Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_madeleine]

-Original Sin is rejected

Although I fail to see why a denominational view on Original Sin should be controlling on the issue of Christianity, I believe the LDS scriptures actually embrace the concept:

Moses 6:53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.

54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.

The real question is not whether Mormons are Christian, but whether Mormons are Catholic. ;^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I understand LDS teaching is, in Catholic terms, that all have an immaculate conception. (And somehow around age 8 that is lost, but that's another discussion I think.) Non-Catholics don't accept this about anyone. Roman Catholics believe only one person had an immaculate conception, and that is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The relevance is to the point of why our Redemption is necessary.

[Guest]

Actually, I think we are both wrong. All of those points you raised are valid, but completely irrelevant in terms of the 3rd and 4th centuries CE when the debates were taking place. I was wrong to point to the 1st century as being a time when Jews were completely monotheistic. The debates took place in a time period when Judaism was strictly monotheistic, and the Old Testament was seen as completely supporting that proposition.

I would say in the third and fourth centuries the Hebrew Bible was being read as supportive of Trinitarianism, and this was largely a result of the art of allegorical interpretation and the the preeminence of the Septuagint among Christians. We have Origen and others asserting that the Hebrew tradition was being changed to mitigate Christian ideologies. The Septuagint was viewed as a thoroughly Christian version, and it was likely for this reason that rabbinic writings are largely opposed to its proliferation. We have to wait until Jerome and his Hebrew veritas before Christianity acknowledged the priority of the Hebrew.

In any case the debate was an attempt to connect the three divine persons in the New Testament with Jewish monotheism. See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, chapter 4 for a more detailed analysis of the question.

By the third and fourth centuries I believe it's clear the concern was less with connecting the Trinity with Jewish monotheism as with arriving at a consensus that could be reconciled with the now-appropriated Old Testament, the New Testament, and a philosophical worldview. By this point, Judaism had been long jettisoned. I'll happily take a look at that book, though.

I'm not talking about Christological debates, I'm talking about Trinitarian debates.

Trinitarianism is an outgrowth of the christological debates.

The climax of the doctrinal development of the early church was the dogma of the Trinity. In this dogma the church vindicated the monotheism that had been at issue in its conflicts with Judaism, and it came to terms with the concept of the Logos, over which it had disputed with paganism

I don't agree with this statement. The notion of the Trinity did not assuage the Jewish criticisms of Christ's veneration, nor did it really change anything in the minds of Christians. They believed they were right and the Jews were wrong before, during, and after the christological debates. The controversy that led to the Trinity was an internal one, not an external one. The Old Testament had been quite fully appropriated by Christianity by this time. They weren't concerned with Judaism, they were concerned with harmony with their own scriptures.

I have no idea why you are bringin up the filioque question, as is centuries remove from all of this. As for the other stuff, there is an ontological component to the debate. I see the ontology as being motivated by the hermeneutical issue of interpreting the New Testament and the Old Testament together. So while I know what the arguments involved, I'm focusing on a particular motivation for the arguments.

The word was added to the creed in the sixth century. It is quite removed from Nicea, but it is still a part of the christological debates. I agree that the harmony of the Old Testament with the New and with Trinitarianism was a motivating factor, but I don't believe that by this time the Old Testament was viewed as a distinctly Jewish document. It had been firmly taken over by Christianity. To them, the Jews had been misunderstanding their own Bible for centuries anyway. They viewed it as a uniquely Christian document.

Yes, the Mormon approach is unique and original.

Yes, the "Mormon approach" is, by definition, unique to Mormonism, but that's not what you said. You said:

The Mormon strategy is an attempt to get behind the Jewish belief to an earlier belief. This makes sense for Mormons because the Mosaic law is seen as a "lesser law" and the Jews a people with "lesser light and knowledge.

This strategy is not a uniquely Mormon approach. This is a very general description of an approach that describes the Patristic worldview just as well as it describes the Mormon worldview. In your follow up you provide a different description that moves away from the Patristic approach and is more characteristic of the uniquely Mormon approach, but the early church fathers asserted the Mosaic law was a lesser law and the Jews were a people with lesser light and knowledge well before the Mormon church was established. They also tried to get behind the Jewish belief to the beliefs espoused by the authors of the Hebrew Bible (or "an earlier belief"). This is my point.

