Mormon

Iwasfrozen · 18-06-2009 7:32pm

Blue_Lagoon you're mixing-up two things here: Christianity and religions based on Christianity.

mdebets wrote:

Without going into too much theology, there is one big point, as to how to distinguish between a Christianity and a religion based on Christianity. When you look at all denominations that are called Christians today (e.g. Roman Catholic, Lutherans, Baptistis, Anglicans, etc.), you see that they have one thing in common, their most important book, on which their theology and all their other literature is based, is the Bible (ok, some have taken out or added the odd book, but the main parts are the same for all denominations).
When you now look at the LDS Church, you see that the Book of Mormon stands on the same level as the Bible. This makes it clear that Mormons added something to Christianity. Therefore they are no longer Christians.

How does that work out ? Here was me as an ignorant little Atheist thinking that any one who worshiped and followed Christ must be Christian. But no it seems you must abide only by the Bible ? What nonsense, in that case we should dismiss Catholics as non-Christian as they believe that the word of the Pope is superior to the Bible.

mdebets wrote:

It's similar to Christians and Jews. Both have the Tanakh (Old Testament in Christianity), but Christianity added the new Testament. Using your argument, you could call Christians Jews, as they both have the Old Testament as a holy book, but that is not possible, as Christians are clearly no Jews, as the New Testament is as important as the Old Testament to thyem, something that is not true for Jews.

Or it could be because Christians worship a different God ?

mdebets wrote:

So by the same token, Mormons are not Christians, because they see the Book of Mormon as equal to the Bible, something a christian would never do.

So by the same token, Mormons are Christian because they follow Christ.

Jakkass wrote:

I never said there wasn't a land bridge between North and South America, I was commenting on a land bridge between North Africa and South America. The validity of this only requires a check of whether or not there was such a land bridge in 600BC.

If the Nephites were Jewish from Jerusalem at the time of King Zedekiah like the Book of Mormon says they were Israelites.

There was no land bridge:

Wikipedia wrote:

Finally, Nephi, with the help of the other men in the company, built a ship under the direction of God, and the group crossed the sea to the Americas, which they referred to as the Promised Land.

PDN · 18-06-2009 7:35pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I find it ironic that some people who claim to be Christians, but not of the Mormon denomination, want to exclude them as being Christian.

The official name of the Mormon religion is: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." This is proclaimed by their followers, and is displayed on all their temples, stakes, literature, and official website: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e419fb40e21cef00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD

And the Nazi party was the Nationalsozialismus which, I guess, would make it ironic for any Socialist to deny that Hitler, Himmler & Goebbels were bona fide Socialists?

You can call yourself 'Fido' and live in a kennel - but that doesn't make you a dog.

Black Swan · 18-06-2009 7:38pm

mdebets wrote: »

When you now look at the LDS Church, you see that the Book of Mormon stands on the same level as the Bible. This makes it clear that Mormons added something to Christianity. Therefore they are no longer Christians.

Your exclusion of Mormons as not being Christian is debatable. There are several classification systems of religious beliefs that define The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as Christians.

The United Religious Initiative shows the Latter Day Saints Family as a part of The Christian Family Tree. Source: http://www.uri.org/Christian_Family_Tree.html

"Protestants are clearly the largest branch of Christianity in the United States, followed by Catholics, who have about half as many members. Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are the 3rd largest branch, comprising about 2% of the U.S. population. Catholics, Latter-day Saints, and Orthodox Christians are all branches as well as denominational families, but the Protestant branch of Christianity comprises multiple denominational families."
Source: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#Pew_branches

"Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define 'Christian' very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian." Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

And last, but not least "CHRISTIAN DEFINED" by the Foundation for Christian Studies:

"Jesus Christ in Humility was Inclusionary ... Jesus Christ never administered any theological exams to his disciplines, nor established any notable prerequisites to being a Christian other than to believe on him as the Son of God and 'the way, the truth, and the life.'

"Jesus was never one to be exclusionary in his ministry, but rather inclusionary across a broad spectrum. This is beautifully illustrated in Luke 9:49-50 which reads: 'And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.' Jesus did not ask about their specific belief system, or what group of disciples they congregated with. Rather, Jesus proclaimed that those who act in His name are to be considered His disciples. Such inclusion towards the Body of Christ defined the ministry of our Lord and Savior."

"If Jesus was so inclusionary, why then do we have individuals fighting so hard to narrow the definition of a Christian—even to the persecution of fellow believers? Do these individuals, like the apostle John in the passage from Luke 9, seek for a more exclusive club and complain when others call themselves Christian but don’t practice the same rituals or beliefs as they do?"
Source: http://www.studychristianity.org/christian_defined.html

philologos · 18-06-2009 7:45pm

Blue Lagoon: The Scripture also says not to entertain any other gospel than what was received through the Apostles as the truth. (Galatians 1:8). The Book of Mormon is another Gospel.

Red Hand · 18-06-2009 8:48pm

PDN wrote: »

And the Nazi party was the Nationalsozialismus which, I guess, would make it ironic for any Socialist to deny that Hitler, Himmler & Goebbels were bona fide Socialists?

You can call yourself 'Fido' and live in a kennel - but that doesn't make you a dog.

Going a bit overboard there. This thread is about Mormons...not about National Socialism. I'll entertain your above logic Moebius loop, but not on this thread which would be dragging the thread off topic.

Jakkass wrote: »

Blue Lagoon: The Scripture also says not to entertain any other gospel than what was received through the Apostles as the truth. (Galatians 1:8). The Book of Mormon is another Gospel.

Yes, but there were gospels recieved through the Apostles that didn't make it into the bible. Like the Apostles Peter, Thomas, etc-like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they seemingly wrote gospels. Whose is to say that The Book of Mormon is just another Gospel? It is an account (in part) of Christ's dealings after the ressurection...is that not enough?

Iwasfrozen · 18-06-2009 9:04pm

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Going a bit overboard there. This thread is about Mormons...not about National Socialism. I'll entertain your above logic Moebius loop, but not on this thread which would be dragging the thread off topic.

Godwins Law.

BrianCalgary · 18-06-2009 9:16pm

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Yes, but there were gospels recieved through the Apostles that didn't make it into the bible. Like the Apostles Peter, Thomas, etc-like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they seemingly wrote gospels. Whose is to say that The Book of Mormon is just another Gospel? It is an account (in part) of Christ's dealings after the ressurection...is that not enough?

