Why LDS Mormons are not Christian.

[_Ray A]

Catholicism is based on the Bible only.

I presume you know that until recent times Catholic Bibles contained the Apocrypha? (I think some still do) I in fact have an old Catholic Bible with the Apocrypha. The preface to this Bible explains what "scripture" is. Worth reading. It's not how today's Evs define scripture, and indeed the four Gospels were selected from some 80 Gospels.

[_Ray A]

beastie, can you provide an example of a religion that is not Christian but does involve Christ?

I'll add to that list the Baha'i.

My belief in Christ rests upon the testimony of Baha'u'llah that Christ truly manifests God....

[_huckelberry]

Mormonism is not a "subset" of Christianity. "Christian" faiths have two things in common:

1) Christian faiths base their doctrine on the Bible only. They may disagee and different aspects, but the doctrine is constant.

2) All Christian faiths reject Mormon doctrine as being from a false prophet of God.

Mormons are not Christians and Christians are not Mormons... only Mormons are Mormons.

There is a recent thoughtful thread on arguments which beg the question. Here is one making no effort to hide the problem. I am not the first on the thread to notice. I think everybody but Thews sees it. I am asking why the author is being slow to see the problem.

(aside about Eallusion whats the meaning of the bullet in the fish tank? Interesting image)

I have two theories for the blind spot. One Thews feels committed to defending Christian doctrine and feels that the best way of defending against doctrines seen as error is to declare the group holding the doctrines as not Christian. By this line of thought Mormons believe in Jesus but fail in their responsibility to protect true doctrine so are not properly Christian. In this sense the word does not just refer to a relationship to Jesus but to the Church responsibility to teach properly.

I can feel some sympathy for this view. I agree with the responsibility. But would it not be clearer to say that Mormons are Christians who have accepted some wrong ideas and believe in bogus authority.

Is it not possible to say that Christians make some serious mistakes?

Or instead should one say that people who taught that Black people should be slaves cannot be Christian? Or perhaps people who burnt Indian villages could not be Christian even if the incendiaries were ministers of Churches. Or perhaps any group which would cook another human on a stake because they taught doctrinal error cannot be Christian. Or perhaps no group which killed old ladies as witches can be Christian. Or perhaps in direct contradiction to Pauls instruction in Romans setting themselves above Jews would disqualify a group from being Christian. How much more so would be putting Jews in ghettos and periodically going on Jew killing sprees would disqualify.

Blood on their hands all over the world. The last true Christian was rejected by his followers and naild to a cross. None of the ones after are true. All false like Thews and I

[_Gazelam]

Nyal,
I haven't read through all seven pages, but I thought I'd add my two cents here anyway.

Here is the difference between the Mormon Christ and the common Christ you hear about elsewhere: While others feel we are saved by grace, Latter-Day Saints believe that we are saved by grace through covenants.

From the title page of the Book of Mormon we read the purpose of the book, this is found in the second paragraph:

...Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever....

You might recall the prophecy from Malachi about the childrens hearts turning to their Fathers. This is similar to Abrahams desires to the rights of the priesthood (Abr. 1:2) and also Abrahams desires for his children to have the rights of the priesthood (Abr. 2:9-11).

On the subject of Christ we should look at what the prophet Mormon had to say in regards to Christ fulfilling his promise in regard to these covenants, from 3 Nephi chapter 5:

24 And as surely as the Lord liveth, will he gather in from the four quarters of the earth all the remnant of the seed of Jacob, who are scattered abroad upon all the face of the earth.
25 And as he hath covenanted with all the house of Jacob, even so shall the covenant wherewith he hath covenanted with the house of Jacob be fulfilled in his own due time, unto the restoring all the house of Jacob unto the knowledge of the covenant that he hath covenanted with them.
26 And then shall they know their Redeemer, who is Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and then shall they be gathered in from the four quarters of the earth unto their own lands, from whence they have been dispersed; yea, as the Lord liveth so shall it be. Amen.

You might have noticed in those verses an emphasis on the word "covenant". We understand the covenant of salvation to be baptism and the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost. "As the Lord livith" is strong language. He means to say that if these things do not occur then there is no God. He uses the term twice.

