Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

[_beastie]

The MPH effect, perhaps?

Yes, clearly MPH isn't related to the Biblical Jesus. But Mormonism's Jesus is.

My old Episcopalian priest told me that he didn't believe in the Virgin Birth - he believed Jesus was "made divine", or "made God's son" through his holiness. Is he Christian?

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie,

Just for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to credit Joseph Smith with the bringing forth of Mormonism. I also want to admit that I should have corrected GP's proposal from the start, at least in terms of my own position, but I was posting while working online and didn't bother to think about it.

The argument should not be in terms of whether or not Mormons are Christians. I no more support that argument than I support my being characterized as an "anti-Mormon". I want to take the argument off the backs of the people here.

The discussion should be an examination of the religious theology and doctrine.

Enough said.

I've engaged this topic too many times and although I know where it's going to go, I'll give it a bit of a go here and take up for GP's intended (though poorly stated) premise because he lacks the confidence to do so.


You wrote,

I don't know of any other, either.

There aren't any.

I didn't misunderstood. I'm trying to show that there are serious divisions within the larger Christian community that have to do with the nature of the godhead and the nature of mankind.

The divisions don't change the nature of God or Jesus, beastie. When Joseph Smith changed the nature of God and man, as well as God's relationship to man, he effectively took Mormonism off the Christian highway and created a road of his own that excepting the surface terminology, in no way resembles Christianity and it doesn't claim to.

Mormonism is a Christian heresy and as richardmdborn pointed out, it more closely resembles the Paganism that is condemned throughout the Bible, which Mormonism claims to accept as scripture.

Just how do you decide which of these divisions merit a faith being excluded from being called "Christian"? If not agreeing on the nature of the godhead isn't reason enough to exclude a faith, why would this be reason enough to exclude Mormonism?

Because as I implied earlier, the nature of the godhead doesn't change the nature of the God of Christianity, beastie. It doesn't matter if three are working in concert or separately, so long as they are speaking with "one voice" and sending the same "message".

Joseph Smith changed the voice of God, he changed the very nature of God in relation to mankind.

I want to emphasize, again, that these distinctions obviously make Mormonism non-mainstream. But do these distinctions make Mormonism non-Christian

I believe that they do make Mormonism, non-Christian.

[_richardMdBorn]

The MPH effect, perhaps?

Yes, clearly MPH isn't related to the Biblical Jesus. But Mormonism's Jesus is.

My old Episcopalian priest told me that he didn't believe in the Virgin Birth - he believed Jesus was "made divine", or "made God's son" through his holiness. Is he Christian?

From the BBC comedy series Yes Minister

"An atheist clergyman could not continue to draw his stipend, so when they stop believing in God they call themselves 'modernists'."

http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_mini ... quotes.htm

[_MsJack]

Good points, Jack, but I wanted to ask you the same question I asked Jersey Girl and GP:

Are only trinitarians Christians?

Well, there's two dimensions to answering this question for me: the spiritual one and the classification question.

As far as classification goes in the study of religion, no, Trinitarians are not the only Christians.

Don’t all Christian religions interpret the Bible, the nature of Jesus, and the godhead in various ways? At what point does it become “another religion”? Where is the theological line drawn?

There's no easy answers to this question, beastie. One could also ask where we ought to draw the theological lines in terms of who is and who isn't Jewish. There are Messianic Jews (people who believe Jesus is the Christ but are otherwise observing the laws of Judaism) who want to be categorized as Jewish. The Jewish community is adamant in denying this classification to them. Who's right?

I would suggest that a good place to draw the theological line might be to examine a group's baptismal covenant. If that covenant absolutely mandates faith in something other than the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it has crossed the border into its own religion. That would put Mormonism outside the ring since Mormonism demands faith in the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith at baptism.

However, I don't know the specifics of the baptismal covenants for the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. I'd need to test this theory a bit more.

The problem here is that the LDS have much in common with the paganism which was the opponent of Old Testament Judaism and the early Church. Thus, in many ways they are a throw back to an earlier pagan religion with some Christian elements added.

I don't think classifying Mormonism as "paganism" would do it any justice though.

It's best classified as a new religion in my opinion. It's just too small for most people to consider it that though.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, clearly MPH isn't related to the Biblical Jesus. But Mormonism's Jesus is.

The Mormon Jesus (which is exactly what this discussion is going to boil down to "another Jesus") is related to the Biblical Jesus in the same way that I and my Jersey childhood gf are related: superficially. We both grew up in the same town, our birthdays are in the same month, and we are the same age.

We are not the same women.

My old Episcopalian priest told me that he didn't believe in the Virgin Birth - he believed Jesus was "made divine", or "made God's son" through his holiness. Is he Christian?

No.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jack

I would suggest that a good place to draw the theological line might be to examine a group's baptismal covenant. If that covenant absolutely mandates faith in something other than the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it has crossed the border into its own religion. That would put Mormonism outside the ring since Mormonism demands faith in the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith at baptism.

However, I don't know the specifics of the baptismal covenants for the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. I'd need to test this theory a bit more.

What about looking at statements of confessions of faith of each, Jack?

[_Ray A]

However, I don't know the specifics of the baptismal covenants for the Roman Catholics,

It's difficult to make a baptismal covenant when you're only a week old. Unless "goo-gah" counts.

[_richardMdBorn]

The problem here is that the LDS have much in common with the paganism which was the opponent of Old Testament Judaism and the early Church. Thus, in many ways they are a throw back to an earlier pagan religion with some Christian elements added.

I don't think classifying Mormonism as "paganism" would do it any justice though.

It's best classified as a new religion in my opinion. It's just too small for most people to consider it that though.

I agree with you that it's a new religion, but I think it's a syncretistic combination of Christianity and paganism.

[_Jersey Girl]

However, I don't know the specifics of the baptismal covenants for the Roman Catholics,

It's difficult to make a baptismal covenant when you're only a week old. Unless "goo-gah" counts.

Then how about Confirmation or First Holy Communion, will that work for you?

[_Jersey Girl]

GP,

Have you abandoned this thread? I need to know, for my own sake, how many oars are in the water here.