Jeremiah, we have been overthis tons of times before, the books above where not written by Peter, Thomas, etc. They were written by others with theology that disagrees with Jesus' teachings and/or historical matters.

enough on that.

The Book of Mormon also fails on it's disagreement with Jesus' teachings, italso fails in it's historical accuracy.

As I drive south of my home I come across Buffalo jumps that had been used by the local Tsu'tiina and Peigane tribes, going back thousands of years. We also have tipi rings used by the same tribes over the years.

There are sites all over North America relating to tribes of various names showing their camps and hunts.

Yet no where are there remnants of any civilisation as described in the Book of Mormon.

mdebets · 18-06-2009 9:21pm

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Yes, but there were gospels recieved through the Apostles that didn't make it into the bible. Like the Apostles Peter, Thomas, etc-like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they seemingly wrote gospels. Whose is to say that The Book of Mormon is just another Gospel? It is an account (in part) of Christ's dealings after the ressurection...is that not enough?

That's actually a good comparison. You could see the Book of Mormon just as any of the Gospels that didn't made it into the Bible. And with this, it shares the same flaws, that make the other Gospels non-Christian: it contradicts the teachings of the Bible. All the differences between the different denominations are based on either different interpretations of the Bible, or small in- or exclusions of books into the Bible. They share however the main part of the Bible as their foundations.
If you now look at the Book of Mormon for example, it teaches a totally different theology. God for example is unique in the Bible. In the Book of Mormon however, he was born on another planet and came to earth. Everyone has also the possibility to become a God on another planet. This totally goes against every teaching of the Bible and would place Mormons outside of Christianity.

BrianCalgary · 18-06-2009 9:22pm

Book of Mormon: Mormons claim this book to be a record written on golden plates by prophets of a race who lived in the Americas for about 1,000 years. Joseph Smith said he found these plates in 1823 near Palmyra, NY and executed an 'exact and inerrant translation' of them with the help of an angel, two friends and special instruments.The ancient race was descended from two groups of Hebrews, the Nephites and the Lamanites, who traveled to the New World from Palestine around 600 B.C. and built a great civilization. Another people, the Jaredites, who had arrived in the Americas much earlier, exterminated the Nephites around A.D. 421. The Lamanites supposedly became the principal ancestors of the American Indians. The indigenous people discovered by Columbus are cousins of that race, reputedly cursed with dark skin for having rejected God. A major claim of the Book of Mormon is that Christ appeared in the New World shortly after His resurrection and that His second coming will preceded by a massive conversion of the American Indians to Christ, who will then exterminate gentiles who do not accept it. After that, the believing Indians and Mormons will build the New Jerusalem (in Independence, Missouri), where Christ will return to live14. The Mormon Church claims this book is "another testament of Jesus Christ" that confirms the Biblical dictate to establish every fact by the mouth of two or three witnesses. Importantly, the Book of Mormon also claims that the Bible is incomplete and inaccurate:

Source: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html

BrianCalgary · 18-06-2009 9:25pm

Words of Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church

"In my judgment there is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the Pearl of Great Price, which we say are our standards in doctrine. The book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all. I am going to tell you why. When I say that, do not for a moment think I do not value the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Pearl of Great Price, just as much as any man that lives; I think I do. I do not know of anybody who has read them more, and I appreciate them; they are wonderful; they contain doctrine and revelation and commandments that we should heed; but the Bible is a history containing the doctrine and commandments given to the people anciently. That applies also to the Book of Mormon. It is the doctrine and the history and the commandments of the people who dwelt upon this continent anciently. But this Doctrine and Covenants contains the word of God to those who dwell here now. It is our book. It belongs to the Latter-day Saints. More precious than gold, the Prophet says we should treasure it more than the riches of the whole earth. I wonder if we do? If we value it, understand it, and know what it contains, we will value it more than wealth; it is worth more to us than the riches of the earth." (Doctrines of Salvation 3:198-199)

Now we move away from the Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenenats becomes more important. And next come: The Pearl of Great Price book.

BrianCalgary · 18-06-2009 9:27pm

What is the Pearl of Great Price?

The Pearl of Great Price is one of the four holy books of the Mormon church in addition to the King James Version Bible (interpreted by the Mormon church), the Book of Mormon, and Doctrines and Covenants. The Mormon Church holds the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be as inspired and authoritative as the Bible. The Pearl of Great Price is comprised of four books: the book of Moses, the book of Abraham, the book of Joseph Smith - Matthew, and the Book of Joseph Smith - History. The Pearl of Great Price also contains thirteen brief statements of what Mormons believe.

BrianCalgary · 18-06-2009 9:32pm

History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535—541
1 We abelieve in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal gglory.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Joseph Smith

dvpower · 18-06-2009 9:47pm

Has Brian just converted?

philologos · 18-06-2009 9:52pm

The question of whether or not you subscribe to Mormonism depends with how much you trust Joseph Smith.

He translated the Book of Mormon from plates in a language that isn't known by any linguist, using seer stones and a hat. The language as it was written originally is not avaliable to anyone therefore we have no means of assessing whether or not the Book of Mormon was translated correctly, that it was even translated at all, or if the plates actually existed.

In contrast, there are thousands of manuscripts for the Old Testament from both Jewish and Christian traditions in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek, Aramaic and Syriac. So we are able to assess whether or not this translation is accurate if we endeavour to learn these languages and the translations are if you will peer reviewed by other theologians with a knowledge of the language. This hasn't happened with the Book of Mormon.

Even from the standpoint of authenticity it is clear why I cannot hold the Book of Mormon as being as valid or more valid than the Bible.

The main objection about this thread or that Christians actually aren't willing to become Mormons is that people on this thread have assumed that Christianity and Mormonism are of equal validity. I argue they are not based on this and on other factors as previously mentioned.

BrianCalgary · 18-06-2009 11:14pm

dvpower wrote: »

Has Brian just converted?

OOhhh Heavens No.

Just thought I'd put some info out there. The Mormons use 4 books, The Bible, Book of Mormom, Doctrine and Covenants and finally Pearl of Great Price.

The Book of Mormon is authorised by Joseph Smith who found and translated them. they are written in a language that was unknown, using a translating tool. There is no way to check because everything has been destroyed, as per jakkass' post.

Those who give testimony and sign the book are Joseph's best friends and his brothers, no independant folk. The 12 stand to gain, from the whole venture.

