s/o on we're all Hindus/are Mormons Christian (cc obviously)

[HRAAB]

I've got a question in my mind that is bugging me, and I hoping I can word it correctly.

 

In the Are We all Hindus Now thread I read many times that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. Now I see in the Are Mormons Christian thread that 'I'm Christian, Mormons are not' is ahead. Can someone explain how these two positions are compatible. I know quite a few Mormons, and they all most definitely have a relationship with Jesus. So based on the statement that Christianity is a relationship, and Mormons (individually, of course) have a relationship with Jesus, how can they not be considered Christian?

 

I'm not sure that I at all get the idea that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion, but until I'm sure I understand what is meant by that, I'll just keep thinking.

 

Janet

[Jugglin'5]

I've got a question in my mind that is bugging me, and I hoping I can word it correctly.

 

In the Are We all Hindus Now thread I read many times that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. Now I see in the Are Mormons Christian thread that 'I'm Christian, Mormons are not' is ahead. Can someone explain how these two positions are compatible. I know quite a few Mormons, and they all most definitely have a relationship with Jesus. So based on the statement that Christianity is a relationship, and Mormons (individually, of course) have a relationship with Jesus, how can they not be considered Christian?

 

I'm not sure that I at all get the idea that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion, but until I'm sure I understand what is meant by that, I'll just keep thinking.

 

Janet

 

Well, I think Christianity is a relationship AND a religion. :D

[Orthodox6]

Well' date=' I think Christianity is a relationship AND a religion. :D[/quote']

 

All of the above . . . AND a way of life. (not at all just something to play with on Sundays)

[HRAAB]

Well' date=' I think Christianity is a relationship AND a religion. :D[/quote']

 

All of the above . . . AND a way of life. (not at all just something to play with on Sundays)

 

This is my stance also. I was just trying to understand 'Christianity is a relationship, not a religion' and match that up with Mormons not being Christian. It's not clicking in my mind.

 

If anyone else would like to chime in, I would appreciate it.

 

Janet

[DawnM]

If you want to know why there is a belief that mormons aren't Christians or why some think they aren't Christians, or whatever, really, a simple google search will explain. You can draw your own conclusions based on the research you do.

 

Dawn

[cougarmom4]

mormon.org

[WistfulRidge]

As someone who is LDS (Mormon) who most definitely believes in Christ, accepts him as my Savior, and loves him deeply I'm curious to the answer to this question.

 

From my experience with people that tend to believe that way (That Mormons are not Christians) get hung up on either

A) the fact that we have another book of scripture. I usually get cited the verse in Revelations about how no words should be added unto this work (at which I bite my tongue because at least in the circles I run in, as a historian of the Ancient Near East, it is pretty common knowledge that Revelations was one of the first books written of the NT, and if that verse was meant to apply to scripture, period, than a good 1/2 of the NT would be "unacceptable") or

B) the fact that we believe in modern day prophets, apostles, and revelation...

 

and use those reasons to exclude us from what they term as "Christianity".

[HRAAB]

If you want to know why there is a belief that mormons aren't Christians or why some think they aren't Christians, or whatever, really, a simple google search will explain. You can draw your own conclusions based on the research you do.

 

Dawn

 

Based on dogma, I can understand why some Christians do not feel Mormons are Christian. That wasn't my question, though. It was to those who feel Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not a religion. That was what I was hoping to have explained.

 

Janet

[usetoschool]

I've got a question in my mind that is bugging me, and I hoping I can word it correctly.

 

In the Are We all Hindus Now thread I read many times that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. Now I see in the Are Mormons Christian thread that 'I'm Christian, Mormons are not' is ahead. Can someone explain how these two positions are compatible. I know quite a few Mormons, and they all most definitely have a relationship with Jesus. So based on the statement that Christianity is a relationship, and Mormons (individually, of course) have a relationship with Jesus, how can they not be considered Christian?

 

I'm not sure that I at all get the idea that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion, but until I'm sure I understand what is meant by that, I'll just keep thinking.

 

Janet

 

I think it depends on how you see the word "christianity" - with a capital 'C' or a lower case 'c'. There are so many different sects of lower case 'c' christianity and many of them, mine included, believe that they are the upper case 'C' Christianity - the true church of Jesus Christ with all of His doctine, principles, and ordinances. The term has a broader, more generic meaning as well - simply a person who believes in Jesus Christ. I think the convoluting of the two different definitions is what gets people into arguments.

 

My personal beliefs, and I think I am safe in saying the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are that anyone who follows Jesus Christ is a christian.

[HRAAB]

mormon.org

 

Thank you. I'm actually pretty familiar with Mormon teaching. Much of my extended family is LDS, plus I live in a highly LDS populated area. I will keep the site bookmarked, though.

 

Janet

[Orthodox6]

Just in case it would be of interest to you, that is not the commonly accepted viewpoint. The Pauline Epistles are the oldest NT books.

