Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Gadianton Plumber wrote:That is one way of interpreting it. A very mopologetic way, I might add.


I do what I can.
;-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Gadianton Plumber

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _Gadianton Plumber »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Gadianton Plumber wrote:That is one way of interpreting it. A very mopologetic way, I might add.


I do what I can.
;-)

You and Jason need to join evil forces with evil FARMS.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _Jersey Girl »

GP wrote:You and Jason need to join evil forces with evil FARMS.



All you need to do is read the passage for what it says, not what you think or have heard that it says.

"The prophecy of this BOOK" is a reverence to the prophecy in the "BOOK" of Revelation.

Unless you consider all 66 BOOKS of the Bible to be one huge prophecy.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _thews »

liz3564 wrote:My point is that you accused me of calling myself Christian because I was too embarrassed to refer to myself as a Mormon. I have never been embarrassed to refer to myself as a Mormon, but I also believe I am Christian. I worship Jesus Christ....the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. I see no contradiction in using both terms.

I'm not "accusing" you of anything, but in order to understand you, one must accept you find a lot of fault with joseph Smith, yet still consider him a prophet of God. OK, I get that (though I can't understand the logic behind it), but it's been my experience that the people that fight the hardest to claim Mormonism embraces Christianity are the ones who have the most issues with it, and to appease the cognitive dissonance by holding conflicting beliefs will claim Mormons are Christians. Call yourself whatever you wish, but if you believe in Mormon doctrine you are in fact a Mormon. No one is denying that there's root in Christianity regarding Mormonism, but the entire premise of a "restored" gospel with a brand new set of doctrine and a so-called prophet who boasted of being more accomplished than Jesus Christ hardly makes Mormonism just another Chriostian sect. Again, Mormons accept Mormon doctrine and Christians reject Moromon doctrine... do you see the logic in this?

Out of curiosity, what Christian sect to do you belong to? Do you agree with every tenet of doctrine within your sect?

My faith is my own and I believe jesus Christ was God. I also don't believe in hell and having had a NDE I at least think I know what it's like to be dead. The issue I have with this entire concept is how Mormonism, the church that considers itself "the one true church" and has it's own prophet and set of doctrine, claims to be something it's not. According to the Mormon leaders, having been LDS and now rejecting it I'm to burn extra crispy for only believing in Jesus Christ and rejecting Joseph Smith.

"We must come unto Christ by being baptized into his Church. Only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can we find all the truths that will help us return to our Father in Heaven. Only in the true Church of Christ can we find the authority to perform the necessary gospel ordinances." (The Restoration: Study Guide, p. 5).


Can I ask you a question? Do you seriously believe Joseph Smith has anythign to do with your salvation in heaven? In other words, do you believe this:

http://mormonwatch.com/articles/OneTrueChurch.asp
"no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Brigham Young , Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).


It seems that we are fundamentally at an impasse. I don't see a problem with disagreeing with tenets of doctrine in any religion. I disagree with polygamy. I disagree with the racism that occurred within the Church. Am I embarrassed that the Church took the stance it did on those issues? Yes. Does that make me embarrassed to be associated with the Mormon Church overall? No.

OK, but that creates conflict... would you agree? On one hand, you have to reject the words/actions of Joseph Smith knowing he cheated on his wife and married little girls all while supposedly God was watching him, and on the other you have your lifestyle you'd lose if you left it. I can't see how this all makes sense to you, so I'm assuming you'll find a parallel to appease it, as that's how the Mormon mindset is taught to think. If you were raised in the church, you been taught how to shelve these things. If it doesn't embarrass you, OK... I think if I were to talk to a stranger and explain the Joseph Smith story with all that you knew about it, including the magic rocks, polygamy/polyandry/racism/pagan doctrine from the book of the dead and the magic underwear, it would seem (to me anyway) at the very minimum...odd.

And if I were to venture a guess, I would assume that you are extremely bitter toward the LDS Church. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (See how that works? It isn't fun to have attitudes and words put in your mouth that you haven't explicitly expressed, is it?)

