found in the Bible”. Please read the rest of the article. It might be hard for you because it gives no support to (your version of) LDS doctrine.
I am sincerely worried by the apparent habit of LDS to read a text and infer from it something quite contrary to what the text is saying. Ralph, the NBD is NOT your friend. Don’t go there if you want to make your point. You said earlier that you’re involved in some kind of research. I hope your supervisor has the ‘nads to tell you that this habit is not a good thing, especially in your line of work.
I can’t imagine how psychologically damaging it must be to be constantly changing what people say and write into what you want them to say and write, even if it means reversing the meaning of what was communicated
If this habit is the result of LDS indoctrination, then leave the movement now. Don’t do it later today, or tomorrow. Walk out now, like Lot walking out of Sodom, before the damage becomes permanent.
Also “So although the Trinitarian theology has around 1600 years history as the major Christian doctrine does not make it the correct one.”
…but it was what the authors of the NT had in view at the birth of Christianity. In this context, the issue of whether it is true is irrelevent; if you claim to be Christian, then you cannot stand against what the founders of Christianity taught.
Incidentally, your suggestion that it has only been around for 1600 years is misleading if, indeed, it is what the Biblical authors had in view. This may be moot, but what is plain is that they certainly did NOT have the Mormon concept of God in view
Martin,
Let’s revisit the quote you gave from the NBD.
Note what I have bolded. It states 3 central parts of the DOCTRINE of the Trinity, then states that these are found NOWHERE in the Bible, but are and INTERPRETATION from the Bible. Thus it is stating that the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible but is an interpretation of it. The Harper’s Bible dictionary says the same thing. That is 2 separate TRINITARIAN sources saying that the doctrine is not in the Bible but and interpretation of it.
I do not care if these Bible dictionaries do not support the LDS view – you have to worry that they are from a Trinitarian source of scholars because they say it does not hold your doctrine.
The Bible does support the LDS God if it is interpreted through LDS eyes. Thus which is the ‘profoundly appropriate interpretation’ of the Bible?
Martin,
You asked me why I am bringing up this argument – To be a ‘true Christian’ one must believe in the true Jesus Christ of the Bible right? Well if your doctrine is not in the Bible but and interpretation of it, then there is a chance that your doctrine is incorrect. If this is true then you are not true Christains. Now if you want to hold a monopoly on the term ‘Christian’ but are not the true Christians then you are following Satan’s plan to confuse everyone.
Now one of your comments “…but it was what the authors of the NT had in view at the birth of Christianity. In this context, the issue of whether it is true is irrelevent; if you claim to be Christian, then you cannot stand against what the founders of Christianity taught.” seems to me to say that you are fine with following Satan in holding a monopoly on the term ‘Christian’ even if you are a false church.
As far as “>”…but it was what the authors of the NT had in view at the birth of Christianity.” In my eyes that was not the view of the authors of the NT, but the view of the usurpers of power after the true apostles were removed from among the people.
Ralph said “In my eyes that was not the view of the authors of the NT, but the view of the usurpers of power after the true apostles were removed from among the people.”
…but the authors of the NT believed in One God, and they worshipped Jesus, just like the Trinitarians of today. LDS don’t believe this. It seems that LDS have lined themselves up with the “usurpers of power”.
Ralph wrote ” you have to worry that they are from a Trinitarian source of scholars because they say it does not hold your doctrine.”
Before I get a brain hemmorage over this, can someone other than Ralph please give me a reality check?
Am I talking in some unknown language that nobody can understand?
Is there a fundamental problem with the New Bible Dictionary’s entry on the Trinity? Even if the NBD is lacking in some of the particulars, there are plenty of other reputable references and resources that can fill in the gaps, whilst agreeing on the generics.
Why should I worry about it, when I think the NBD does a pretty good job of explaining the doctrine in terms of its history and Biblical basis?
Why should I worry that the formulation of words found in the creeds is not explicitly written into the Bible, when there is a Tsunami of evidence in favor of these words being a succinct summary of what the founding fathers of Christianity believed about God? What’s wrong with a “profoundly appropriate interpretation”? The only thing perceivably wrong with it is that its not LDS, but if this were the case, who then is putting a theological straightjacket on the interpretation of scripture?
Can someone please explain why Ralph should think I’m barking up the wrong tree, because I have no clue about what he is objecting to?
Our friend Ralph has the Mormon standard of scholarship down pat. That is, read something and then fill-it-up with your own meaning. Ralph and the rest of his Mormon “scholars” are so good at this that they can reverse course on a dime and in an instant if there is a “new” revelation. Mormons can make anything fit. This is what happens when a person buys-into Joseph Smith’s pathology. To repeat myself, Mormon scholarship is just another form of the “dog ate my homework” excuse offered up by the tardy school boy.
Ralph and his buddies can entertain themselves endlessly with their tales of apostasy and explanations for ancient civilizations that never existed and DNA evidence that really doesn’t prove what it proves, a prophet who was a sexual preditor but it was all OK and ancient manuscripts that the prophet “translated” that proved to not say what he said it said and on-and-on. This is a cultic mind-set and nothing will stand in the way of the true believer and his beliefs.
Falcon,
You still have not shown me how my list of 6 references about the doctrine of the Trinity not being in the Bible are from unreputable sources. You are just attacking me.
As far as the DNA situation goes, those who believe in the Bible and wish to use the ‘evidence’ against the BoM are not being honest, as the very same evidence also destroys the Bible. And yes I have read the references that are used to say that the evidence supports the Bible, and those references do not support the Bible when read in their entirety, not a snippet or sentence as used by the detractors of the BoM.
Martin,
What is wrong with a “profoundly appropriate interpretation”? Profoundly appropriate to whom? Definately not to me, nor many people I know, including some not of the LDS faith. No one is putting a straight jacket on the interpretation of scripture, but one group is trying to put a straight jacket on who can claim to worship Jesus Christ by calling themselves Christian – then this puts a stright jacket on the interpretation of scripture.
As I said, if the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible but and interpretation of it, then which interpretation of God from the Bible is the correct one? If you are wrong then you cannot claim to be Christian but you want to hold that monopoly on the name anyway. If you are correct, then yes you can claim the name. But can you undisputably prove that you are correct? No, neither can any of the others (including LDS). So who is right and who is wrong? If the wrong one gets to be called Christian and no one else can then Satan has won.
Let’s look at what Jesus taught about al of this –
In Matt 13:24-30 Jesus said “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Note, this is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, which from my understanding is the church of God. So in the church are both wheat (true Christians) and tares (false Christians) but Jesus said that the master (ie God) said Let both grow together until the harvest. From this He is saying that He will work it out in the day of Judgment but for us to leave it alone.
God and Jesus know their sheep and will ultimately weed them from the rest of the world, be they (ie the rest of the world) professed believers or not.