 

[excerpt quote]: ". . .Of the books that became part of the New Testament, the oldest are the letters of Paul, usually considered to have been written in the 40s and 50s of the first century. Other letters are thought to have been written over the next couple of decades. Of the four gospels, Mark is the earliest at about 68-70 ce, while John is the latest at about 110. Acts is later than Luke (around 100) and Revelation was probably composed in the 90s. . . . [end quote]

 

Also of interest: http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm#250

 

in the circles I run in, as a historian of the Ancient Near East, it is pretty common knowledge that Revelations was one of the first books written of the NT,

[KingM]

I tend to think of Mormonism as Christianity+. That is, it's a Christian faith that also has some additional features, such as another set of scriptures, a prophet, and expansion upon certain rituals (the temple, etc.).

 

I don't really understand the point of view of excluding the LDS faith tradition from the larger Christian umbrella, but I do think there is a legitimate disagreement between hierarchical religions such as Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and Mormonism, and other faiths that don't think authority is important and may possibly be dangerous.

 

That is, Christian->Prophet/Pope->God vs. Christian->God

 

I suspect a Mormon or Catholic would counter by saying that having a leader who speaks for God does not mean they do not have a personal relationship with divinity. They might say that counsel comes through the leadership, while spirituality is individual. Is that more or less accurate?

[cougarmom4]

Thank you. I'm actually pretty familiar with Mormon teaching. Much of my extended family is LDS, plus I live in a highly LDS populated area. I will keep the site bookmarked, though.

 

Janet

 

 

Janet,

My purpose in posting mormon.org was in reply to the previous post who said to do a google search for info...in my opinion you'll find out more accurate information from the church's official site than from the opinions of dissenters. I should have put more info in my post to clarify this.

 

(On a side note, why am I incapable of including a quote in my posts? What am I doing wrong!! :tongue_smilie:)

ETA: Oh, it did work! Disregard...

Edited August 19, 2009 by cougarmom4

[usetoschool]

I tend to think of Mormonism as Christianity+. That is, it's a Christian faith that also has some additional features, such as another set of scriptures, a prophet, and expansion upon certain rituals (the temple, etc.).

 

I don't really understand the point of view of excluding the LDS faith tradition from the larger Christian umbrella, but I do think there is a legitimate disagreement between hierarchical religions such as Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and Mormonism, and other faiths that don't think authority is important and may possibly be dangerous.

 

That is, Christian->Prophet/Pope->God vs. Christian->God

 

I suspect a Mormon or Catholic would counter by saying that having a leader who speaks for God does not mean they do not have a personal relationship with divinity. They might say that counsel comes through the leadership, while spirituality is individual. Is that more or less accurate?

 

Pretty much - I think I would define it more clearly as my personal relationship is with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and that the prophet's role is to direct the church as a whole. I receive revelation for myself, the prophet receives revelation for the direction of the church and the world in general.

[MamaSheep]

I've got a question in my mind that is bugging me, and I hoping I can word it correctly.

 

In the Are We all Hindus Now thread I read many times that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. Now I see in the Are Mormons Christian thread that 'I'm Christian, Mormons are not' is ahead. Can someone explain how these two positions are compatible. I know quite a few Mormons, and they all most definitely have a relationship with Jesus. So based on the statement that Christianity is a relationship, and Mormons (individually, of course) have a relationship with Jesus, how can they not be considered Christian?

 

I'm not sure that I at all get the idea that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion, but until I'm sure I understand what is meant by that, I'll just keep thinking.

 

Janet

 

I haven't been participating in the other threads, so hopefully I won't just repeat what has been said there. You're right, it is confusing and a bit complex. As a Mormon myself, I've seen these issues, or similar ones, brought up fairly frequently (ad nauseum) and there do seem to be some general patterns that emerge. I'm going to generalize a bit here and I hope that in doing so I don't offend anyone. I understand that this is a sensitive subject for a lot of people, and I really truly am trying to provide a sincere answer to what seems to me to be a sincere question. So I beg everyone's patience.

 

The heart of the confusion, usually, is that different people and different groups or movements have differing definitons of key terms. It's not done maliciously or with an intent do deceive anyone, it has just sort of evolved that way, but it does help to understand the definitions being used by the people who are discussing the issues.

 

To some people, generally within the evangelical umbrella, but not always, the word "Christianity" refers to having truly and sincerely accepted Jesus as your Savior in one's heart and in return been forgiven of one's sins. This forms a "relationship" between the person and the Lord, which should be nurtured and cherished. It's a very personal, internal kind of spiritual event. To many people who hold this view, the word "religion" refers to outward behavior, such as attending church services, making monetary offerings, dressing or behaving in particular ways, and that sort of thing. Under these definitions, one can be "Christian" (have a relationship with Christ) without participating in any sort of "religion" (go to church, read the Bible, etc.). One can also participate in "religion" (go through all the "right" motions) without really being a Christian (because one has not had that profound, internal, spiritual event that forms a relationship between the individual and the Savior).

 

In my experience, people who hold to these definitions tend to do one of two things when they are asked to categorize Mormons. One is that they tend to say that anyone in any "religion" can be a Christian, so long as they have truly accepted Christ, and therefore an individual Mormon might be a Christian or might not be. Most of the people who have spoken to me about it using these definitions tend to hold the opinion that "Mormonism" is not a "Christian" religion, but that some individual Mormons have overcome that and (almost by accident) stumbled upon a relationship with Jesus anyway. The second way, in my personal experience, that people who use these definitions tend to categorize Mormons is that Mormons are not Christians and cannot be unless they leave Mormonism and join a "real" Christian movement. The reasoning is usually that because Mormonism teaches a few things about Jesus that are different from what is taught by most other Christian faiths, Mormons believe in a false Christ and it is useless to have a "relationship" with a false Christ. This may be what you are seeing if there are individuals who say that Christianity is a relationship but Mormons are not Christians even if they seem to have such a relationship.