You would be correct. Where I find the most angst is in the deception, which is why calling a spade a spade is my angst here. The spin doctors will twist the truth and hide it, and if the TBM wants to read the deception and believe they can. It's not true, and that foundation is where my angst comes from.

You claim you're a Christian, so what do these passages mean to you?
Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?


2 Tim 4:2 [NIV] Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Jer 23:14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.


Liz wrote:Having been a member of the Church for the past 45 years, though, I will correct you when I believe you have misrepresented a portion of Church doctrine.

You claimed that Mormons regard Jesus as "just another God", and that is not the case. As Jason pointed out, Mormons worship Jesus, and revere Him as "one with the Father".

You're making an interpretation on what you believe. Again, when Joseph Smith (your prophet of God) claimed he was more accomplished than Jesus Christ, and claimed to have seen Jesus Christ and God the Father as "two separate and distinct personages," to believe in him and his doctrine it makes you "Mormon" and doesn't shift acceptance of those claims under the guise of Christianity. You can look up the differences between the Mormon version of Jesus Christ and the Christian version if you wish, but the Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith is very clear that Jesus Christ is not the God, but a God. Again also, Jason is in the same boat as you are. When the internal conflict is intelligent enough to recognize the faults of Joseph Smith, the words of the con man that lived almost 200 years ago with his magic rocks in his hat start to lose their luster. In time, I suspect you both will leave it altogether, but that's just a guess. If you choose to stay Mormon, that isn't going to make it true, because it's not true.

As can I. And, you certainly have attempted to personalize my opinions, and make "guesses" and judgments regarding my attitudes and opinions which are inaccurate.

Which is why I asked you to clarify.

I believe that Joseph was a fallen prophet. He made grave mistakes when it came to promoting polygamy. I believe that he was genuinely inspired to write the Book of Mormon. However, my personal view is that the Book of Mormon is inspired allegory rather than historical fact.

OK, that makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense logically, nor does the supposed witnesses leaving Mormonism, the conviction for glass-looking, etc., but if you need Mormonism to be happy then call yourslef whatever you wish... it's not true, and if that truth is something you don't need, OK, it's your life.

I don't see Mormonism as a "great evil". I see it as another Christian sect where people can worship Christ and feel a sense of community. There are aspects of the Church and doctrinal tenets that I strongly disagree with, but I don't see the Church as "evil".

How can deception pulling people away from God not be evil? How can lies made by a con man with is magic rocks in his hat marrying a collection of little girls and passing that onto the next "saints" (BY etc.) not be evil? You're a woman, do you really believe you can't make it to the highest level of heaven (as described by Soloman Spalding befor the Book of Mormon) if you're not married to a man? Do you believe in polygamy in heaven? At what point do you call BS?

I have friends in many different religions. Most of my friends do not blindly follow all of the tenets of their church. Some don't even know what all of them are.

Good for them... I don't believe in organized religion. Believe what you wish, but if it's not true, then you're placing belief in a known lie.

I think there is room for disagreement in any religion you choose. The important thing is to be the best person you can be.

I agree with this, but it is in my nature to object (or "rebuke") what I know to be false. If it offends you, I understand, as the Mormon church uses the word "anti" to define how they should reject the truth. Joseph Smith was a con man and a false prophet of God... how you rationalize him being both good and evil is beyond my sense of logic, but take the lack of any (not one) artifact to substantiate the Book of Mormon... it's a myth. Many will choose the false prophet... it's a choice.
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
_Yoda

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _Yoda »

Thews...I will address your other points when I have time. I have a meeting at work I have to prepare for.

I will, quickly, address this, however:

Thews wrote:How can lies made by a con man with is magic rocks in his hat marrying a collection of little girls and passing that onto the next "saints" (BY etc.) not be evil? You're a woman, do you really believe you can't make it to the highest level of heaven (as described by Soloman Spalding befor the Book of Mormon) if you're not married to a man? Do you believe in polygamy in heaven? At what point do you call BS?


You need to read some of my other threads. I completely reject polygamy. No, I don't believe that you have to be married to a man to make it to the highest degree of glory. I think there are a lot of things that none of us know that we will find out after death.

I don't believe that anyone will be required to practice polygamy in the hereafter. If it does, in fact exist, which I honestly don't know whether it does or not, it will only exist with those who consent to it.