The Christian position is that God gave Moses the law and the law was good.

I would definitely hesitate to paint all of contemporary Christianity with such a wide brush. In the 19th century with Wellhausen, Kuenen, and others we have the notion that the Law was a legalistic step backward that was instituted by priests subsequent to the prophetic period. That worldview is still around, but there are a number of different interpretations of the value of the Law of Moses that go all the way back to the Patristic era.

There is no Jewish rejection of the gospel at the time of Moses. The gospel preached by Jesus is then seen as somehow going beyond the law. This has lead to shameful Christian supercessionist persecution. Both Mormons and Christians see themselves as in some way improving on the Mosaic law, but they get there by very different means, and that's the point I was making.

I don't find it helpful to speak of "Christians" as a monolithic group that stands opposite Mormonism. Mormonism has a unique interpretation here, no doubt, but the mainstream Christian perspective is hardly univocal.

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply pointing out that you find henoetheism in Genesis, I haven't said anything about Israelite or Judahite worship after Genesis but before the destruction of the second temple (taking my above clarification into account).

Then what does "pre-Mosaic" have to do with it?

And since the LDS church tries to go back as early as possible, it necessarily finds henotheism and runs with it.

It seems to me the history of that doctrine is a bit more complex.

[_maklelan]

Top three. It all hinges on one foundational difference, that being the God of Mormonism is not the God of Christianity.

This is quite flagrantly begging the question.

From there, the differences are exponential.

- Christology is not Christian

This means no one prior to about the middle of the third century CE was a Christian.

- Original Sin is rejected

This means no one before around Irenaeus was a Christian.

- two things which cause Salvation to not be understood correctly

etc. etc. etc.

I wouldn't call Mormonism a Christian denomination. It is not even of the same vine, being something that was planted outside of Christianity. It is something other.

Your argument here begins with the premise that Mormonism is not Christian, so it's hard to take it seriously. Would you mind providing your basic and fundamental definition of the word "Christian"? My hypothesis is that you will either (1) beg the question by crafting the definition so as to specifically exclude Mormonism, (2) try to be more subtle but still craft it so as to exclude everyone from the first century CE, or (3) both.

[_madeleine]

Top three. It all hinges on one foundational difference, that being the God of Mormonism is not the God of Christianity. From there, the differences are exponential.

Oh and this.

Please list what divergences causes the God of Christianity not to be the God of Mormonism

Really I see this hinging on the Nature of God that took Orthodoxy about 1000 years to develop and cannot be arrived at by the Bible alone.

So what about all those before the theological nuances about God were arrived at? And if these are extra biblical why do the extra biblical Mormon teachings about God's nature give them the boot from Christianity? And in fact, but for one or two things in Mormon teaching about the Godhead I think it seems to be more strictly biblical then the historical creeds and other such things about God.

Of course I imagine I will be told I am biased.

It is clear that God in three Persons has always been taught, including in scripture. Early Christian writings teach it. Various heresies arose, most of them Christological in nature (which is the error of Mormonism as well) and they are well documented by those who defended against them.

Mormons always seem to focus on the heresies of Arius. Arius fled to the East when he was excommunicated by his bishop in the West, and his teachings were declared heretical. In the East, his teachings took hold and were very popular. The First Council of Nicaea met to address the heresies of Arius, all the bishops (about 300), except three, declared Arius a heretic. The Bishops of this council then put into writing the clear beliefs of Christianity, in order that it would be clear to all the faithful.

Mormons (and other non-Trinitarian groups) spin this to say, the First Council of Nicaea came up with new doctrine that did not exist, but this is not accurate or factual.

Catholics, East and West, believe the Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit, and view the philosophical descriptions that were made by the First Council of Nicaea to be, as a friend calls, "cracking a nut". What had always been believed, and affirmed unanimously by the Council, had found words to describe that belief.

I go through this particular Council and decision, in brief, to answer your question about the various heresies over the centuries. As a Roman Catholic, I believe firmly that God guides His Church, and always has. Councils have met through the ages as heresies arose, to address those heresies specifically. They have never met to define new doctrine as defining new doctrine in Catholicism, is heretical in and of itself.

