Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_harmony]

Name one piece of Mormon doctrine shared with Christianity.

That everyone dies and is resurrected.

Name one theology regarding Jesus Christ that's shared between Mormonism and Christianity.

That he atoned for our sins.

[_thews]

Name one piece of Mormon doctrine shared with Christianity.

That everyone dies and is resurrected.

That isn't doctrine.

Name one theology regarding Jesus Christ that's shared between Mormonism and Christianity.

That he atoned for our sins.

Who is "he" in the above? The brother of Satan and a distinct personage apart from the Holy Ghost and God? Who is this?

[_Jason Bourne]

I want to note I think this thread has really been pretty good and a reasonable discussion for the most part. If it continues I hope and can stay that way.


Really Thews? Not one thing in LDS Doctrine that is also doctrine in Orthodox Christianity?

Well let's list a few. And yes the resurrection of human kind resulting from Jesus breaking the bands of death is doctrine. So let's start with that one. I will provide a few others. You can feel free to agree, disagree and/or expand upon why you don't think it is doctrinal. I imagine ahead of time you will use the different Jesus ploy. But if you want we can discuss whether the divergent views on the nature of God are enough to kick the LDS Church out of being a Christian, albeit non Orthodox, sect.

From the title page of the Book of Mormon:

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—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

Next how about everything the Gospels of the NY teach about Jesus life and mission and purpose:

1: He is the Son of God
2: Born of the Virgin Mary
3: That He was sinless and perfect
4: That He actually lived and performed the miracles attributed to Him in the New Testament
5: That He died and shed His blood for the sins of human kind.
6: That he was resurrected on the third day and because of that all will be resurrected and stand before the judgement bar of God.
7: That the name of Jesus Christ is the only name where by we can be saved...yes I know there are differences in this area as far as exactly what salvation means and is.
8: That he is One in purpose, might, mind, power, glory and so on with God the Father and the Holy Ghost though this is likely one of the greatest places for divergence.
9: That he ascended into Heaven and will come again in glory and power to rule and reign on this earth.
10: That He now sits on the right hand of the Father. That he was chosen before He was born and one with the Father as described above and that he emptied Himself of that Glory to come to the earth to save us.
11: That we are saved by Grace-Mormons really do believe in grace, but works as well and view them as really going hand in hand-I imagine this could be a big area for disagreement and arguments. But based on one of your posts earlier which I may comment on it is clear that Christians in general do not agree on this point either.
12: That he is the Firstborn of all creation which is from the New Testament canon.


How about that God created the world, that there was a flood at the time of Noah, that God made his covenant with Abraham and the House of Israel was God's chosen nation through which the Messiah would come.

How about some of these from unique LDS Canon:

Mosiah 27:23-26
23 And it came to pass after they had fasted and prayed for the space of two days and two nights, the limbs of Alma received their strength, and he stood up and began to speak unto them, bidding them to be of good comfort:

24 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit.

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

Note see 2 Corinthians 5:27 for comparison

How about this exposition about the fall, justice, mercy and redemption. Hoops should like this because it shows the Book of Mormon teaches God is justice and mercy.

Alma 42:10-26

10Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

11And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

12And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;

13Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

14And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

15And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

16Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the claw, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23But God easeth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth eback men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy laimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

26And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery.

How about this.... I will bold parts I think are pertinent:

D&C20:17-32

17By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite andceternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

18And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

19And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

20But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.


21Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

22He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

23He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;

24And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;

25That as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and endure in faith to the end, should be saved—

26Not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh, but all those from the beginning, even as many as were before he came, who believed in the words of the holy prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost, who truly testified of him in all things, should have eternal life,

27As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son;

28Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

29And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

30And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true;

31And we know also, that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength.


32But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God;

33Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation;

34Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also.

Now a lot of the above is similar to Christian doctrine though some about grace, justification, repentance and so on could be debated. Hoops may think there is too much placed on works there. But other Christian sects might find nothing wrong with anything directly above.