Mickeroo · 18-06-2009 11:47pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said there wasn't a land bridge between North and South America, I was commenting on a land bridge between North Africa and South America. The validity of this only requires a check of whether or not there was such a land bridge in 600BC.

If the Nephites were Jewish from Jerusalem at the time of King Zedekiah like the Book of Mormon says they were Israelites.

There was never a land bridge between africa and south america and certainly not as recent as 600BC. Evidence suggusts they were joined together at some point then drifted apart through plate tectonics but this was long before humans roamed the earth.

I'm pretty sceptical as to whether there was jews in the americas roughly 2 thousand years before columbus showed up and 1000 years before st brendan may have shown up. :pac:

"Land Ahoy! Look there on the shore I see....I think its a.....it cant be a.......Rabbi?" :eek:

robindch · 18-06-2009 11:49pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

dvpower wrote:

Has Brian just converted?

OOhhh Heavens No. Just thought I'd put some info out there.

Other than point number ten about the "New Jerusalem" showing up in the USA and point five which seems a trifle woolly to me, a quick glance at the the rest of it suggests that it looks pretty much like mainstream protestant-style christianity.

What exactly in the other ten points renders mormons non-christian? I'd have thought that points one and three would make any holder "christian" by the definitions used by most modern-day christians.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Those who give testimony and sign the book are Joseph's best friends and his brothers, no independant folk. The 12 stand to gain, from the whole venture.

I wouldn't go too far with that idea -- one can say exactly the same about the guys who wrote the gospels and the rest of the NT

dvpower · 18-06-2009 11:54pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

OOhhh Heavens No.

Just thought I'd put some info out there. The Mormons use 4 books, The Bible, Book of Mormom, Doctrine and Covenants and finally Pearl of Great Price.

I'll see your info and raise you this.

philologos · 18-06-2009 11:56pm

robindch wrote: »

I wouldn't go too far with that idea -- one can say exactly the same about the guys who wrote the gospels and the rest of the NT

This is only true if the Mormons claim that Joseph Smith actually wrote the Book of Mormon. They don't. They claim that the Nephites wrote the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith translated it. Fair enough, however, if you are to claim that it is a translation one would expect to see a source language and a translation.

Edit: If I may quote from the opening to the Book of Mormon that I have in my possession.

Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote:

Also, that there were two stones in silver bows - and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim - deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

Iwasfrozen, as for the ancestry of the people who are documented in the Book of Mormon:

Introduction to the Book of Mormon wrote:

The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600BC, and afterwards separated into two nations known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they were the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

However with DNA we can demonstrably show that the American Indians do not have Semitic Y-chromosones.

Abaddon · 19-06-2009 12:43am

Wow! What a fascinating thread. I occasionally browse Boards, but I've never received such an education! Read the whole thread with great interest. Your earlier analogy employing Nazis and dogs was a little ugly, Moderator, but otherwise it was a treat. Nice one. Cheers...

PDN · 19-06-2009 4:18am

Abaddon wrote: »

Your earlier analogy employing Nazis and dogs was a little ugly, Moderator

It wasn't an analogy - it was an example of reductio ad absurdum. This is where you use your opponent's logic to reach a patently absurd conclusion, thereby demonstrating their logic to be fallacious.

Blue Lagoon had presented an argument that followed the following form:
X must be Y because their official name includes Y (where X=Mormons and Y=Christian).

I simply used the same logic, where X=Nazis and Y=Socialist to reach an absurd conclusion.

Whether that was ugly is a matter of personal taste. I personally find reductio ad absurdum to be an elegant and simple logical tool.

JimiTime · 19-06-2009 11:14am

A few points.
1. There seems to be confusion about the word 'Gospel'. Gospel literally means 'Good News'. So John is called 'The good news according to John', Mark, ' The good news according to mark' etc. So if the good news according to someone goes against what is considered the good news that Jesus preached, then it is considered un-christian. Mormons accept a book from a 'prophet' which goes against the good news that Jesus preached. Thus, any honest assesment of it, rennders mormonism in contradiction with Apostolic christianity. Thus, it is very reasonable to say that they are not Christian.

2. Anyone can call themselves christian. Its not as though using the term means anything as a title these days, other than that you consider yourself to have some sort of affiliation however loosely with Jesus Christ.

So in conclusion, its a two pronged arguement. Apostolic Christians are arguing that Christianity denotes following Christs message. Others are arguing, that once you associate yourself, however loosely, with Jesus you can be considered Christian. A bit of a waste of time really.

Iwasfrozen · 19-06-2009 1:39pm

JimiTime wrote:

1. There seems to be confusion about the word 'Gospel'. Gospel literally means 'Good News'. So John is called 'The good news according to John', Mark, ' The good news according to mark' etc. So if the good news according to someone goes against what is considered the good news that Jesus preached, then it is considered un-christian. Mormons accept a book from a 'prophet' which goes against the good news that Jesus preached. Thus, any honest assesment of it, rennders mormonism in contradiction with Apostolic christianity. Thus, it is very reasonable to say that they are not Christian.

In what way does the Book of Mormon go against the good news that Jesus preached ? The Book of Mormon teaches Jesus is our saviour and that he is the son of God and Light of the World.
How does any of this go against Christian belifes ?

PDN · 19-06-2009 1:44pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In what way does the Book of Mormon go against the good news that Jesus preached ? The Book of Mormon teaches Jesus is our saviour and that he is the son of God and Light of the World.
How does any of this go against Christian belifes ?

It goes against the monotheism that was at the heart of Judaism and at the heart of all Christ's teaching.

Black Swan · 19-06-2009 3:30pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535—541
1 We abelieve in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Like it or not, these people profess to be Christians by their articles of faith. It might not be your version, or the version of many who are part of the "mainstream" Christian denominations, but they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, which is evident throughout their literature, website, and Sunday sermons, therefore they are Christians (see the many definitions of "Christian" offered in my earlier posts on this thread, especially the one about Christian "inclusiveness" in the last post).

Could it be that many of the mainstream denominations that call themselves "Christian" are scared to death of them, because the Mormon numbers are growing rapidly, while many of the mainstream enrollments are nothing to brag about?