In other words, if a man and wife get marries....the wife dies...and the man remarries....if both women are OK with being with the same man in the hereafter, they will work it out. If not, there will be someone else for one of the women to choose that they can be happy with..as far as a partnership is concerned.

I also believe the same in reverse. If a husband dies and the wife remarries, and has two husbands...it's the same deal. If they are all OK with being a family together, then so be it. Otherwise, one of the men will be able to find another woman to be with.

I don't believe that a loving God would force this lifestyle on anyone.

You have quoted things from the Journal of Discourses to me several times. You may as well put it away. The Journal of Discourses is garbage, as far as I'm concerned. It is also not considered official LDS doctrine.

Thews wrote:My faith is my own and I believe jesus Christ was God. I also don't believe in hell and having had a NDE I at least think I know what it's like to be dead. The issue I have with this entire concept is how Mormonism, the church that considers itself "the one true church" and has it's own prophet and set of doctrine, claims to be something it's not. According to the Mormon leaders, having been LDS and now rejecting it I'm to burn extra crispy for only believing in Jesus Christ and rejecting Joseph Smith.


You claim that "your faith is your own"...that you don't belong to any particular sect of Christianity...and yet you refuse to allow me the same privilege, and are claiming that I am non-Christian. How does that work?

I already specified that I do not believe all the tenets of the LDS Church. There are screwy tenets in MANY different Christian sects. Just because Mormonism considers itself the "one true Church" doesn't mean that I believe it is. Nor do I believe that you will "burn extra crispy" for disassociating yourself with the Church, if that is what you did.

And, no, I don't believe that Joseph Smith has anything to do with my salvation. As a matter of fact, both he and Brigham Young will get an earful from me if I ever get the chance to speak with them.

I know I am leaving a lot of holes in this discussion, but real life calls.

I'll revisit this conversation when I have some time to really devote to it.
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _thews »

liz3564 wrote:You need to read some of my other threads. I completely reject polygamy. No, I don't believe that you have to be married to a man to make it to the highest degree of glory. I think there are a lot of things that none of us know that we will find out after death.

I don't believe that anyone will be required to practice polygamy in the hereafter. If it does, in fact exist, which I honestly don't know whether it does or not, it will only exist with those who consent to it.

In other words, if a man and wife get marries....the wife dies...and the man remarries....if both women are OK with being with the same man in the hereafter, they will work it out. If not, there will be someone else for one of the women to choose that they can be happy with..as far as a partnership is concerned.

I also believe the same in reverse. If a husband dies and the wife remarries, and has two husbands...it's the same deal. If they are all OK with being a family together, then so be it. Otherwise, one of the men will be able to find another woman to be with.

I don't believe that a loving God would force this lifestyle on anyone.

You have quoted things from the Journal of Discourses to me several times. You may as well put it away. The Journal of Discourses is garbage, as far as I'm concerned. It is also not considered official LDS doctrine.

There's a lot of weight placed on what's "official" doctrine in the LDS faith. The RLDS holds the copyright to the JST, so the LDS don't "officially" use it, but it is referenced in LDS lesson plans. Regarding which parts of Mormonism you reject, it puts me between a rock and hard place, because we then agree on some things. If you choose to reject some things and accept others, it's a concept I do not understand. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and Mormonism is true, or Joseph Smith was a con man and Mormonism is flase. That's my logic, but from what I can gather it's not yours. Again, cognitive dissonance is defined regarding how ones deals with conflicting beliefs.

http://www.learningandteaching.information/lea ... onance.htm
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).


You claim that "your faith is your own"...that you don't belong to any particular sect of Christianity...and yet you refuse to allow me the same privilege, and are claiming that I am non-Christian. How does that work?

I'm not refusing you anything, but I do disagree that Mormonism embraces Chrsitianity. Again, the entire concept of the "restored" gospel would imply that Christianity accepts that Jesus Christ (and God?) did in fact create the Book of Mormon. Christians reject Mormon doctrine, and Mormons accpet Mormon doctrine... it's the definition of what a Mormon is. To believe you are both Christian and Mormon at the same time is basically appeasing the conflict between what yuo accept and which parts you reject... that's my opinion, but call yourself a Jew if you want ...I don't make the rules.

