Mormonism is not "Christianity"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Joseph Antley
_Emeritus
Posts: 801
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:26 pm

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _Joseph Antley »

madeleine wrote:Top three. It all hinges on one foundational difference, that being the God of Mormonism is not the God of Christianity.


Is the God of Judaism the God of Christianity? Is the God of Catholicism the God of Christianity? Is the God of Ethiopic "Christians" the God of Christianity? Was the God of medieval Crusaders the God of Christianity?

I wouldn't call Mormonism a Christian denomination. It is not even of the same vine, being something that was planted outside of Christianity. It is something other.


I think that by "Christianity" you must mean "modern mainstream Protestantism," which would make your statement true.

Were Mormonism planted outside of actual Christianity, it would be a very odd thing for its central text of scripture which enveloped its inception to be so focused on Jesus Christ and his salvific power.
"I'd say Joseph, that your anger levels are off the charts. What you are, Joseph, is a bully." - Gadianton
"Antley's anger is approaching...levels of volcanic hatred." - Scratch

http://Twitter.com/jtantley
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _consiglieri »

madeleine wrote:-Original Sin is rejected


Although I fail to see why a denominational view on Original Sin should be controlling on the issue of Christianity, I believe the LDS scriptures actually embrace the concept:

Moses 6:53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.

54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.


The real question is not whether Mormons are Christian, but whether Mormons are Catholic. ;^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _thews »

thews wrote:I see you've resorted to using the old "tongue-in-cheek" opinion (as you recall) to downplay the teachings of the Mormon prophet of God. Is the following "tongue-in-cheek" as well?


http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/mormatak.htm
Joseph Smith - "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 327).


http://carm.org/joseph-smith-quotes
Joseph Smith said the Trinity is three gods.
"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).


thews wrote:Was the Mormon prophet of God a comedian when it came to his teachings consiglieri?


consiglieri wrote:The reason I think he was speaking tongue-in-cheek is because he said other things that were tongue-in-cheek in the same list of questions, such as the one about whether it is true he eloped with Emma, and he answered to ask his wife, because she was of age and can speak for herself.

This argument makes no sense and is purely based on your opinion. Drawing parallel lines between a topic about eloping with Emma vs. a direct question about who would be saved (from a supposed prophet of God) is not the same, but a reach to find a way to make the truth seem like what it is not. Add to this the whole premise behind God disapproving of all Christian churches to "restore" them with Mormonism and your parallels lack any supportive foundation.

consiglieri wrote:I do not think Joseph was "kidding" when he said the two items you mentioned here, Thews.

What is tongue-in-cheek then?

consiglieri wrote:And as for the one about why the Bible has errors in it, imagine my surprise when I was auditing a New Testament class by Bart Ehrman (courtesy of the Teaching Company), and heard Professor Ehrman say almost word for word the same thing.

Errors in translating one language into another and the interpretation of the idioms of the time are not a comparison of the Bible being changed by Joseph Smith to add new parts based on nothing but his revelations. The difference between the NIV and KJV have one thing in common, and that would be they reject Genesis 50:33 as words from a false prophet of God. Make the bucket big enough and I supposed you can fool yourself, but Joseph Smith's version of the Bible and all of Joseph Smith's doctrine is not "Christian" in any way shape or form.

consiglieri wrote:It has taken modern scholarship a while to catch up with Joseph Smith on this, but there you have it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What does modern scholarship have to do with magic rocks, an incorrect translation of Egyptian, and a revised version of the Bible from a prophet of God Christianity rejects? You may want to provide some sort of coherent argument before playing the "scholarship" card here.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _cksalmon »

beastie wrote:No, I don’t think Jersey Girl was tickling my ear, and certainly Hoops, with whom I’ve had contention on this thread, wasn’t tickling my ear. I think they were simply applying the basic foundation of Evangelical belief.

Fair enough. I believe I overreached here.

Now, I understand that not all EVs adhere to this belief. There are variances of beliefs within mainstream Christianity as a whole and even within the subset movements. But many EVs believe “once saved, always saved.” When Hoops stated that being a Christian means being forgiven of one’s past, present, and FUTURE sins, I suspected Hoops, like many other EVs, accepts “once saved, always saved.”

Without speaking to what Hoops may or may not believe regarding "once saved, always saved," I'll tell you how I regard the general appropriation of that belief in a large swath of American evangelicalism: as a bastardized corruption of the Reformation doctrine of the "perseverance of the Saints." OSAS has no logical consistency outside a thoroughgoing Calvinistic framework.

I’m not familiar enough with your specific beliefs to understand where you’re coming from in regards to whether or not I was saved. But if you accept what I’m saying as truthful, which you should, I would first guess you are saying that it is my actions subsequent to my accepting Jesus as my Savior which render me unsaved.