 

Some people prefer a definition of Christianity that is based on historical origins of a movement, rather than on "relationship"--or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they believe that the proper "relationship" can only be established through a belief system that stems from the proper historical origins. At any rate, it has more to do with historical origin than with actual teachings. Under this sort of definition Mormons are excluded from the umbrella of Christianity because it is not a branch of historical Christianity. Latter-Day Saint belief is that historical Christianity drifted too far from Christ's original teachings. The efforts to reform the Christian faith were admirable, but insufficient, and God's solution was to personally re-establish the original teachings by revelation. This being the case, people who define Christianity based on historical origins exclude Mormonism as a separate religion because it claims separate origins from historical Christianity, whereas Mormons view Mormonism as the truest form of Christianity on Earth at present BECAUSE it is separate from the corrupted historical Christianity, and view it as a re-establishment of the original historical Christianity of Jesus and the apostles.

 

Then there are some Christian groups/movements that have their own very narrow and rigid definition of Christianity that generally excludes everyone not of that particular denomination/group/movement. Since they each have their own specifics, I think I'll just leave it at that.

 

I hope this helps answer your question. It can be a fairly confusing and divisive issue. I try to avoid the "am too" "are not" arguments, because I think they are counterproductive for all concerned, but I am happy to answer sincere questions about my beliefs.

 

As a Mormon myself, it doesn't really matter to me how others categorize me. When it comes to whether or not I am Christian the only One whose opinion really matters to me is Christ's, and I am confident about where I stand with Him. For the rest, I am content to let God be the judge between us and deal with both sides as He sees fit. I respect the right of others to believe and act according to their own consciences. For any who are offended, I am truly sorry to cause them any discomfort, but I cannot deny my Christ. He is my Savior, my Redeemer, my strength and comfort and I rely on His mercy and grace every day of my life and I CANNOT say that I am not His or that He is not my Savior just to please a friend or neighbor who believes otherwise. We'll have to just agree to disagree and I hope we can still be friends.

[TXMomof4]

I tend to think of Mormonism as Christianity+. That is, it's a Christian faith that also has some additional features, such as another set of scriptures, a prophet, and expansion upon certain rituals (the temple, etc.).

 

 

 

I agree with this. I look at the gospels and at Acts and see a very simple belief. Then I look at some of these other religions and they have so much that seems 'extra'. While I throughly believe God works through people in this day and age, I can't believe that the basics change. If one person believes they must follow certain rules that's one thing, but to believe that my salvation depends on following those rules - if they are outside the Scripture - I can't accept that. I think there is really very few *salvation issues* and many many many debatable issues. My denomination has strictly scripture based beliefs. Even with that - it is amazing to see the differences that can come up. If you add Holy Tradition (as the Catholics I know do) or the Book of Mormon, there's a whole lot that is *extra* - beyond the love God, love your neighbor commands.

 

Basically, I think we feel a need to make it harder than it has to be. Jesus didn't have a whole set of rules and regulations he followed - he loved people. I know that sounds naive and too simple, but when you boil it down, that's it. I truly believe that we (humans) feel the need for the rule book to define our Christian walk because a list is easier to follow than our conscience. Tell me to do A, B, and C and I can do that. Tell me to love my neighbor and I have to decide what that means, what is required of me and decide to step outside of myself to do it.

[songbirdie]

The "Christianity is a relationship not a religion" would apply to the Buddhist conversation, but not to the Mormon conversation.

The whole thing about Christianity being a relationship, not a religion really has nothing to do with the reason many Christians don't believe Mormons are Christians. That reason would be because Mormons have added an entire book (or book of books) to the Bible. Christianity is based solely on the Bible, so Mormons couldn't be Christians if they don't base their teachings solely on the Bible (without the additions, i.e. Book of Mormon, Apocrypha).

[MamaSheep]

The "Christianity is a relationship not a religion" would apply to the Buddhist conversation, but not to the Mormon conversation.

The whole thing about Christianity being a relationship, not a religion really has nothing to do with the reason many Christians don't believe Mormons are Christians. That reason would be because Mormons have added an entire book (or book of books) to the Bible. Christianity is based solely on the Bible, so Mormons couldn't be Christians if they don't base their teachings solely on the Bible (without the additions, i.e. Book of Mormon, Apocrypha).

 

Oh there are lots of reasons given, you're right, and this is definitely one of them. I have to say, though, that this particular objection (that Christianity is based solely on the Bible) has never made much sense to me, as it would also exclude from Christianity all of the people who were Christian prior to the time the New Testament was written down and accepted as scripture. If there was Christianity before the Bible was finished, the idea that Christianity is based on the Bible alone seems illogical to me.

[KingM]

If you add Holy Tradition (as the Catholics I know do) or the Book of Mormon, there's a whole lot that is *extra* - beyond the love God, love your neighbor commands.