Like most Irish I was raised Catholic (but drifted away). When I visited other organised systems of Christian faith, one thing stood out that tended to turn me off (including the Mormon LDS). Each one proclaimed to be the one true version of the Christian faith, while the others were not. Some denominations were subtle in this claim, while others went so far as to suggest that to be Catholic was to live in a state of sin according to their version of scriptures (e.g., Lutheran LCMS Missouri Synod). Rather than to celebrate their association in the Christian faith, community, ethic, and spirit, they evidenced varying degrees of self-righteous exclusion. It's one thing to point out that the LDS part of the Mormon faith may be at great variance from the mainstream, but to label them as not being Christian because of that, exemplifies this self-righteous exclusion to the extreme.

If Christ walked into a California javahouse today, and happened to sit down with a few of the university students who were of the Mormon faith, would he first praise them for their Christian faith of believing in him as their Savior, before raising the problematic issue of Mormon LDS? Or would he condemn them to be excluded from the Christian faith as so many have in this thread? Which would be more Christ-like, inclusion and discussion of differences, or exclusion as non-Christians?

philologos · 19-06-2009 4:01pm

Blue Lagoon: Christianity puts forward in Matthew 24 that when the Messiah returns after ascending to the Father that all nations and all people will know about it, and it won't be to preach to Native Americans it will be to pronounce the Final Judgement. Likewise, this will not happen until the Gospel has been preached all over the world. This hasn't happened yet, there are 1.6 billion people who have never heard the Gospel. It's just incompatible. They differ.

Mormonism sure, it's based in Christianity, but it is too different even in it's concept of God to be regarded as mainline Christianity.

BrianCalgary · 19-06-2009 6:36pm

robindch wrote: »

Other than point number ten about the "New Jerusalem" showing up in the USA and point five which seems a trifle woolly to me, a quick glance at the the rest of it suggests that it looks pretty much like mainstream protestant-style christianity.

What exactly in the other ten points renders mormons non-christian? I'd have thought that points one and three would make any holder "christian" by the definitions used by most modern-day christians.I wouldn't go too far with that idea -- one can say exactly the same about the guys who wrote the gospels and the rest of the NT

Point number three has salvation by obedience and ordinances, whereas the Bible teaches that salvation is obtained by faith through God's grace.

Number one looks good however the 'definition' (for wont of a better word) of Jesus is different than Christianity.

BrianCalgary · 19-06-2009 6:42pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Like it or not, these people profess to be Christians by their articles of faith. It might not be your version, or the version of many who are part of the "mainstream" Christian denominations, but they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, which is evident throughout their literature, website, and Sunday sermons, therefore they are Christians (see the many definitions of "Christian" offered in my earlier posts on this thread, especially the one about Christian "inclusiveness" in the last post).

Could it be that many of the mainstream denominations that call themselves "Christian" are scared to death of them, because the Mormon numbers are growing rapidly, while many of the mainstream enrollments are nothing to brag about?

Like most Irish I was raised Catholic (but drifted away). When I visited other organised systems of Christian faith, one thing stood out that tended to turn me off (including the Mormon LDS). Each one proclaimed to be the one true version of the Christian faith, while the others were not. Some denominations were subtle in this claim, while others went so far as to suggest that to be Catholic was to live in a state of sin according to their version of scriptures (e.g., Lutheran ELCA Missouri Synod). Rather than to celebrate their association in the Christian faith, community, ethic, and spirit, they evidenced varying degrees of self-righteous exclusion. It's one thing to point out that the LDS part of the Mormon faith may be at great variance from the mainstream, but to label them as not being Christian because of that, exemplifies this self-righteous exclusion to the extreme.

If Christ walked into a California javahouse today, and happened to sit down with a few of the university students who were of the Mormon faith, would he first praise them for their Christian faith of believing in him as their Savior, before raising the problematic issue of Mormon LDS? Or would he condemn them to be excluded from the Christian faith as so many have in this thread? Which would be more Christ-like, inclusion and discussion of differences, or exclusion as non-Christians?

I agree that they do profess Christ as Saviour, however they don't know who Christ is.

I do not have a brand of Christianity that is mine. On thi sboard I know that PDN goes to a different denomination than I do and Jakkass goes to something else different as does Kelly1. They are all my brothers/sisters in Christ. (Not sure where Jimitime goes to comment

)

The Mormon church preaches a gospel that is not of Christ, it disagrees with the message of Christ. It therefore is a lie, and therefore is not Christian. because it does not teach what Christ taught.

Black Swan · 19-06-2009 9:13pm

BrianCalgary...
First of all, I would like to thank you for not making patronizing comments to my posts on this thread. Although we may rarely agree, I respect you for your professionalism.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I agree that they do profess Christ as Saviour, however they don't know who Christ is.

We both agree that they proclaim a belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Now to the second part of your statement, "however they don't know who Christ is." It seems plausible to assume that for each and every Mormon there will be some personal differences as to how they would answer "who Christ is?" In like manner, if we go Jaywalking (Jay Leno) and ask Christians in the street "who Christ is," we will more than likely find a large degree of variation in their responses, not all of which would be purely consistent with Gospel?

If the non-Mormon Christians only respond that they believe Christ as Savior, but cannot cite scripture line-by-line with citations in support of their belief system, does this mean that they are not Christians? Just because they claim to be Catholic, or Lutheran, or Methodist, by virtue of their membership in a mainstream Christian religion, that in fact makes them Christians, and not Mormons (who are not mainstream)?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Mormon church preaches a gospel that is not of Christ, it disagrees with the message of Christ. It therefore is a lie, and therefore is not Christian. because it does not teach what Christ taught.

I know of two major divisions of the Lutheran Church in America that have huge differences in terms of how they interpret the Bible. Compare the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS):

"The doctrine and authority of Scripture. The LCMS believes that the Bible is without error in all that it says. The ELCA avoids making such statements, holding that Scripture is not necessarily always accurate on such matters as history and science."

Source: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2146

"At the same time, we also find in the Bible human emotion, testimony, opinion, cultural limitation and bias. ELCA Lutherans recognize that human testimony and writing are related to and often limited by culture, customs and world view. Today we know that the earth is not flat and that rabbits do not chew their cud (Leviticus 11:6 ). These are examples of time-bound cultural understandings or practices. Christians do not follow biblically prescribed dietary laws such as eliminating pork from one’s diet (Leviticus 11:7) because the new covenant we have with God has replaced the Old Testament covenant God had with his people. Because Biblical writers, editors and compilers were limited by their times and world views, even as we are, the Bible contains material wedded to those times and places. It also means that writers sometimes provide differing and even contradictory views of God’s word, ways and will."