Well, time is limiting and I want to respond to some other posts at some point as well.

So feel free to pick it apart.

[_Jason Bourne]

Liz, please define one piece of the Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith that is accepted as "Christian".

I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell. (2 Nephi 33:6).

This one too Thews. Thanks Consig!

[_Jason Bourne]

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.” LDS teach something similar, but it’s in regards to the faith of the parents. If LDS parents are faithful and teach their children well, even if those children stray from the path, they will one day return “home.”

I think that some of the EVs I’ve talked to in the past blame Mormonism for my current problems with belief and cut me some slack due to that. But to accept that I’m unsaved because of my subsequent actions after accepting Jesus as my Savior means that salvation is conditional on more than just accepting Jesus as one’s Savior. As I said, I understand that not all EVs adhere to “once saved, always saved” and maybe you don’t. So I understand, if you reject that idea, you saying I’m not saved NOW.

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. 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.

Well said and that is the rub. So many Christians I talk to about Grace and saved by grace once one really accepts Jesus as Lord and savior forget about so many that have done that then abandoned the faith. They tell me "well that person was likely never really saved." I just scratch my head and say huh? Well if they were saved I have been told, then the works follow. Ok so works are important? No only so much as they show we are saved. So no works then no salvation? No not really. So I ask what if someone accepts Jesus as Savior and for ten years demonstrates the fruits of the spirit and their conversion by abundance of works but them something changes and they sin, murder, commit adultery and proclaim disbelief. Well I am told that person was probably never saved.

Now I am not portraying a caricature here. I have had this conversation many times with many persons.

So yes is seems to me the works are important to more saved by grace only types as well. I think Mormons and more Orthodox Christians talk past each other on this and we may be more similar than we think.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Just another suggestion from the peanut gallery.

When Mormons are asked to make the best case for their Christianity, almost 100% of the time they head straight for the Book of Mormon and the early D&C sections (by early I mean pre-Nauvoo, which actually makes up the vast majority of the D&C).

This is fine, and I am in agreement that these sections are grounded in traditional Christianity, especially the Book of Mormon. But to an outsider, this may not strengthen the case you are making. Most Christians who take the time to research Mormon history and doctrine come to a similar conclusion: The early stuff is fine, it's the later stuff that causes problems. And, because the early stuff is generally reinterpreted in terms of the later stuff, it tends to discount the earlier stuff.

A similar problem can be found in Christianity. Suppose a traditional Christian is accused of being an antinomian. To combat this charge they open up the Old Testament and start reading off all of the laws the Bible commands, then concludes they are not antinomian because plenty of laws are in "The Good Book," and they most certainly believe in the "The Good Book." The problem of course is all of those Old Testament passages are reinterpreted in the light of the New Testament, especially Paul. Just citing passages does not change the entire interpretive framework.

I am glad that Mormons, especially more liberal ones, are returning to earlier Mormon doctrines in the Book of Mormon, which are more traditionally Christian. The real issue is to get the leadership of the church to follow suit.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Yes indeed. One thing I find is those of the Christian flavor Hoops has is this. You can attend a Church and worship anywhere. Your denomination may not be Christian but you can be. However your Church, and for Hoops and others certainly Momronism, can really get in the way of you truly enjoying the fruits of your salvation and walk with God in this life.

[_Jason Bourne]

Just another suggestion from the peanut gallery.

When Mormons are asked to make the best case for their Christianity, almost 100% of the time they head straight for the Book of Mormon and the early D&C sections (by early I mean pre-Nauvoo, which actually makes up the vast majority of the D&C).

This is fine, and I am in agreement that these sections are grounded in traditional Christianity, especially the Book of Mormon. But to an outsider, this may not strengthen the case you are making. Most Christians who take the time to research Mormon history and doctrine come to a similar conclusion: The early stuff is fine, it's the later stuff that causes problems. And, because the early stuff is generally reinterpreted in terms of the later stuff, it tends to discount the earlier stuff.