 

Just a quibble. Having read the Book of Mormon, it is quite Biblical. Much of it reads like the Old Testament, and other parts (after the visit of Jesus) is a lot like the New Testament. There are even verses that seemed to me to be more trinitarian than current LDS beliefs.

 

The additional doctrine comes from the Doctrine and Covenants, which are writings in the 1830s and 1840s by Joseph Smith and a couple of others, claimed to be revelations from God through his prophets. Also, I don't think the details of the LDS temple rituals have been officially published, although unauthorized versions are available via Google or books by dissenters.

[DawnM]

Without getting too argumentative I think it also has to do with who the person of Jesus Christ was...who the embodyment of God is, and a whole host of other things. That was why I suggested some searches. Mormon.org is purely from a Mormon standpoint and I can certainly gain knowledge from reading that, but if you want to understand why Christians may not agree that Mormons are Christian, then you would have to look at the side that believes that and see why they believe that.

 

Dawn

 

Based on dogma, I can understand why some Christians do not feel Mormons are Christian. That wasn't my question, though. It was to those who feel Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not a religion. That was what I was hoping to have explained.

 

Janet

[jeri]

I never respond to "religious" threads, but I am going to here. Then I'm done!

 

To me, since the LDS church believes in modern dayy prophets, they can "write" or "rewrite" Scripture as they see fit. So, while they can defend their beliefs based on Joseph Smith's book of Mormon, or the church heads changing of policy, to me, this is man rewriting Scripture. And I cannot believe that there are many Gods out in the universe, that my dh (were he Mormon) would someday become a god while I go on to have multiple babies to populate new worlds, that I can rescue my deceased relatives from a spiritless world by "sealing" them in the temple, that special garments (long underwear) is a sign of a pious Mormon, that until 1978 black men were not able to become priests until there was a sudden "revelation," and that God and Jesus are truly "flesh and bone" and as a Mormon I would one day be on par with them. Just too many way far-out ideas for me.

 

That said, I think Mormons are (in general) moral, family-focused, kind, generous, good financial planners, and nice people. But Christians according to the standard adn time honored tradition? No.

 

Jeri

[KingM]

Mormon.org is purely from a Mormon standpoint and I can certainly gain knowledge from reading that, but if you want to understand why Christians may not agree that Mormons are Christian, then you would have to look at the side that believes that and see why they believe that.

 

I agree with that, while pointing out that an evangelical site about Mormonism has its own agenda. As would a secular site about the religion.

 

It's kind of like shopping for a car. You won't get very accurate information from the Toyota dealer about the features and benefits of a Honda, but neither will the Honda dealer give you a full picture, either. Your best bet is to talk to both, and probably the Ford and VW guys too. :)

[DawnM]

:iagree: Oh, I totally agree! I just was trying to say that I don't think you can get both sides from Mormon.org as they have their agenda too! ;)

 

Dawn

 

I agree with that, while pointing out that an evangelical site about Mormonism has its own agenda. As would a secular site about the religion.

 

It's kind of like shopping for a car. You won't get very accurate information from the Toyota dealer about the features and benefits of a Honda, but neither will the Honda dealer give you a full picture, either. Your best bet is to talk to both, and probably the Ford and VW guys too. :)

[MamaSheep]

Without getting too argumentative I think it also has to do with who the person of Jesus Christ was...who the embodyment of God is, and a whole host of other things. That was why I suggested some searches. Mormon.org is purely from a Mormon standpoint and I can certainly gain knowledge from reading that, but if you want to understand why Christians may not agree that Mormons are Christian, then you would have to look at the side that believes that and see why they believe that.

 

Dawn

 

I don't want to be argumentative either, so please take this in the spirit of friendly discussion in which it is meant.

 

First, I completely agree with you that if someone wants to know why some Christians believe that Mormons are not Christians you should ask the Christians, and googling is a good way to find out that sort of information.

 

The reason that such a suggestion will sometimes garner resigned sighs and headshakes from Mormons is that the information about Mormonism on websites that contain such explanations is FREQUENTLY inaccurate. Sometimes the inaccuracies are fairly subtle, and sometimes they are so wildly off base that it's difficult to recognize any vague resemblance to actual LDS teachings.

 

So I would say that if you want to know what Christians object to, ask the Christians. But please don't assume that the information about what Mormons believe that is offered there is accurate. If you want to know what Mormons believe, ask the Mormons. Please. Seriously.

[DawnM]

Oh, Amy, you know I have! We have had a lot of discussions and I truely appreciate them.

 

I thought the question was why some Christians do not believe Mormons are Christians and I didn't think you could find out what the reason was by looking at Mormon.org.....but certainly to find out what Mormons believe you should either go to Mormon.org or ask a Mormon!

 

Dawn

 

I don't want to be argumentative either, so please take this in the spirit of friendly discussion in which it is meant.

 

First, I completely agree with you that if someone wants to know why some Christians believe that Mormons are not Christians you should ask the Christians, and googling is a good way to find out that sort of information.

 

The reason that such a suggestion will sometimes garner resigned sighs and headshakes from Mormons is that the information about Mormonism on websites that contain such explanations is FREQUENTLY inaccurate. Sometimes the inaccuracies are fairly subtle, and sometimes they are so wildly off base that it's difficult to recognize any vague resemblance to actual LDS teachings.