To put it in a way that I like best though, we are a pilgrim Church, the faithful through the ages, in a pilgrimage towards the day when Jesus Christ returns. Faith seeks reason, and through the ages people have always sought to understand, using the reason that God created us, the mysteries of God. It would very un-Catholic to just come up with new doctrine, and/or accept new doctrine. It just doesn't happen. But people will seek ways to understand what God has revealed.

Towards your comment on sola scripture, this is a teaching that has also been declared as heretical by the Council of Trent. It is also a view that is not Biblical. Jesus established His Church and entrusted with Her the Apostolic Faith. This Faith was not written down for at at least 60 years after Christ's birth. The Bible, did not exist for another 240 years. So it is, the Church itself is the deposit of faith. This is what we call Tradition, which is not the same as turkey-on-Thanksgiving tradition, but the faith handed on once and for all, Tradition. Scripture came out of Tradition, and they continue to work together.

Catholic Scripture, taken out of context of the Church from which it came, is interpreted outside of that context, and errors in belief arise. Even among the faithful.

Mormonism rejects the Holy Spirit working in this process, Catholics (East and West) do not.

Protestants are an anomaly to me, rejecting the Church from which Scripture came, but not Her Scriptures, so I have a hard time seeing why they accept Catholic Scripture at all. But, that's another subject!

[_maklelan]

By Christianity, I mean, those who worship the One True God of Christianity.

But this is entirely subjective. You might as well say Christians are everyone I think is Christian.

All Catholics, east and west, mainstream Protestants, most of the major denominations, are all worshipping the same God. Mormons are not.

Mormonism seeks relativism, unless it is referencing itself. But the fact is, Christians are not relative about Who God is, and it is not possible to flatten out Christian faith with Mormon relativism.

I think virtually all Mormons would disagree with your characterization here.

God has created us with a desire for Himself, and Mormons are not born without this desire. People have always in various forms and ways sought out the divine, so in this sense, yes, I believe Mormons have a desire for God, our Creator and Redeemer. I don't disparage this, but neither am I going to reduce my faith in order to tell Mormons they have something they don't. It would in fact be uncharitable on my part to do so.

How on earth does it disparage your faith to say Mormons are Christians? Please be specific.

Mormonism has adopted Christian language but has assigned new definitions to every Christian word and phrase, beginning with the word "God". Mormonism calls Christian and Hebrew scripture corrupt and untrustworthy, and does not truly accept it. There are caveats for Mormons.

According to many contemporary Evangelical views of scripture, few people in antiquity "truly accepted" the Bible.

[_maklelan]

It is clear that God in three Persons has always been taught, including in scripture.

This is demonstrably false. The notion was first developed within post-biblical Christianity as a result of Alexandrian exegesis. The concept appears absolutely nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or Christian scriptures.

Early Christian writings teach it. Various heresies arose, most of them Christological in nature (which is the error of Mormonism as well) and they are well documented by those who defended against them.

Mormons always seem to focus on the heresies of Arius. Arius fled to the East when he was excommunicated by his bishop in the West, and his teachings were declared heretical. In the East, his teachings took hold and were very popular. The First Council of Nicaea met to address the heresies of Arius, all the bishops (about 300), except three, declared Arius a heretic. The Bishops of this council then put into writing the clear beliefs of Christianity, in order that it would be clear to all the faithful.

This is quite a mischaracterization.

Mormons (and other non-Trinitarian groups) spin this to say, the First Council of Nicaea came up with new doctrine that did not exist, but this is not accurate or factual.

The idea had existed for a little while prior to Nicea, but the Nicene expression of it was entirely novel.

Catholics, East and West, believe the Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit, and view the philosophical descriptions that were made by the First Council of Nicaea to be, as a friend calls, "cracking a nut". What had always been believed, and affirmed unanimously by the Council, had found words to describe that belief.

Well, it was not affirmed unanimously by Nicea, even though the threat of banishment was used to compel bishops to accept it. Additionally, the notion that the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed had always been believed is demonstrably false. The notion developed slowly and rather clearly over time.

I go through this particular Council and decision, in brief, to answer your question about the various heresies over the centuries. As a Roman Catholic, I believe firmly that God guides His Church, and always has. Councils have met through the ages as heresies arose, to address those heresies specifically. They have never met to define new doctrine as defining new doctrine in Catholicism, is heretical in and of itself.