A similar problem can be found in Christianity. Suppose a traditional Christian is accused of being an antinomian. To combat this charge they open up the Old Testament and start reading off all of the laws the Bible commands, then concludes they are not antinomian because plenty of laws are in "The Good Book," and they most certainly believe in the "The Good Book." The problem of course is all of those Old Testament passages are reinterpreted in the light of the New Testament, especially Paul. Just citing passages does not change the entire interpretive framework.

I am glad that Mormons, especially more liberal ones, are returning to earlier Mormon doctrines in the Book of Mormon, which are more traditionally Christian. The real issue is to get the leadership of the church to follow suit.

This is a fair point. From 1838 back there is not so much that traditional Christianity may disagree with in Mormonism. Oh sure they would reject the Book of Mormon as on par with the Bible, they would reject the D&C as actual revelation. There may be debate about the role of grace and works. But it is the later theology that likely is more the game changer.

That said, every thing I posted is still Mormon Doctrine and part of the LDS canon and teachings. It seem to me that the major issue is does that doctrine still remain valid and applicable and still tilt the LDS Church as part of the Christian umbrella or do the later developments, particularly about the nature of God give it the boot? You know, the wrong Jesus argument.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Again I understand the divergence. But here is the problem I have. The history of how what is now generally accepted as the teachings on the nature of the Godhead from the days of Christ forward have been fraught with debates, posturing, politicking and have taken hundreds of years to develop. And while I am not an expert on all the twists and turns of trinity theology I do believe there are still diverging and competing views today about this interesting topic. Just what is the nature of God. I hardly think, and I believe most Orthodox Christian theologians would agree, that you cannot get what is considered Orthodox from the Bible alone. And there are contradicting statements in the Bible about the Godhead and what it means that there are three persons called God yet still considered One God.

For example when Jesus says the Father is greater than He is does this not do tipsy turvey with the idea that he is one of three persons that are all One God ans substance? Oh I know that must have been only while Jesus was a mortal on the earth. But wait, Jesus was fully God and man at the same time while on the earth and he still said the Father was greater than he.

And how about this. If Jesus is One God with the Father in substance and essence and Jesus still has his glorified an resurrected body how does that work? Does he have more knowledge and experience than the Father part of God because th Father is still spirit?

How does one must deal with these and say for certain this is really what God is? Well it seems it is what the winners and majority now accept. But is has been debated, is still debated and so on. So along come Mormons and they define Jesus differently. Yet they still attribute to Jesus all the power and attributes that the Bible teaches about him. They worship him in a way that Muslims who recognize his teachings don't. Does saying the Jesus was the firstborn of God's spirit Children (at the same time keeping in minds Mormons believe our intelligence always existed and the Jesus was Chosen from the beginning, and One with the Father before this life) and a perhaps brother to all the Father's other spirit children, including one that rebelled really mean that all the other faith and power Mormons still believe Jesus had is now negated?

[_Jason Bourne]

Be careful when you lump all supposed "EV's" into one bucket. There may be some "EV's" that claim to know they are supposedly "saved" and what constitutes being saved, but no man/woman knows this answer, as it's all a function of interpretation. I don't believe in hell and I reject the notion that a person can claim to know what qualifies for being "saved" as they put it. Judgment isn't one of any man/woman, as it is of God... there is no foregone conclusion. What one believes is their opinion, but to claim to be "saved" is absolute BS in my opinion. I am a Christian because I believe Jesus Christ was God. I don't subscribe to stereotypical "saved" BS because it's arrogant. One is not "saved" unless God dictates one is saved, but who, besides God, makes this decision?

So I wonder now,it seems to me the this view by Thews is rather different than that of Hoops and a few others. Hoops does not seem to believe in eternal security and his comments about when one knows they are saved are not all that different than a Mormon might make. Where does that place his Christianity?