 

So I would say that if you want to know what Christians object to, ask the Christians. But please don't assume that the information about what Mormons believe that is offered there is accurate. If you want to know what Mormons believe, ask the Mormons. Please. Seriously.

[MamaSheep]

I never respond to "religious" threads, but I am going to here. Then I'm done!

 

To me, since the LDS church believes in modern dayy prophets, they can "write" or "rewrite" Scripture as they see fit. So, while they can defend their beliefs based on Joseph Smith's book of Mormon, or the church heads changing of policy, to me, this is man rewriting Scripture. And I cannot believe that there are many Gods out in the universe, that my dh (were he Mormon) would someday become a god while I go on to have multiple babies to populate new worlds, that I can rescue my deceased relatives from a spiritless world by "sealing" them in the temple, that special garments (long underwear) is a sign of a pious Mormon, that until 1978 black men were not able to become priests until there was a sudden "revelation," and that God and Jesus are truly "flesh and bone" and as a Mormon I would one day be on par with them. Just too many way far-out ideas for me.

 

That said, I think Mormons are (in general) moral, family-focused, kind, generous, good financial planners, and nice people. But Christians according to the standard adn time honored tradition? No.

 

Jeri

 

Hi Jeri. I share your reluctance to get into this kind of discussion and I'm not sure why I'm doing it today. Maybe I'm just procrastinating housework. I hope I don't live to regret it. The points you raised are not completely accurate descriptions of LDS belief, but it does sound as though you've at least tried to do your homework and I wanted to say I appreciate that. I'd be happy to discuss any of the above with you if you wanted, but it sounds to me as though that isn't what you were looking for in posting your opinion here so I'm not going to press the issue. Thank you for your kind generalization about us, I'm glad to hear you have a good opinion of us, in general, even though you do not believe we are Christians. :001_smile:

[songbirdie]

. . .it would also exclude from Christianity all of the people who were Christian prior to the time the New Testament was written down and accepted as scripture. If there was Christianity before the Bible was finished, the idea that Christianity is based on the Bible alone seems illogical to me.

 

It would seem illogical unless we allow history to enlighten us. Christianity began with Jesus, and His teachings were the basis for the "religion", "relationship" or whatever word we want to use. The early Christians began writing down those teachings and how they applied them to their lives within ca. 90 years of Jesus - within one generation. So it existed, and then was written down. It would be illogical, in reality, to have written something down BEFORE it existed. Here's a very simple analogy: I developed my homemade chicken noodle soup recipe. I used it, many of my friends used it, and then one of my friends wrote it down, and now anyone who wants to make it can get the exact ingredients and follow the directions. It would've been impossible to write down the ingredients if I'd not ever made the soup yet. In the same way, Jesus had to come, exist, teach, live as an example, and have people who followed Him and tried their best to copy His example before they could write any of that down as history. Then those (we) who follow that generation of people that lived during the early church years can follow exactly what they were following back at that time.

[MamaSheep]

Oh, Amy, you know I have! We have had a lot of discussions and I truely appreciate them.

 

I thought the question was why some Christians do not believe Mormons are Christians and I didn't think you could find out what the reason was by looking at Mormon.org.....but certainly to find out what Mormons believe you should either go to Mormon.org or ask a Mormon!

 

Dawn

 

Yep, I'm with you there. Although, if you've been a Mormon for very long (especially outside of Utah) you've been lectured on the subject by at least one very vehement Christian...lol. And IN Utah there are always the picketers to strike up a conversation with if you haven't yet been beaten over the head with it. But you're right that mormon.org is not a good source of such information and any individual "lectured at" Mormon is probably not going to tell the story the same way their lecturing friend did.

 

And I know that YOU ask, and I appreciate our conversations too. But I'm still fairly new here so I have no idea what approach all those other googlers might take and I just thought I'd toss that out there. Some of those websites are truly WAAAAY off in left field, but most Christians are not informed enough about LDS belief to know any better when they read that stuff. I had a work friend when I lived in Georgia whose church was having some kind of Sunday School class about Mormonism and she used to come into work Monday mornings with THE most OUTLANDISH tales about us I just had to laugh. Seriously, hot cocoa OUT THE NOSE sometimes. But it made me sad too because I knew most of the people in her class didn't have a Mormon friend to discuss it with and they had no reason to doubt their pastor. And frankly, I don't think the pastor knew any better either, he was just following some course manual. It's kind of creepy to think of all those people out there walking around BELIEVING that stuff about us...gah!

 

But yeah, if you want to know a Christian's reason for doing or believing something, ask the Christian. Just be aware that when that Christian is talking about other people's beliefs, he might not be as well informed as he thinks he is.

[HRAAB]

I think my confusion started with the statements that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Then following up on that, I read that many Christians don't feel Mormons are Christian although they have a relationship with Jesus. It's really just me. I'm very dense and black and white. If I hear 'Christianity is a relationship', then I take it as that, a relationship. So if that's the case, Mormons who have a relationship with Jesus are just fine.

 

Maybe I need to back up and try to understand 'Christianity is a relationship, not a religion' and forget the Mormon aspect for now.