I was unclear. I do not believe that your actions subsequent to your reportedly accepting Jesus as your Savior rendered you unsaved.

Many EVs believe that no actions subsequent to accepting Jesus as one’s Savior can render the person unsaved.

This is a theological minefield, admittedly. When I say I assume you were not saved in 1995, I mean just that: I assume you were not saved in 1995 and never were. Not that you were and subsequently lost that status.

I don't believe that true Christians become atheists who repudiate their belief in Christ, and I believe that for what I take to be more than one biblically-defensible reason. In that, yes, I am saying you were never a "true Christian," never truly saved.

The alternative strikes me as ridiculous on its face, doesn't it you (assuming my view?): you, a sound-minded, intelligent, self-professed atheist who has repudiated your belief in not only Jesus as your Savior, but in God his Father as well, is irrevocably heaven-bound because of some actions/thoughts/emotions/experiences/intentions (trying to be broad enough not to pigeonhole your personal history) you did and/or had at some point in the past.

The idea of losing one's (genuine) salvation is consistent with some forms of Protestant Christianity, e.g., traditional Arminianism (Roman Catholicism has another, different set of beliefs in this regard). Without getting into the logic of Arminianism vs. the logic of Calvinism, loss of genuine salvation is held to be consistent with a traditional Arminian hermeneutic of the relevant passages. I don't agree with them. I think they're wrong. But, it's not as if sincere-minded folks haven't rigorously thought through the issues and attempted to mount a scriptural defense of their position.

But, I'm not an Arminian. I'm a staunch Calvinist, i.e., I'm a thoroughgoing theological determinist. Specifically, for this discussion, I believe in the "perseverance of the Saints," i.e., Christians persevere to the end; you have renounced belief in the Christian God. An Arminian might say you lost your salvation; I would say you never had it. I've thought through the issue at length. I'd wager that most "OSAS" folks haven't thought through it at all.

I’ve talked to believers about this numerous times in the past. I think that part of the reasoning, from these past discussions, is that since I sincerely accepted Jesus as my Savior in 1995, while I may be confused and wandering right now, eventually I will find my way “home.”

But, woe unto me if, to adopt Jeremiah's words, I say to you, "'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace." I don't know your heart, but I'd rather be wrong a thousand times over than to tell you, "Beastie, you've been truly saved by the Christian God--even though you deny the very existence of the Christian God."

by the way: unbelief is not the unpardonable sin, beastie. You haven't committed the unpardonable sin. I don't know if it is even possible for you or I, at this historical remove from the earthly ministry of Jesus, to commit the "unpardonable sin," but that's probably for another discussion.

But what I don’t understand is why you would say I wasn’t saved in 1995, unless you have some Calvinist tendencies, and believe God has predestined who will be saved, and if God hasn’t chosen you, then trying to get saved on your own won’t work.

I'm a 48-point Calvinist. And I sincerely believe you should "[try] to get saved," but not on your own. I'm trying, too. Biblical Calvinists are compatibilists with regard to human agency and divine sovereignty. It's not that God does 50% and we do 50%. Each is 100% involved.

You say you accept my honesty, so there must be some reason you’re saying that, despite my sincerity and then-beliefs, I still wasn’t saved after accepting Jesus as my Savior. I’m hoping you’ll clarify.

Yes: you have repudiated your former acceptance of Jesus as your Savior. But Christians persevere in their belief in Jesus as their Savior. That doesn't mean I think you're lying to me.

I think that is language that you would accept, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

cks
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _beastie »

Thanks for your explanation, Chris.

That means that, in your understanding of Christianity, it is not sufficient to accept Christ as your Savior to be saved.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _cksalmon »

beastie wrote:Thanks for your explanation, Chris.

That means that, in your understanding of Christianity, it is not sufficient to accept Christ as your Savior to be saved.


No, beastie, I'm not saying that. I'm suggesting that accepting Christ as your savior carries with it necessarily-consequent entailments that are not causal of acceptance of Christ as savior. One of those non-causal entailments is that one who has accepted Christ as one's savior does not subsequently repudiate belief in Christ as one's savior.

(Citing ignorance, I would except acute instances of apostasy under the duress of torture, because how would I know? But, that would not appear to apply in your case.)
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _beastie »

cksalmon wrote:
No, beastie, I'm not saying that. I'm suggesting that accepting Christ as your savior carries with it necessarily-consequent entailments that are not causal of acceptance of Christ as savior. One of those non-causal entailments is that one who has accepted Christ as one's savior does not subsequently repudiate belief in Christ as one's savior.

(Citing ignorance, I would except acute instances of apostasy under the duress of torture, because how would I know? But, that would not appear to apply in your case.)


People grow and change. That does not mean that I did not sincerely believe at the time period.