Source: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/The-Bible.aspx

To the extent that the Lutheran ELCA does not accept everything in the Bible as being literally true or accurate, does that mean that they are not Christian, or sub-Christian, or not as Christian as the Lutheran LCMS that takes the Bible as literal? The Lutheran ELCA is not a small spin-off church, but has a membership that rivals the population of Ireland.

"The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) had 4,774,203 baptized members in 10,470 congregations atthe end of 2006, according to the Rev. Lowell G. Almen, ELCA secretary."

Source: http://saveelca.blogspot.com/2007/07/elca-membership-drops-16-percent-to-48.html

Should the Lutheran ELCA be included with the Mormons on the list of non-Christian faiths?

Where the Mormons disagree from mainstream is based upon what has been added by LDS as an article of faith since the Bible was written? So does this make them two-thirds Christian, in that they profess a belief in (1) Jesus Christ as Savior, (2) accept the Bible as Gospel for the period it covers, (3) but have added this document called the Book of Mormon for a time period more recent than the Bible?

Red Hand · 19-06-2009 9:54pm

PDN wrote: »

It wasn't an analogy - it was an example of reductio ad absurdum. This is where you use your opponent's logic to reach a patently absurd conclusion, thereby demonstrating their logic to be fallacious.

Blue Lagoon had presented an argument that followed the following form:
X must be Y because their official name includes Y (where X=Mormons and Y=Christian).

I simply used the same logic, where X=Nazis and Y=Socialist to reach an absurd conclusion.

Whether that was ugly is a matter of personal taste. I personally find reductio ad absurdum to be an elegant and simple logical tool.

Anything but logical surely? Blue Lagoon gave much more evidence than their name-did you not read her posts? You just reduced yourself to a single point?

PDN wrote: »

It goes against the monotheism that was at the heart of Judaism and at the heart of all Christ's teaching.

Well, monotheism with three Godheads-the trinity?

Iwasfrozen · 19-06-2009 11:31pm

Jakkass wrote:

Mormonism sure, it's based in Christianity, but it is too different even in it's concept of God to be regarded as mainline Christianity.

Care to elaborate ?

mdebets · 20-06-2009 12:56am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Jakkass wrote:

Mormonism sure, it's based in Christianity, but it is too different even in it's concept of God to be regarded as mainline Christianity.

Care to elaborate ?

There are two main differences.
First is that Mormons don't believe in the Trinity of God, Jesus and Holy Spirit, but see them as 3 different persons.

Second is the nature of God. In Christianity, God is unique, there are no other Gods and God is eternal. For Mormons on the other hand, God once was mortal and became exalted and became God. The same process is also possible for every believer. So for a Mormon, everyone can become a God.
For more reading, have a look here

mdebets · 20-06-2009 1:06am

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I know of two major divisions of the Lutheran Church in America that have huge differences in terms of how they interpret the Bible.

This part is the important part of your post, Blue_Lagoon.
As I said before, the differences between different Denominations of Christianity (e.g. ELCA and LCMS Lutherans or Baptists, Anglicans or Catholics) is how they interpret the Bible. They don't need other literature which contains teachings that different from the teachings in the Bible (according to each denomination's interpretation). The Mormons on the on the hand have additional books 9e.g. Book of Mormon0, which contains teachings that different from the bible (e.g. everyone can become a God, God was once mortal).

You can compare the relationship between Christians and Mormons to that between Jews and Christians. Jews believe in on set of Holy Books (Old Testament). The Christians believe in them too, but added more books (New Testament), which contain additional teachings (wrong ones if you are a Jew, right ones if you are a Christian). The same relationship is true for Christians and Mormons. Christians believe in the Bible, the Mormons added additional Books (e.g. Book of Mormon) to it, which contain additional teachings (wrong ones if you are a Christian, right ones if you are a Mormon).

Iwasfrozen · 20-06-2009 2:22pm

Jakkass wrote:

The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600BC, and afterwards separated into two nations known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they were the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

That's funny, your version must be different than mine:

The Book of Mormon wrote:

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians. .

Source: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction

mdebets wrote:

Second is the nature of God. In Christianity, God is unique, there are no other Gods and God is eternal. For Mormons on the other hand, God once was mortal and became exalted and became God. The same process is also possible for every believer. So for a Mormon, everyone can become a God.
For more reading, have a look here

The classic summary of that is a statement made by Lorenzo Snow the fourth president of the church: "As man is, God once was. And as God is, man may become."
Take from that what you will.

philologos · 20-06-2009 2:47pm

Iwasfrozen: I quoted that from a hard copy of the Book of Mormon a friend of mine gave me (who is a member of the Mormon church). Although it is interesting that the website is different to the actual Book of Mormon on the issue.

Iwasfrozen · 20-06-2009 2:53pm

Jakkass wrote:

Iwasfrozen: I quoted that from a hard copy of the Book of Mormon a friend of mine gave me (who is a member of the Mormon church). Although it is interesting that the website is different to the actual Book of Mormon on the issue.

The book your friend gave you was an older version of the book.
Unlike the Bible the Mormons update their scripture in accordance with scientific evidence.

philologos · 20-06-2009 3:00pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The book your friend gave you was an older version of the book.
Unlike the Bible the Mormons update their scripture in accordance with scientific evidence.

So God helped Joseph Smith to translate what was a lie? If one part of the Book of Mormon is considered to be false, then how can we be sure that any of it is true?

Iwasfrozen · 20-06-2009 3:07pm

Jakkass wrote:

So God helped Joseph Smith to translate what was a lie? If one part of the Book of Mormon is considered to be false, then how can we be sure that any of it is true?

I could ask you the very same question with regards to Adam and Eve...
The truth is with all scriptures belife requires a leap of faith. Mormons may believe that Joeseph was a prophetof God but he wasn't perfect and there are mistaken translations in the book just like the bible.
And I don't see what this has to do with mormonism's classification as a christian religion.

Black Swan · 20-06-2009 4:10pm

mdebets wrote: »

First is that Mormons don't believe in the Trinity of God, Jesus and Holy Spirit, but see them as 3 different persons.

Similar to this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia?

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another."

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Articles of Faith:
Article 1: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

Source: http://www.bible.ca/cr-Mormons.htm#lds

Furthermore, the "Trinity" was not a biblical term, but coined by a church theologian almost two centuries after the death of Christ?