 

I see Christianity as a religion, with specific tenets of faith, something along the lines of: man fell from God's grace, God promised a savior, He (God) then sent His only son, in the person of Jesus, to take our sins upon Himself, die on the cross and rise from the dead three days later. There are certain things (doctrine?) that one needs to believe to be a Christian.

 

Okay. So then saying Christianity is a relationship leaves me confused. I have a relationship with many people, my dh, children, friends, etc. But those relationships don't save me. I could say I have a relationship with Jesus, He was a great teacher and master, much as I could have a relationship with Buddha, or some other person that lived before me, but that alone isn't going to get me saved. It's who Jesus is (God) that is going to get me saved. So I go back to Christianity is a religion with certain tenets/doctrines, and it's those specific beliefs that make all the difference, not the relationship alone. On the other hand, the relationship with Jesus is cannot be separated from being a Christian. I see it more like the fruit of Christianity, the religion, but inseparable.

 

As I said, I'm dense, and take statements very literally, then work them to death, and drive myself and dh crazy. Anyway, that's why those two statements don't fit for me - Christianity a relationship/Mormons not Christian, unless Christianity is more than a relationship. Then, I can understand (not necessarily agree) that the Mormon religion is not in line with the basic Christian tenets/doctrine/whatever you call it.

 

If you read through all that, thanks.

 

Janet

[KingM]

If you want to know what Mormons believe, ask the Mormons. Please. Seriously.

 

I agree, but to be fair, there is some disagreements within Mormonism itself as to what is official LDS doctrine. For example:

 

1. Are all Native Americans descended from a group of Jews who left the Holy Land or just some of them?

2. Is the Earth thousands of years old, or billions?

3. Were blacks denied the priesthood before 1978 because they were fence sitters in a conflict between God and Satan in the preexistence or because of human prejudice or simply some unknown reason of God's?

4. Will humans literally become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, with the ability to create and reign over new universes?

5. Who is Heavenly Mother?

 

I'm not meaning to debate these individual points, but I think it's clear that if you look at the more speculative elements of LDS theology, or at teachings of earlier leaders, you can certainly come up with enough justification for some of the evangelical talking points.

 

That is not to say that evangelical films like the God Makers are not designed with the idea of expounding upon LDS doctrine in an attempt to make it look as ridiculous and out-of-the-mainstream as possible. Nevertheless, they're not just making it up whole-cloth.

[Orthodox6]

If any of the LDS posters wish to take the time to answer my question, I would appreciate it. I understand the discomfort with reading "details" about ones religion on a website, or in a book, -- details which the adherent considers distorted or false. I certainly have spewed my share of reflexive stomach HCl while reading ugly lies about the Orthodox Christian faith !

 

So please keep in mind that I am writing as one never attracted to the LDS religion, but also as one with no axe to grind nor battle to trigger. [Thanks ! :) ]

 

One thing always is alleged of the LDS religion, and I am interested in your all's response(s). This is that a new convert to Mormonism (is that word allowed?) is told a highly restricted version of the LDS faith. As the convert progresses (perhaps not the right word) through time belonging to the Mormon religion, gradually over the years, more and more "secret" details are shared with "right-behaving" individuals. Some of these "secret beliefs" end up described by people who have left the LDS religion -- and many of these described beliefs definitely "do not wash" with non-Mormons. The former LDS members also relate that they are persecuted for questioning elements of the religion, and persecuted for attempting to leave. "Easy in, extraordinarily difficult out", to express their reported experiences.

 

Again, thank you for any LDS observations.

[DawnM]

Well, it is certainly good to know that evangelical Christians don't have the corner market on arguing over doctrinal issues within the church.

 

I will note that #4 is a huge sticking point that Christians have with LDS though. I didn't realize it was debated within the LDS church though.

 

Dawn

 

 

I agree, but to be fair, there is some disagreements within Mormonism itself as to what is official LDS doctrine. For example:

 

1. Are all Native Americans descended from a group of Jews who left the Holy Land or just some of them?

2. Is the Earth thousands of years old, or billions?

3. Were blacks denied the priesthood before 1978 because they were fence sitters in a conflict between God and Satan in the preexistence or because of human prejudice or simply some unknown reason of God's?

4. Will humans literally become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, with the ability to create and reign over new universes?

5. Who is Heavenly Mother?

 

I'm not meaning to debate these individual points, but I think it's clear that if you look at the more speculative elements of LDS theology, or at teachings of earlier leaders, you can certainly come up with enough justification for some of the evangelical talking points.

 

That is not to say that evangelical films like the God Makers are not designed with the idea of expounding upon LDS doctrine in an attempt to make it look as ridiculous and out-of-the-mainstream as possible. Nevertheless, they're not just making it up whole-cloth.

[songbirdie]

I had a work friend when I lived in Georgia whose church was having some kind of Sunday School class about Mormonism and she used to come into work Monday mornings with THE most OUTLANDISH tales about us I just had to laugh. Seriously, hot cocoa OUT THE NOSE sometimes. But it made me sad too because I knew most of the people in her class didn't have a Mormon friend to discuss it with and they had no reason to doubt their pastor. And frankly, I don't think the pastor knew any better either, he was just following some course manual. It's kind of creepy to think of all those people out there walking around BELIEVING that stuff about us...gah!