It is mighty convenient to claim that "real" Christians would never stop believing.

It reminds me a lot of how active LDS often react to those who lose faith in Mormonism.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _cksalmon »

beastie wrote:People grow and change. That does not mean that I did not sincerely believe at the time period.

It is mighty convenient to claim that "real" Christians would never stop believing.

You're, essentially, leveling the charge of ad 'hoc-ery' against my position. I can see why you might do so. Let me begin by affirming your interpretation of my claim, beastie. I think you've got it basically right. If I could rephrase it a bit: "'Real' Christians, finally, believe in the efficacy of Christ to save them." But, you don't do so. Ergo, you're not a "real" Christian.

I'm here and there on this forum. This is an interesting subject to me, and I'll respond more fully, God willing, soon.

I like you lots, beastie.

cks
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _richardMdBorn »

beastie wrote:My parents are fervent democrats like me (yes, odd for active LDS), but we are all very interested in the Republican nomination. Given how the Republican party tends to follow an orderly pattern which, by all rights, should ordain Romney as the candidate, I truly believe that if Romney doesn't get the nomination it is for one reason and one reason only - Mormonism.
This view about the Republicans following an orderly pattern is common but far from proven. Let's review the last 50 years:

1964 - Nixon won the 1960 nomination easily so there was no real runner-up. Goldwater won the nomination Rockefeller second in popular vote, Scranton second in delegates. N/A

1968 - Reagan won the popular vote with Nixon second (many states did not have primaries) Nixon won the nomination - MILD FAILURE except that one could argue that Nixon had stature as a former VP and presidential candidate..

1972 Nixon renominated

1976 Ford sitting president nominated Reagan second

1980 Reagan nominated Bush 2nd - Orderly fashion SUCCEEDs

1984 Reagan renominated

1988 VP George H W Bush nominated Dole 2nd

1992 Bush renominated

1996 Dole wins Buchanan 2nd Orderly fashion SUCCEEDs

2000 Bush wins McCain 2nd - was this an orderly fashion - No, though one could argue that Bush as the son of a president had a special status (and Buchanaon had reached maximum possible strength in 1996).

2004 Bush renominated

2008 McCain nominated Huckabee 2nd Romney 3rd Orderly fashion SUCCEEDs

Orderly succession has proven correct three times and wrong once or twice in the last 50 years. By contrast, a sitting VP from either party has always won the nomination when the President is not running - Nixon in 1960 (52 years ago), Humphrey in 1968 and Gore in 2000.

2012 - many argue that Romney is the favorite since Huckabee, while 2nd in 2008, is not running in 2012 and had reached the peak strength in 2008. I supported Romney in 2008 because I knew that McCain would be a disaster and Romney was the best alternative. But Romney's continued support today of Romney Care and AGW will kill him with primary voters. His Mormonism is not a plus but it is not the critical negative factor. His only hope is that many conservative candidates will stay in the race and split the vote.
_madeleine
_Emeritus
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:03 am

Re: Mormonism is not "Christianity"

Post by _madeleine »

Joseph Antley wrote:
madeleine wrote:Top three. It all hinges on one foundational difference, that being the God of Mormonism is not the God of Christianity.


Is the God of Judaism the God of Christianity? Is the God of Catholicism the God of Christianity? Is the God of Ethiopic "Christians" the God of Christianity? Was the God of medieval Crusaders the God of Christianity?

I wouldn't call Mormonism a Christian denomination. It is not even of the same vine, being something that was planted outside of Christianity. It is something other.


I think that by "Christianity" you must mean "modern mainstream Protestantism," which would make your statement true.

Were Mormonism planted outside of actual Christianity, it would be a very odd thing for its central text of scripture which enveloped its inception to be so focused on Jesus Christ and his salvific power.


By Christianity, I mean, those who worship the One True God of Christianity. All Catholics, east and west, mainstream Protestants, most of the major denominations, are all worshipping the same God. Mormons are not.

Mormonism seeks relativism, unless it is referencing itself. But the fact is, Christians are not relative about Who God is, and it is not possible to flatten out Christian faith with Mormon relativism.

God has created us with a desire for Himself, and Mormons are not born without this desire. People have always in various forms and ways sought out the divine, so in this sense, yes, I believe Mormons have a desire for God, our Creator and Redeemer. I don't disparage this, but neither am I going to reduce my faith in order to tell Mormons they have something they don't. It would in fact be uncharitable on my part to do so.

Mormonism has adopted Christian language but has assigned new definitions to every Christian word and phrase, beginning with the word "God". Mormonism calls Christian and Hebrew scripture corrupt and untrustworthy, and does not truly accept it. There are caveats for Mormons.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:55 am, edited 3 times in total.
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
Post Reply