"The term Trinitas (Latin) was coined by the early church theologian Tertullian (A.D. 160-225) and probably first used in the sense of the coexistence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the unit of the Godhead by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch in Syria (A.D. 169-177). While not a biblical term, The Trinity represents the crystallization of New Testament teaching."

Source: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/The-Holy-Trinity.aspx

There was apparently a lot of confusion, debate, and disagreement for over three centuries following Christ's death as to what was meant by the Trinity?

"The Council of Nicea took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of defining the true God for all of Christianity and eliminating all the confusion, controversy, and contention within Christ’s church. The Council of Nicea affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinity—the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons."

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html

"A group of Church bishops and leaders" led by a "Roman Emperor" more than three centuries after Christ's death resolved the disputes regarding Christian doctrine as pertains to the "Trinity?" Does anyone see this as problematic? Apparently some Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints theologians disputed the decisions made by a "Roman Emperor" and this human "group" of Church leaders? It would seem that these human disputes about Christian doctrine are what differentiates one Christian denomination from another, making Catholics different from Lutherans, and Lutherans different from Methodists, and Methodists different from Mormons?

mdebets · 20-06-2009 6:23pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The book your friend gave you was an older version of the book.
Unlike the Bible the Mormons update their scripture in accordance with scientific evidence.

But how can they do that? According to the Mormons, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates with the help of some special stones. neither the gold plates, nor the stones are still available. So all they can do is change the English text, without any checks with the original version.

mdebets · 20-06-2009 6:49pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"A group of Church bishops and leaders" led by a "Roman Emperor" more than three centuries after Christ's death resolved the disputes regarding Christian doctrine as pertains to the "Trinity?" Does anyone see this as problematic? Apparently some Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints theologians disputed the decisions made by a "Roman Emperor" and this human "group" of Church leaders?

That's part one of the answer to the question as to why Mormons are not Christians. Whatever you think of the Council of Nicea, whether it is right or wrong, it is a major dividing point. As far as i know, all denominations that are considered Christians today adhere to the findings of the Council of Nicea (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong).. The Mormons don't adhere to it, therefore they are not Christians.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

It would seem that these human disputes about Christian doctrine are what differentiates one Christian denomination from another, making Catholics different from Lutherans, and Lutherans different from Methodists, and Methodists different from Mormons?

In here lies point two of the answer to the question as to why Mormons are not Christians. If two Christian denomination argue about Christian doctrine, they do so based on the bible (i.e Lutheran believe that Mark 2.5 means A, but Baptists believe it mean

. You can now argue about which interpretation is correct and which is not. The Mormons however have other revelations, which have the same status as the Bible. So if you discuss doctrine with them, they also argue with these additional revelations, which are not relevant to Christians.

As I already said a few times in this thread the following groups are distinct, because they only believe in the books shown in the brackets

Jews (Old Testament)
Christian (Old Testament + New Testament)
Mormons (Old Testament + New Testament + Book of Mormon + some other books)

I really don't see, why you can't see the difference in these 3 religions. They are distinct and none of these 3 religions can be equaled to one of the 2 other religions.

mdebets · 20-06-2009 6:53pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The classic summary of that is a statement made by Lorenzo Snow the fourth president of the church: "As man is, God once was. And as God is, man may become."
Take from that what you will.

Could you please explain what you mean with your last statement?
Would you agree that this believe is clearly contradictory to anything the Bible teaches?

philologos · 20-06-2009 9:39pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I could ask you the very same question with regards to Adam and Eve...

What about them?

You said, that the Mormons realised they were wrong an changed the Book of Mormon. No Christian has ever attempted to alter the Bible and if they did they would be caught red handed due to the Greek and Hebrew we have left.

If the Mormons come out and say that they are wrong about this (they haven't I don't think) and change the introduction to the Book of Mormon to suit themselves that cannot be compared to any contemporary Christian example.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The truth is with all scriptures belife requires a leap of faith. Mormons may believe that Joeseph was a prophetof God but he wasn't perfect and there are mistaken translations in the book just like the bible.

Difference:

Mormons: We do not have the plates we translated from, or even a copy in the original language.

Christians: We have 24,000 copies of the New Testament, and thousands more of the Old Testament. If you want to check your translation is right, go ahead, read the manuscripts.

Christians have a way of checking accuracy in translation. The Mormons do not.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And I don't see what this has to do with mormonism's classification as a christian religion.

Mormonism directly contradicts the Bible on what was said about Jesus' second coming amongst other things. Both cannot be true. Either you accept Mormonism or accept Christianity. That's the way it is clear to me.

I must ask you, why did you come on here to post about Mormonism on the Christianity section? So you could go "Hah, you have no reason to deny Mormonism". Well, Christians do have a reason not to accept Mormonism and it's pretty clear, authenticity?

Iwasfrozen · 22-06-2009 3:32pm

Jakkass wrote:

You said, that the Mormons realised they were wrong an changed the Book of Mormon. No Christian has ever attempted to alter the Bible and if they did they would be caught red handed due to the Greek and Hebrew we have left.

If the Mormons come out and say that they are wrong about this (they haven't I don't think) and change the introduction to the Book of Mormon to suit themselves that cannot be compared to any contemporary Christian example.

When Mormons have been proven wrong on something they change the Book of Mormon to fit in scientific evidence. Adam and Eve was proven wrong but the Bible remains unchanged, why ?

Jakkass wrote:

Difference:

Mormons: We do not have the plates we translated from, or even a copy in the original language.

Christians: We have 24,000 copies of the New Testament, and thousands more of the Old Testament. If you want to check your translation is right, go ahead, read the manuscripts.

Christians have a way of checking accuracy in translation. The Mormons do not.

So ? Yes we don't have the Gloden Plates so believing in the Book of Mormon requires a leap of faith, just like believing in the Bible.
Yes, you may be able to prove that the Desert scribblings are translated correctly but that doesn't prove the events in the bible actualy happened.
Belife in the Bible requires faith just like belife in the Book of Mormon.

Jakkass wrote:

Mormonism directly contradicts the Bible on what was said about Jesus' second coming amongst other things. Both cannot be true. Either you accept Mormonism or accept Christianity. That's the way it is clear to me.