 

On the other side of that coin. . .there are many beliefs that are actually part of Mormon doctrine that every LDS person I've ever known had no idea were in there and could've laughed cocoa out of their noses until they actually did some research and found that those beliefs really are within Mormon doctrine. I'm not saying it's the same beliefs you're referring to, just some outlandish beliefs in general.

[MamaSheep]

It would seem illogical unless we allow history to enlighten us. Christianity began with Jesus, and His teachings were the basis for the "religion", "relationship" or whatever word we want to use. The early Christians began writing down those teachings and how they applied them to their lives within ca. 90 years of Jesus - within one generation. So it existed, and then was written down. It would be illogical, in reality, to have written something down BEFORE it existed. Here's a very simple analogy: I developed my homemade chicken noodle soup recipe. I used it, many of my friends used it, and then one of my friends wrote it down, and now anyone who wants to make it can get the exact ingredients and follow the directions. It would've been impossible to write down the ingredients if I'd not ever made the soup yet. In the same way, Jesus had to come, exist, teach, live as an example, and have people who followed Him and tried their best to copy His example before they could write any of that down as history. Then those (we) who follow that generation of people that lived during the early church years can follow exactly what they were following back at that time.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Christianity is actually based on the teachings of Christ, not on the Bible, as such, because the Bible was not yet written down when the first Christians believed Christ. The Bible does contain some of Christ's teachings, and as such is a written representation of an already existing Christianity. Christianity existed independent of the Bible before the Bible was created. Therefore, logically speaking, Christianity cannot be drawn SOLELY from the Bible. And that is why it doesn't make sense to me to say that a belief system cannot be Christian unless it is drawn SOLELY from the Bible. Because if you use that definition, you have to exclude Christ, the apostles, and all of those that believed their words before they were written down.

 

To use your analogy, it would make no sense to say that the only "real" chicken soup is chicken soup that was made following the written recipe because that would exclude the original soup that existed before the recipe for it was written down. Obviously, the original chicken soup from which the recipe was developed WAS chicken soup. Otherwise, the recipe developed from it would not be a recipe for chicken soup either. But obviously the original soup WAS chicken soup, and the recipe was drawn from the original soup, not the other way around. And of course, you, as the original developer of the soup would not be limited to making the soup following the recipe, you know how to make the soup, you DEVELOPED the recipe in the first place. You would be able to create the same soup without any written recipe at all, and you'd also be able to write out the recipe for someone else if they asked for it. It wouldn't be the original place you wrote it down, but it would be the same recipe for the same soup.

[KingM]

I will note that #4 is a huge sticking point that Christians have with LDS though. I didn't realize it was debated within the LDS church though.

 

What about this? It seems it is either no longer believed, or no longer emphasized.

 

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man? A: I wouldn't say that. There was a couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about. (President Gordon B. Hinckley with Don Lattin, the San Francisco Chronicle religion writer. The article was dated Sunday, April 13, 1997)

 

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet. A: Yeah Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are? A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, Time magazine of August 4, 1997, in an article titled "Kingdom Come," page 56)

 

Gordon Hinckley was the LDS prophet just before the current leader of their church, so it seems pretty authoritative, but I have certainly heard Mormons talk about this doctrine since 1997.

[KingM]

On the other side of that coin. . .there are many beliefs that are actually part of Mormon doctrine that every LDS person I've ever known had no idea were in there and could've laughed cocoa out of their noses until they actually did some research and found that those beliefs really are within Mormon doctrine. I'm not saying it's the same beliefs you're referring to, just some outlandish beliefs in general.

 

But wait, if Mormons don't know that doctrine and don't believe that doctrine, how can you say that this is what Mormons believe? Maybe some did, or some do, but that doesn't matter anyway, if the most important detail of Christianity is one individual's relationship with God, which I think both sides more or less agree with.

[Julie in Austin]

If any of the LDS posters wish to take the time to answer my question, I would appreciate it. I understand the discomfort with reading "details" about ones religion on a website, or in a book, -- details which the adherent considers distorted or false. I certainly have spewed my share of reflexive stomach HCl while reading ugly lies about the Orthodox Christian faith !

 

So please keep in mind that I am writing as one never attracted to the LDS religion, but also as one with no axe to grind nor battle to trigger. [Thanks ! :) ]

 

One thing always is alleged of the LDS religion, and I am interested in your all's response(s). This is that a new convert to Mormonism (is that word allowed?) is told a highly restricted version of the LDS faith. As the convert progresses (perhaps not the right word) through time belonging to the Mormon religion, gradually over the years, more and more "secret" details are shared with "right-behaving" individuals. Some of these "secret beliefs" end up described by people who have left the LDS religion -- and many of these described beliefs definitely "do not wash" with non-Mormons. The former LDS members also relate that they are persecuted for questioning elements of the religion, and persecuted for attempting to leave. "Easy in, extraordinarily difficult out", to express their reported experiences.

 

Again, thank you for any LDS observations.

 

Let me try to answer here. I think there are three issues:

 

(1) Before you join the LDS church, you have about 6 discussions with the missionaries and attend our church a handful of times. (This is a minimum.) Those six discussions cover what we believe is most important, but, obviously, not every detail. So, yes, more will be learned later.