To put it in a way that I like best though, we are a pilgrim Church, the faithful through the ages, in a pilgrimage towards the day when Jesus Christ returns. Faith seeks reason, and through the ages people have always sought to understand, using the reason that God created us, the mysteries of God. It would very un-Catholic to just come up with new doctrine, and/or accept new doctrine. It just doesn't happen. But people will seek ways to understand what God has revealed.

Towards your comment on sola scripture, this is a teaching that has also been declared as heretical by the Council of Trent. It is also a view that is not Biblical. Jesus established His Church and entrusted with Her the Apostolic Faith. This Faith was not written down for at at least 60 years after Christ's birth. The Bible, did not exist for another 240 years. So it is, the Church itself is the deposit of faith. This is what we call Tradition, which is not the same as turkey-on-Thanksgiving tradition, but the faith handed on once and for all, Tradition. Scripture came out of Tradition, and they continue to work together.

Catholic Scripture, taken out of context of the Church from which it came, is interpreted outside of that context, and errors in belief arise. Even among the faithful.

Mormonism rejects the Holy Spirit working in this process, Catholics (East and West) do not.

Protestants are an anomaly to me, rejecting the Church from which Scripture came, but not Her Scriptures, so I have a hard time seeing why they accept Catholic Scripture at all. But, that's another subject!

So would you mind providing your basic definition of the word "Christian"?

[_thews]

Is the God of Judaism the God of Christianity?

No, this is why there are different names for the religions and different doctrine used.

Is the God of Catholicism the God of Christianity?

Yes. This is based on the doctrine. While interpretation and rituals may differ, the core doctrine is the same.

Is the God of Ethiopic "Christians" the God of Christianity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_ ... edo_Church

Ethiopian Orthodox believers are strict Trinitarians,[13] maintaining the Orthodox teaching that God is united in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This concept is known as səllasé, Ge'ez for "Trinity".

Was the God of medieval Crusaders the God of Christianity?

The answer can be found in the doctrine used.

How about this one Joseph, are Wiccan-Christians "Christian" by your logic?
http://www.christianwicca.org/

Note in all of the above, none of it uses the Mormon "New" testament of Jesus Christ or belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. This theology is exclusive to Mormonism and so is the doctrine. Your most relevant question is, Is the God of Judaism the God of Christianity? The answer is a one way street for Jews, and both ways for Christians, as Jews reject the New Testament, therefore justifying two different definitions to define the religion. The same scenario plays out with Mormonism and Christianity, because Christianity rejects Mormon doctrine and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. When you add the changes made to the Bible by Joseph Smith, both sets of doctrine are completely different.

My question to you Joseph, is based on doctrine. Is Mormon doctrine, by itself, "Christian" by definition?

[_Some Schmo]

What’s in a name?
That which we call a Christian
By any other name
Would be just as bitchin’!

I had to stop after reading this post to comment:

The fact that you attempted to rhyme "christian" with "bitchin'" makes this the post of the week, in my books. Well done!

[_Some Schmo]

If anyone has any doubt the religion is complete and utter BS, this thread should alleviate that problem. Again, I'm getting that surreal feeling one gets being at a Star Trek convention with a bunch of nerds all standing around discussing the show as though the characters and events are real.

How could anyone possibly be a good christian when nobody can damned agree on what it is in the first place?

Basically, the thread demonstrates that the only requirement to being a christian is to state your BS beliefs as though they're somehow true and meaningful, and that you know what the Screw you're talking about.

Apparently, given how screwed up christians are, it only took Jesus three days to roll over in his grave. Morons.

[_Jason Bourne]

If anyone has any doubt the religion is complete and utter BS, this thread should alleviate that problem. Again, I'm getting that surreal feeling one gets being at a Star Trek convention with a bunch of nerds all standing around discussing the show as though the characters and events are real.

How could anyone possibly be a good christian when nobody can f*****g agree on what it is in the first place?

Basically, the thread demonstrates that the only requirement to being a christian is to state your BS beliefs as though they're somehow true and meaningful, and that you know what the f*** you're talking about.

Apparently, given how f****d up christians are, it only took Jesus three days to roll over in his grave. Morons.

You know I actually feel your pain!