I must ask you, why did you come on here to post about Mormonism on the Christianity section? So you could go "Hah, you have no reason to deny Mormonism". Well, Christians do have a reason not to accept Mormonism and it's pretty clear, authenticity?

The Bibles quote on Jesus's second coming is irrelevant as it was wrote before the second coming, basicaly whats in the Bible is what the Author thought would happen with Christs second coming.
And you know why I started this thread, to ask if there was a Temple in Ireland.

philologos · 22-06-2009 3:43pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When Mormons have been proven wrong on something they change the Book of Mormon to fit in scientific evidence. Adam and Eve was proven wrong but the Bible remains unchanged, why ?

Has it though? Numerous people all over the world still believe in this narrative albeit in differing ways. The Bible has never been changed to remove Adam and Eve from its pages. The Introduction of the Book of Mormon however has been visibly altered. That's the difference. I'm still not confident that Adam and Eve has been falsified.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So ? Yes we don't have the Gloden Plates so believing in the Book of Mormon requires a leap of faith, just like believing in the Bible.

The point is we still have the original language that the Bible was written in. The Mormons do not. That is a far greater leap. There is no way that we can check the translation of the Book of Mormon, however we can check the Bible's translation if we endeavour to learn Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew and a smattering of Aramaic (Daniel from chapter 2 to the end is in Aramaic it starts in Hebrew).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, you may be able to prove that the Desert scribblings are translated correctly but that doesn't prove the events in the bible actualy happened.
Belife in the Bible requires faith just like belife in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon involves more faith however. It also makes claims that can be demonstrably falsified.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Bibles quote on Jesus's second coming is irrelevant as it was wrote before the second coming, basicaly whats in the Bible is what the Author thought would happen with Christs second coming.
And you know why I started this thread, to ask if there was a Temple in Ireland.

Do you understand what prophesy is?

The Mormons believe that Jesus in the New Testament spoke the truth and that the Jesus of the Book of Mormon spoke the truth. However the truth of one contradicts the other. Both cannot be true. I trust the text which is more authentic, the Bible.

To answer your question. There is no Temple in Ireland , there are chapels however. There is one in Clonsilla and another in Clondalkin in the West Dublin area. The Temple for LDS in Ireland is in Preston, England. Ireland doesn't have enough LDS (2,500 approx) to justify a Temple being built.

BrianCalgary · 22-06-2009 4:04pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

BrianCalgary...
First of all, I would like to thank you for not making patronizing comments to my posts on this thread. Although we may rarely agree, I respect you for your professionalism.?

Thanks you.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

We both agree that they proclaim a belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Now to the second part of your statement, "however they don't know who Christ is." It seems plausible to assume that for each and every Mormon there will be some personal differences as to how they would answer "who Christ is?" In like manner, if we go Jaywalking (Jay Leno) and ask Christians in the street "who Christ is," we will more than likely find a large degree of variation in their responses, not all of which would be purely consistent with Gospel?

If the non-Mormon Christians only respond that they believe Christ as Savior, but cannot cite scripture line-by-line with citations in support of their belief system, does this mean that they are not Christians? Just because they claim to be Catholic, or Lutheran, or Methodist, by virtue of their membership in a mainstream Christian religion, that in fact makes them Christians, and not Mormons (who are not mainstream)??

They may have different views on the personality of Christ. As an example, if you were to ask certain referees about my personality they may have a negative view of me (though I try

). Ask the girls on the team that I am currently coaching and they will have a very positive view, ask the family of the kid that I cut ging into this season and they would have a different view. Compare that to teh kids in my Sunday School classand there's would be different.

However they would all agree that I am married to ______ and have three kids named: ____, ____, ____ and live at ________ and coach these teams and go to that church.

As Christians we acknowledge the deity of Christ being one with the Father and Holy Spirit.

Mormons reject this teaching of Christ and therefore know him not.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I know of two major divisions of the Lutheran Church in America that have huge differences in terms of how they interpret the Bible. Compare the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS):

"The doctrine and authority of Scripture. The LCMS believes that the Bible is without error in all that it says. The ELCA avoids making such statements, holding that Scripture is not necessarily always accurate on such matters as history and science."

Source: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2146

"At the same time, we also find in the Bible human emotion, testimony, opinion, cultural limitation and bias. ELCA Lutherans recognize that human testimony and writing are related to and often limited by culture, customs and world view. Today we know that the earth is not flat and that rabbits do not chew their cud (Leviticus 11:6 ). These are examples of time-bound cultural understandings or practices. Christians do not follow biblically prescribed dietary laws such as eliminating pork from one’s diet (Leviticus 11:7) because the new covenant we have with God has replaced the Old Testament covenant God had with his people. Because Biblical writers, editors and compilers were limited by their times and world views, even as we are, the Bible contains material wedded to those times and places. It also means that writers sometimes provide differing and even contradictory views of God’s word, ways and will."

Source: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/The-Bible.aspx

To the extent that the Lutheran ELCA does not accept everything in the Bible as being literally true or accurate, does that mean that they are not Christian, or sub-Christian, or not as Christian as the Lutheran LCMS that takes the Bible as literal? The Lutheran ELCA is not a small spin-off church, but has a membership that rivals the population of Ireland.

"The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) had 4,774,203 baptized members in 10,470 congregations atthe end of 2006, according to the Rev. Lowell G. Almen, ELCA secretary."

Source: http://saveelca.blogspot.com/2007/07/elca-membership-drops-16-percent-to-48.html

Should the Lutheran ELCA be included with the Mormons on the list of non-Christian faiths?

Where the Mormons disagree from mainstream is based upon what has been added by LDS as an article of faith since the Bible was written? So does this make them two-thirds Christian, in that they profess a belief in (1) Jesus Christ as Savior, (2) accept the Bible as Gospel for the period it covers, (3) but have added this document called the Book of Mormon for a time period more recent than the Bible?

As for the Lutherans, they seem to hold similar views on the Bible in that the teachings of Christ are what matter. I believe the Bible to be historicaly accurate, not a science book, but the story of God's unfolding plan of salvation for mankind. I would be able to classify both groups of Lutherans as brothers.

I concur that the Mormons disagree in that they have added not only the Book of Mormon, but Pearl of Great Price and 'Doctrines and Covenants".

These books contain teachings that disagree with the teachings of Christ. So they both can not be correct.