I already specified that I do not believe all the tenets of the LDS Church. There are screwy tenets in MANY different Christian sects. Just because Mormonism considers itself the "one true Church" doesn't mean that I believe it is. Nor do I believe that you will "burn extra crispy" for disassociating yourself with the Church, if that is what you did.

Note the use of parallels to define just how whacky Mormonism is compared to other faiths. If you believe I won't burn extra crispy (or be cast out into eternal darkness) that's your opinion, but the fact remains I reject Joseph Smith and accept Jesus Chrtist, but since I was a Mormon it places me in a special place

consider my plight (being an Ex-Mo Christian) in these...

http://mormonwatch.com/articles/OneTrueChurch.asp
"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth..." (Doctrines and Covenants 1:30)

"they [other churches] were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:19).

[There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...[u]no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences[/u], for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Joseph Fielding Smith , Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).

Question to Joseph Smith- “Do you believe the Bible?” [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119).


And, no, I don't believe that Joseph Smith has anything to do with my salvation. As a matter of fact, both he and Brigham Young will get an earful from me if I ever get the chance to speak with them.

I know I am leaving a lot of holes in this discussion, but real life calls.

I'll revisit this conversation when I have some time to really devote to it.

I appreciate your patience with my opinion, but understand I don't understand your logic. How can you believe part of something you know to be wrong/false? At what point do you consider that Joseph Smith was a con man, the Book of Mormon was not of God but from someone (maybe Joseph Smith, maybe not), and Joseph Smith was a flase prophet of God? Where is the line?
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
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

EAllusion wrote:What are you talking about CC? The lollards were also a fringe theological movement. Tell you what. Try to give me a rough estimate of this: Take the % of Christians who hold Wycliffe-like views year by year starting around 100 CE. What is that average % by year? Compare that to RCC or Eastern Orthodox or even Lutheranism.

The evangelicals who are doing what I made fun of are just trying to define the term Christian in terms of narrow theological correctness rather than as religious taxonomy. Catholics have by far and away been the largest sect of Christians in history, which is what creates the irony.


There was not even a monarchical episcopate in Rome circa 100 AD, let alone a "pope." The Roman Church did not start resembling the RCC you know until circa 600 AD.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _Gazelam »

Nyal,
That is more interested in the temple (old law) than in his own Atonement (new law)?


Back the truck up cool breeze.
I thought you loved the Temple, and by that I mean you've been through it enough times to know why the Temple is a major part of the atonement. It centers around it!

Are you just messing around by making this statement?
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _Brackite »

Since Gadianton Plumber has now claimed to be a Historian in another Discussion Thread here, I just had to bring this Discussion Thread back up here.



More Evidence That Revelation Chapter 22, Versus 18 and 19, Refers Specifically to the Book of Revelation:


Revelation 1:3: (New King James Version):

3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.






Revelation 1:9-11: (New King James Version):

9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”









From Part of an Old Encarta Encyclopedia Article:



...


A1 Manuscripts and Textual Criticism


Extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament—complete, partial, or fragmentary—now number about 5000. None of these, however, is an autograph, an original from the writer. Probably the oldest is a fragment of the Gospel of John dated about AD 120-40. The similarities among these manuscripts is most remarkable when one considers differences of time and place of origin as well as the methods and materials of writing. Dissimilarities, however, involve omissions, additions, terminology, and different ordering of words.

Comparing, evaluating, and dating the manuscripts, placing them in family groups, and developing criteria for ascertaining the text that most likely corresponds to what the authors wrote are the tasks of critics. They are aided in their judgments by thousands of scriptural citations in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church and by a number of early translations of the Bible into other languages. The fruit of the labor of text critics is an edition of the Greek New Testament that offers not only what is judged to be the best text but also includes notes indicating variant readings among the major manuscripts. The more significant of these variants usually appear in English translations as footnotes citing what other ancient authorities say (see, for example, Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37). Critical editions of the Greek New Testament have appeared with some regularity since the work of the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus in the 16th century.