He is so emphatic about these things because he knows that the way God makes himself known to his children is through covenants. He knows that it is in the living of covenants the Holy Ghost moves upon us and teaches us to be Christlike, there is no other way God functions, he has been a covenant God from the beginning. He has sought to bless his children with priesthood responsibilities, with covenant responsibilities, with the schools of sacrifice and repentance and promise making and keeping.

Christs commandment to us all is to be baptised, to enter into the covenant and to take upon ourself his name. (Matt 28:19-20, Mark 16:16, 3 Nephi 11:38, D&C 18:21-22) We are not teaching a strange doctrine about Christ, we are stating that the authority to bind and seal up all those who wish to take upon themselves the name of Christ has been restored to the earth once again through the prophet Joseph Smith. Peter, James and John sent John the Baptist to restore the authority to baptise, and then they themselves came and restored the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

You are foolish to criticise these things. Your smater than you are acting in your foolish opening post. Come back home and testify the truthfulness these things again and stop being so rebellious.

Gaz

[_beastie]

Just a reminder, to any and all Christians who deny Mormonism is a Christian religion:

Do you believe that Mormons who strictly adhere to their own theology will be accepted into Heaven? Will a Mormon who believes that Jesus is the Christ, and accepts Jesus as his/her savior, but believes in LDS eternal progression, get into Heaven?

Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

Jersey Girl, I'm particularly interested in your answer to this question since you so clearly articulated the idea that individual LDS may be Christian, while the religion in general is not.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Everyone,

I find it curious that certain people still find the notion of speaking on behalf of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient god unproblematic.

Very Respectuflly,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_EAllusion]

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.

[_thews]

One Thews feels committed to defending Christian doctrine and feels that the best way of defending against doctrines seen as error is to declare the group holding the doctrines as not Christian. By this line of thought Mormons believe in Jesus but fail in their responsibility to protect true doctrine so are not properly Christian. In this sense the word does not just refer to a relationship to Jesus but to the Church responsibility to teach properly.

When you say "Jesus" in the above sentence, which Jesus are you talking about? My point in this definition is who Jesus was and how Jesus is just another God in Mormonism, which is why I don't believe Mormons are "Christian." I've had an internet discussion with a Mormon who denied being a Mormon flat out, but believed in the "Holy Book of Mormon" and defined his beliefs as Christian. This is one case, but the differences in doctrine between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity are so vast that the only thing even remotely close is the Bible, and most Mormons (my opinion) use the JST "footnotes" version of the Bible, which is in my opinion different than using the KJV, because it points out where Joseph Smith found fault with the Bible and changed it.

I can feel some sympathy for this view. I agree with the responsibility. But would it not be clearer to say that Mormons are Christians who have accepted some wrong ideas and believe in bogus authority.

Consider this:

Potential new member: I have some questions.
Mormon: We have some answers, want to come over for Bible study?
Potential new member: What religion are you?
Mormon: Christian.

This deception to insinuate Mormons are mainstream Christians is wrong, because they are in fact Mormons and use an exclusive doctrine from a supposed prophet of God that only they accept.

Is it not possible to say that Christians make some serious mistakes?

Yes. I don't belong to any organized church and don't really believe in organized religion. This may seem like semantics to some, but consider this:

http://www.ontruth.com/mrm2.html

On the other hand, informed evangelicals are generally outraged about the Mormon assertion that Mormons are Christians, or that the Mormon Church is a Christian church, an for good reason. Consider the following remarks made by Republican Presidential Candidate, the Honorable Orrin Hatch, at a recent meeting of the Christian Coalition in Washington, D.C. Hatch was only politely received at the largely conservative evangelical event when introduced. Referring to a poll that indicated that 17% of Americans would never elect an LDS member to the presidency, Hatch remarked, "Well, I can't do anything about bigots or bigotry, but I can do a lot about people who are misinformed. . . . I take my Christian faith very, very seriously." 6 Then Bishop Hatch bore his testimony saying,

I know that Jesus is the Christ. I know that he lives. I know that he died for you and me. I know that he has provided a means by which we may go back to our Father in Heaven to live in peace and prosperity . . . It is from this land that true freedom has gone all the way around the world . . . God bless America, and God bless all of you.7

There are at least two features of Hatch's speech that demand a non-conciliatory apologetic response. Hatch enjoyed a rousing standing ovation from the Christian Coalition after his testimony of Christian identity in light of the cool reception he got at the time of his introduction. And the Deseret News gloated openly when it issued the headline, "Hatch wins over skeptical Christian group--Standing ovation after he stands up for his religion."8

When Hatch siad, "I take my Christian faith very seriously" he was evading the fact that he was Mormon and being deceptive.

