Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_beastie]

I could care less about whether or not the LDS Church is admitted into the country club of mainstream Christianity, but I'll be damned if you, or anyone else is going to tell me whether or not I worship Jesus Christ.

I don't think they're trying to tell you whether or not you worship JC.

They're trying to tell you that the teachings of your church do not encourage the worship of JC. The teachings of the LDS church as so fundamentally wrong, so fundamentally nonChristian, that it is harder for a "saved" Mormon (which can exist) to have True freedom in Christ.

In other words, your church is a stumbling block.

[_beastie]

According to this website, this is what the Catholic church teaches about "once saved, always saved."

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on "Once Saved, Always Saved:"
161. "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. [Cf. Mk 16:16 ; Jn 3:36 ; Jn 6:40 ; et al.] 'Since 'without faith it is impossible to please (God)' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'']"

162. "Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: 'Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.' [1 Tim 1:18-19 .] To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; [Cf. Mk 9:24 ; Lk 17:5 ; Lk 22:32.] it must be 'working through charity,' abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church. [Gal 5:6 ; Rom 15:13 ; cf. Jam 2:14-26.]"

So again, a combination of works AND faith.

The crux seems to be that the LDS church teaches the "wrong" things about the godhead. That's the only argument I can see with any sticking power, so far.

But as I said repeatedly on this thread, it's not like the early Christian community had immediate consensus on what the godhead was, anyway. They fought about it for hundreds of years.

If a God exists, human beings will necessarily be very limited in our ability to grasp what that godbeing is like. We are too fundamentally limited. So to use a definition of something that can't be TRULY grasped in the first place to exclude a group from being "Christian" seems unfair to me.

And, of course, as I've said before, I want to note that Mormonism is just as exclusionary and dismissive towards other religions. They have "some" truth, but lack proper authority, yadda yadda yadda. So, to repeat myself, Mormons can only expect so much good will from mainstreamers.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Liz,

A few pages back you offered this as a valid definition of Christian.

One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I don't think it's adequate. Here's why.

Like many dictionary definitions it doesn't say much and borders on being circular. It defines Christian in terms of something equally vague, namely "the teachings of Jesus Christ." So now instead of arguing about what a Christian is, we get to argue about what Jesus Christ taught.

The definition seems reasonable because everyone who claims to be a Christian also thinks they know what Jesus Christ taught, and that usually matches up with that person's ideas of ethics and divinity. Well, there are plenty of people who consider Jesus to be a proto-Marxist. Does that mean Marxists are really Christians? There are also plenty of people who think Jesus was a proto-feminist, which would make 3rd wave feminists to be Christians. Jesus taught obedience to the Mosaic law in Matthew, thus the only real Christians are Jews, etc.

So to avoid that, one has to appeal to what is the most common notion of what Christ taught, i.e. how to interpret his teachings in the New Testament. The only things I can think of which fit that bill are the ecumenical councils, almost universally accepted by orthodox Christians. But that of course excludes Mormons.

Again, I'm not taking a side on the debate, merely pointing out why the definition doesn't work.

I believe in the same beatitudes, the same sacrifices of Christ that you do, Thews.

Having been on both sides of the aisle, I'm not really sure that's the case. The LDS conception of Christ is radically different than the orthodox position. Now perhaps you (Liz) have the same conception as Thews, but that would only be because you have departed from LDS orthodoxy on the matter.

[_beastie]

Luke 9

49And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

[_consiglieri]

Luke 9

49And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

BUT

Matthew 12:30--He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Who says the Bible contradicts itself? ;^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Guest]

Liz, please define one piece of the Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith that is accepted as "Christian". The answer is there isn't anything Christian about Mormon doctrine. The one common doctrine is belief in the Bible, but the Mormon prophet of God changed the Bible, making all of Mormon doctrine exclusive to Mormonism.

This attempted wordplay is easily compared to the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Jews reject the New Testament. Christians reject the Mormon doctrine translated by Joseph Smith. I would guess you'd counter with "some Christians" reject Mormon doctrine, and I would counter that makes as much sense as stating "some Jews" reject the New Testament. This question attempts to define what Christianity encompasses and fails to define what a "Mormon" is by definition. I can agree that Mormonism has roots in Christian doctrine, but Mormon doctrine is not, in any way shape or form, "Christian"... it's "Mormon" by definition.

For arguments sake, let me present an absurd analogy. The Lucky Charms leprechaun speaks to me telling me that he has a restored doctrine of Jesus Christ. I translate the magical plates he gives me using magical seer stones and change the Bible. Would a church based on this premise be defined as "Christian" because I started with the Bible and claimed Jesus Christ was giving me this new doctrine? Isn't the concept of a "restored" version of what Jesus Christ supposedly taught warrant a different definition? In this analogy, I place as much faith in a cartoon leprechaun as I do in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Do you see the point?