A2 Precanonical Writings


The 27 books of the New Testament are only a fraction of the literary production of the Christian communities in their first three centuries. The principal types of New Testament documents (gospel, epistle, apocalypse) were widely imitated, and the names of apostles or other leading figures were attached to writings designed to fill in the silence of the New Testament (for example, on the childhood and youth of Jesus), to satisfy the appetite for more miracles, and to argue for new and fuller revelations. As many as 50 Gospels were in circulation during this time. Many of these noncanonical Christian writings have been collected and published as New Testament Apocrypha (see Apocryphal New Testament).


...


Knowledge of the literature of the period was greatly increased by the discovery in 1945 of the library of a heretical Christian group, the Gnostics (see Gnosticism), at Naj‘Ḩammādī, Egypt. This collection, written in Coptic, has been translated and published. Major scholarly attention has been focused on the Gospel of Thomas, which purports to be sayings of Jesus, 114 in all, delivered privately to Thomas, one of the 12 apostles.


A3 The Canon


No clear records are available documenting what determined the church’s decision to adopt an official canon of Christian writings or the process by which this occurred. For Jesus and his followers, the Law, Prophets, and Writings of Judaism were “Holy Scriptures.” Interpretation of these writings was, however, governed by the work, words, and person of Jesus as he was understood by his followers. The apostles who preserved the words and deeds of Jesus and who continued his mission were regarded as having special authority. That Paul, for instance, expected his letters to be read aloud in churches and even exchanged among the churches (see Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:26 ff.) indicates that a new norm for belief and practice was developing in the Christian communities. This norm consisted of two parts: the Lord (preserved in the “gospels”) and the Apostles (preserved primarily in “epistles”).

Tracing the history of the development of the New Testament canon by noting which of the books were quoted or cited by the early Fathers of the Church is an uncertain process. Too much is made of silence. It seems that the earliest attempt to establish a canon was made about ad 150 by a heretical Christian named Marcion whose acceptable list included the Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline Epistles, edited in a strong anti-Jewish direction. Perhaps opposition to Marcion accelerated efforts toward a canon of wide acceptance.

By AD 200, 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament seem to have been generally regarded as authoritative. Local preferences prevailed here and there, and some differences existed between the eastern and western churches. Generally speaking, the books that were disputed for some time but were finally included were James, Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation. Other books, widely favored but finally rejected, were Barnabas, 1 Clement, Hermas, and the Didache; the authors of these books are generally referred to as the Apostolic Fathers.

The 39th festal letter of St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, sent to the churches under his jurisdiction in 367, ended all uncertainty about the limits of the New Testament canon. In the so-called festal letter, preserved in a collection of annual Lenten messages given by Athanasius, he listed as canonical the 27 books that remain the contents of the New Testament, although he arranged them in a different order. Those books of the New Testament, in their present-day order, are the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. See separate articles on the books of the New Testament.

...





The New Testament in its Present Forum was Not Canonized Until at least 270 Years after Saint John wrote his Book of Revelation. Saint John wrote his Book of Revelation on the island of Patmos, sometime between A.D. 64-96.


Dating The Book of Revelation:


Wikipedia: Dating The Book of Revelation:


<>
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_Benjamin McGuire
_Emeritus
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

Post by _Benjamin McGuire »

Jesus is a god. He has always been a god, is co-eternal with the Father (and even a reflection of Him).
While this may be true in a popular sense, it isn't true in any theological sense. The problem occurs in the notion of Jesus being wholly man. As theologians have noted, you can't have Jesus be fully man and also preexistent (unless you assume the preexistence of all humanity). Jesus is what happens when the preexisting second member of the Godhead is united with that which is created to become Jesus. Even referring to the preexistence of the Messiah has been noted as being problematic, and referring to Jesus as preexisting within the intentions of deity doesn't adequately deal with the topic either. Jesus is created. This doesn't mean in orthodox theology that the second person of the Godhead that exists prior to Jesus is created. The second half of this is also an issue. Jesus isn't, technically speaking, God. He is both God and man. But it isn't appropriate in Christian theology to refer to the manhood of Jesus as God.

Ben M.
Post Reply