Or instead should one say that people who taught that Black people should be slaves cannot be Christian? Or perhaps people who burnt Indian villages could not be Christian even if the incendiaries were ministers of Churches. Or perhaps any group which would cook another human on a stake because they taught doctrinal error cannot be Christian. Or perhaps no group which killed old ladies as witches can be Christian. Or perhaps in direct contradiction to Pauls instruction in Romans setting themselves above Jews would disqualify a group from being Christian. How much more so would be putting Jews in ghettos and periodically going on Jew killing sprees would disqualify.

Not sure what your point is here, but I've heard the arguments from Mormons claiming other Christian churches were racist (back in the early 1800's) so it absolves them too. As Americans, we basically killed the American Indians and don't deserve a free pass on the "did a bad bad thing list." But, back to racism, a lot of Mormons don't know that the Mormon church banned balcks from holding the priesthood until 1978. The out here is like other Mormon two-wrongs-make-a-right arguments, when the doctrine had to change to remove "White and delightsom" when defining who is cursed by being Dark and loathsome.

Blood on their hands all over the world. The last true Christian was rejected by his followers and naild to a cross. None of the ones after are true. All false like Thews and I

There's holes in all organized religion in my opinion, but this thread is regarding the definition of what Christianity encompasses. Again:

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)

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

"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).

"for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).

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).

"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171);

[_KimberlyAnn]

Forgive me if I'm repeating what has earlier been mentioned in this thread, as I've not time to read the whole thing at the moment, but I find it ironic that Mormons want the term "Christian" applied broadly so as to include belief systems, such as their own, which fall outside historical Christendom, while, at the same time, insisting that the term "Mormon" be applied narrowly so as to exclude the FLDS, whose beliefs fall squarely inside historical Mormonism.

If the FLDS, with all their close ties to historical Mormonism, aren't toeing the doctrinal line enough to be called Mormon, then Mormonism is light years away from toeing the doctrinal line enough to be called Christian.

KA

[_beastie]

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.

DING DING DING DING

That is exactly what is happening - if anyone needs more evidence that EA is absolutely correct in his assessment, just read thews' most recent post. It's all about theological correctness. Of course Mormonism is not theologically compatible with EV Christianity - but neither is Catholicism.

I find it curious that certain people still find the notion of speaking on behalf of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient god unproblematic.

Amen. In my view, the arrogance of nonLDS Christians telling Mormons that their religion is "not Christian" is every bit the equivalent of LDS telling Christians that their churches are apostate religions.

Forgive me if I'm repeating what has earlier been mentioned in this thread, as I've not time to read the whole thing at the moment, but I find it ironic that Mormons want the term "Christian" applied broadly so as to include belief systems, such as their own, which fall outside historical Christendom, while, at the same time, insisting that the term "Mormon" be applied narrowly so as to exclude the FLDS, whose beliefs fall squarely inside historical Mormonism.

If the FLDS, with all their close ties to historical Mormonism, aren't toeing the doctrinal line enough to be called Mormon, then Mormonism is light years away from toeing the doctrinal line enough to be called Christian.

Just remember there are two sides to that coin. NonLDS who insist that FLDS ought rightfully be called Mormon ought to also admit that Mormons can be called Christian.

In my view, as a feeble atheist, my LDS parents are as Christian as any of you, in every meaning of the word. And if your God is going to ban them from his presence because they had the misfortune of believing the "wrong" theology, that God isn't worth worshiping and, frankly, doesn't even deserve respect.

Huck's God is one that merits some respect, and I give Huck kudos. To me, some of you just sound like you traded one form of "One True Religion" for another. To my atheist ears, it all sounds like the same blah, blah, blah - someone crowned themselves the Royal Interpreter of God Almighty.