Black Swan · 22-06-2009 6:33pm

mdebets wrote: »

That's part one of the answer to the question as to why Mormons are not Christians. Whatever you think of the Council of Nicea, whether it is right or wrong, it is a major dividing point. As far as i know, all denominations that are considered Christians today adhere to the findings of the Council of Nicea (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong).. The Mormons don't adhere to it, therefore they are not Christians.

So you are asserting that a human decision made by a Roman Emperor and a group of church leaders in 325 AD decides whom Christ would consider as Christians?

Well, History.com made a human decision to include the "Latter Day Saints (Mormons)" as one of the 12 major Christian denominations in the USA, which was in agreement with The World Almanac and Book of Facts.

Source: http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=227134

According to Bible Scripture... "Christian - This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16)," none of which could be used to exclude Mormons by other Christian denominations if they solely rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and not man made decisions as occurred at the Council of Nicea? Rather, 1 Peter 4:16 suggests that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who believe in Christ as their Savior, should continue to call themselves Christians no matter who challenges their authenticity? "...but if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name."

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/easton/ebd2.html?term=christian

mdebets wrote: »

As I already said a few times in this thread the following groups are distinct, because they only believe in the books shown in the brackets

Jews (Old Testament)
Christian (Old Testament + New Testament)
Mormons (Old Testament + New Testament + Book of Mormon + some other books)

But this position ignores a fundamental difference between Jews and Christians? Christians are defined by their belief in Christ as their Savior, which the Mormons profess as do other Christian denominations, but the Jews clearly do not.

There are missing books for some of the mainstream Christian denominations in this example, which differentiates them from other Christian denominations in varying degrees (e.g., Methodist Book of Discipline, Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc.)?

Some have questioned if Catholics are Christians? Did the Catholic Church depart from the Bible so much over the centuries to where they lost their way due to human decisions?

Does John have an answer to the question, are Mormons Christians? In the Gospel of John, we are told, "to all who received him [referring to Jesus], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."

Source: http://www.everystudent.com/forum/difference.html

MAJOR POINT: The point consistently made from the beginning of this thread is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), although not mainstream, is in fact a Christian denomination that has differences in doctrine with other Christian denominations. These differences arose out of human decisions which differentiate one Christian denomination from another. There have been differences in doctrine made by humans in varying degrees allowing for the different Christian denominations of Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mormons, etc., to exist today.

BrianCalgary · 22-06-2009 8:43pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

MAJOR POINT: The point consistently made from the beginning of this thread is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), although not mainstream, is in fact a Christian denomination that has differences in doctrine with other Christian denominations. These differences arose out of human decisions which differentiate one Christian denomination from another. There have been differences in doctrine made by humans in varying degrees allowing for the different Christian denominations of Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mormons, etc., to exist today.

The decision at the Council of Nicea was based on Biblical teachings. As Christians we discuss the teachings of Christ and the word of God to get clarification and application to our own lives.

All Christian denominations, while in diagreement with peripheral understandings; have agreement on the Bible as being final authority as the word of God and on the deity of Christ as the sole source of our salvation.

The LDS church disagrees on both of these points by adding the extra three books as being suthoritative (even though in diasagreement with biblical truths) and denying the deity of Christ as well as Christ being teh sole source of salvation.

Article Of Faith 3 We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

this clearly shows an understanding of salvatio to be based on obediance to laws and ordianances as well as faith in Christ.

mdebets · 22-06-2009 10:29pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So you are asserting that a human decision made by a Roman Emperor and a group of church leaders in 325 AD decides whom Christ would consider as Christians?

Human decisions yes, but based on Biblical teachings and guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore correct.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

But this position ignores a fundamental difference between Jews and Christians? Christians are defined by their belief in Christ as their Savior, which the Mormons profess as do other Christian denominations, but the Jews clearly do not.

You are right that there are more differences between Jews and Christians than just the books, but there are also more differences between Christians and Mormons than their similarities. Yes, the Mormons believe in the saviour Jesus Christ, but he is not the same one as the Christian Jesus Christ. If you look at the nature of God in Christianity, then you'll see that God in Christianity is the supreme being. He created the Universe, there is no-one that is his equal. When you now look at what Mormons believe, you'll see that it is totally different. For them, God is just one of many. He once was a man and we all can be exalted and become God. He is not the supreme Being of the Bible he is just one under many.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

There are missing books for some of the mainstream Christian denominations in this example, which differentiates them from other Christian denominations in varying degrees (e.g., Methodist Book of Discipline, Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc.)?

There is a big difference between the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Book of Mormon (I don't know what status the other Mormon Books have) on the one side and books like the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Old Testament, the New Testament and the Book of Mormon are the foundations of the 3 different Religions we are talking about (Judaism, Christianity and Mormons). They introduce the theology of the different religions. The other books you were mentioning, are only there to explain this theology or to make certain parts more accessible. If you look at the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer for example, you will only find points that are clearly explainable with the Bible, no new theology is introduced. The Book of Mormon on the other hand introduces a new theology. It contains a theology which can not be explained with the Bible alone. If you want for example discuss the concept of exaltation under Mormon Theology, you could not discuss this with the Bible alone.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

MAJOR POINT: The point consistently made from the beginning of this thread is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), although not mainstream, is in fact a Christian denomination that has differences in doctrine with other Christian denominations. These differences arose out of human decisions which differentiate one Christian denomination from another. There have been differences in doctrine made by humans in varying degrees allowing for the different Christian denominations of Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mormons, etc., to exist today.

There is one big difference. The differences in doctrine between Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists and other Christians are based on different interpretations of the same book, the Bible.
The differences between Christians and Mormons however are based in the fact that the Mormons added more books that are to them equal to the Bible.

Black Swan · 23-06-2009 2:06am

mdebets wrote: »

The differences between Christians and Mormons however are based in the fact that the Mormons added more books that are to them equal to the Bible.

Not according to Joseph Smith. The additional books added were not considered "equal" to the Bible, but rather "appendages:"

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets [Holy Bible], concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" (TPJS, p. 121).

More recently, Paul Hedengren reaffirms the centrality of the Bible to the Morman faith with: "The Church believes the word of God contained in the Bible [King James Version]. It accepts the Bible as the foremost of [the Church's] standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as…written guides in faith and doctrine."

Stephen E. Robinson concludes that "The doctrinal exclusion [of Mormons] assumes that Christianity is one monolithic point of view when in fact the multiplicity of Christian denominations witnesses that it is not."

Mormon

Comments