First of all, Joseph Smith did not rewrite the entire Bible. We use the King James version of the Bible as our canon, with cross-references pointing to portions of the Bible which Joseph Smith retranslated.

What is your point? Just because Joseph Smith "translated" some of the Bible and you "use" the JST cross-referencing the KJV it makes it the same? The two versions of the Bible are different and exclusive to the faiths that use them. The question regarding what defines a "Christian" faith is based on doctrine. If you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and Joseph Smith "translated" the Bible to include himself in it, it makes the two different. Only Mormons accept the JST, as Mormons accept Joseph Smith and all of Joseph Smith's doctrine as of God... none of which is shared by other Christian faiths. If you want to play the BCspace card and claim what is "official" doctrine, it doesn't negate placing faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God would assume one would accept his translation (revised) version of the Bible.

Setting that aside, there are several versions of the Bible being used by various Christian sects. If I am not mistaken, the Catholic Church has its own version. There is also the NIV. How is using either of these versions of the Bible any different than using the KJV with cross-references?

Because only the Mormon faith uses Joseph Smith's translation... the only one. Arguing semantics of which version of the Bible other "Christian" churches use is an attempted poly to paint the ruse there are minor differences... they are not minor and there are volumes of doctrine only Mormon use to define who Jesus is. Again, are Jews Christians because Christians claim they are? No, they are not, and that's because they share some doctrine, but Christians accept doctrine Jews reject, which warrants a different definition.

I believe in the same beatitudes, the same sacrifices of Christ that you do, Thews.

Not if you believe in planet Kolob, polygamy as a requirement to enter into God's glory, the brother of Satan and one of two personages (who were both men) you don't... they are not the same. One version, Jesus is God in man, and the other version (Joseph Smith's), are completely different. Heaven is different, and Christians (according to Joseph Smith) are damned for rejecting Mormon doctrine.

I am the first to admit that Mormonism is NOT Orthodox Christianity, and I have been very vocal about my objection to many of the tenets. But I will not stand by and be told that as a Mormon, I do not worship Jesus Christ. It is ludicrous. I do worship Jesus Christ.

Do what you wish and believe what you wish regarding your belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, but Christianity rejects Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God. Only Mormons (LDS) believe in Joseph Smith and his doctrine as of God... it is not Christian.

I could care less about whether or not the LDS Church is admitted into the country club of mainstream Christianity, but I'll be damned if you, or anyone else is going to tell me whether or not I worship Jesus Christ.

I'm not attempting to tell you what you believe, but I'll be damned (literally) if some charlatan named Joseph Smith is telling me I'm damned for rejecting his hocus-pocus translations through his magic rocks. The discussion focuses on what Christianity accepts regarding doctrine, and Christianity rejects Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God and all of Mormon doctrine as false. Do you agree with that statement?

[_consiglieri]

If you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and Joseph Smith "translated" the Bible to include himself in it, it makes the two different.

Although it is of at least passing interest that Joseph Smith once more seems to have hit upon an ancient (and largely lost) aspect of ancient Judaism which expected a Messiah not only to come through the line of Judah, but another Messiah to come through Joseph.

Just sayin' . . .

I'll be damned if some charlatan named Joseph Smith is telling me I'm damned for rejecting his hocus-pocus translations through his magic rocks.

But Joseph Smith never said that to you or anybody else.

In fact, I believe Joseph went on record as not blaming anybody who didn't believe what he said.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_thews]

I'll be damned if some charlatan named Joseph Smith is telling me I'm damned for rejecting his hocus-pocus translations through his magic rocks.

But Joseph Smith never said that to you or anybody else.

In fact, I believe Joseph went on record as not blaming anybody who didn't believe what he said.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You should read the entire thread.

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/mormatak.htm

Joseph Smith - When asked, "Will all be damned but Mormon?" he replied, "Yes, and a great portion of them unless they repent and work righteousness" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 119).

[_consiglieri]

You should read the entire thread.

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/mormatak.htm

Joseph Smith - When asked, "Will all be damned but Mormon?" he replied, "Yes, and a great portion of them unless they repent and work righteousness" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 119).

I see this as more a condemnation of his own rather than a condemnation of non-Mormons.

Most of the answers in this list were given somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I recall.

Joseph had previously received the section 76 vision and knew/believed/taught that virtually all mankind would be saved in one heaven or other.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Jersey Girl]

Devil's advocate chiming in...poor choice of words, I know!

Consig just recopied the definition that Liz posted for "Christian" and it got me thinking about something. No really.

Here's the def

One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If I am not mistaken, Muslim's believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Does that make them Christian?

(If I am wrong about Muslim's, please correct me--please!)