 

(If you want detail on this, the book the missionaries teach from is called _Preach My Gospel_, the book people in their first year of Sunday School use is called _Gospel Principles_ and the books used in Sunday School thereafter are called Old Testament Gospel Doctrine, NT Gospel Doctrine, Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine, and D & C Gospel Doctrine. All of these have full text available online. You will see that they do not contradict what the missionaries teach, but obviously go into more detail.)

 

(2) Faithful LDS participate in the temple ritual, which is not discussed in detail outside of the temple. I will tell you that there is nothing earth-shattering, really new, or contradictory to other LDS teachings in the temple. What is different is that it is highly ritualistic, which virtually nothing else in the LDS church is, and that is why even some members find it "weird" at first.

 

(3) If you spend some time googling, you will find that 19th century church leaders said lots of things that are not now regarded as doctrinal or binding on the church (if they ever were; most were not). We do not believe that our leaders are infallible, so this isn't an issue for us, but it is not uncommon for the following to happen:

 

non-LDS: "You guys believe X and that's nuts."

 

LDS: "No we don't. That is nuts."

 

non-LDS: "Oh yeah? I found that Elder So-and-so preached that in a sermon in 1874!"

 

LDS: "So what? So he got a little speculative. I don't think that was ever the teaching of the church, and it certainly isn't now. I've been a member for 20 years and never even heard of that before."

 

I think the problem is that non-LDS view "X" as secret teachings kept from "new" Mormons.

 

(3) As for easy in, impossible to get out: I already told you the requirements to get in (which also include an interview where the person affirms her testimony of basic LDS beliefs). To get "out" you have to write a letter requesting that your name be removed from the records of the church.

 

I'm happy to answer any other questions.

[coralloyd]

Mormons do profess to believe in Jesus Christ. But their Jesus is different than that of Christianity.

The Bible teaches that Jesus has always existed as God (Jonh 1:1). Mormon doctrine teaches that Jesus was someone who worked His way up to being a god (godhood) . To Mormons, Jesus is only one in purpose with God the Father. Christians believe (because the Bible declares it) that the Father and the Son are also one in essence, that they are both equally God and members of the Holy Trinity.

Mormons don't like to be viewed as polytheist (belief in or worship of more than one god); so they do not prayer to Jesus. They confess that they believe in the existence of many gods (Jesus being one of them) but pray only to God the Father. This doesn't makes much sense in the light of the fact that, they say they acknowledging Jesus to be Jehovah. However, the Bible says we should pray to Jesus in Romans 10:12, and John 14:14. This is part of our relationship with Him.

So the long and short of it is this- they have a different Jesus. There are many differences between Mormons and Christians that make them incompatible, but this is just one of them.

[Julie in Austin]

One more thought: I learned something recently from an Evangelical who has studied Mormonism extensively:

 

A Mormon who begins to reject some of the positions being officially articulated by church leaders or desires to see change within the church is still going to believe that those leaders are God’s prophets who hold the keys to the priesthood, so he’ll probably stay in the church. A Southern Baptist who begins to disagree with some of the pronouncements and beliefs of her denomination will likely shift to another Baptist denomination more suited to her beliefs, or another form of Christianity altogether. There’s a reason there isn’t a sprawling network of UMC or SBC bloggers discussing doctrine, analyzing the statements of leaders and suggesting changes those denominations could make like there is with Mormonism and the Bloggernacle. In Protestantism, it’s more trouble to reform your own denomination than it is to simply move on to one that suits you better. In Mormonism, you have no where else to go.

 

In conclusion, you’re confused by us because we’re big and confusing, and we’re confused by you because we’re not used to encountering so much diversity within such a (comparatively) small religious movement.

 

Full text here.

[MamaSheep]

[Drat. It got too long. I'm splitting. And then I'm off to make lunch. Sorry if I missed someone.]

Oh dear. We have now reached the point where there are far more questions being asked than I can possibly answer properly in the time available, and I suspect there will be additions by the time I'm done posting this. It's always so much quicker and easier to ask questions than to answer them...lol. I would be happy to go into depth about any or all of these issues if it can be done one question at a time, politely, and at a pace that allows me to also get to the other things I need to do. I'll take a quick stab at some of these, knowing my responses will be insufficient. Sorry.

 

If any of the LDS posters wish to take the time to answer my question, I would appreciate it. I understand the discomfort with reading "details" about ones religion on a website, or in a book, -- details which the adherent considers distorted or false. I certainly have spewed my share of reflexive stomach HCl while reading ugly lies about the Orthodox Christian faith !

 

So please keep in mind that I am writing as one never attracted to the LDS religion, but also as one with no axe to grind nor battle to trigger. [Thanks ! :) ]

 

One thing always is alleged of the LDS religion, and I am interested in your all's response(s). This is that a new convert to Mormonism (is that word allowed?) is told a highly restricted version of the LDS faith. As the convert progresses (perhaps not the right word) through time belonging to the Mormon religion, gradually over the years, more and more "secret" details are shared with "right-behaving" individuals. Some of these "secret beliefs" end up described by people who have left the LDS religion -- and many of these described beliefs definitely "do not wash" with non-Mormons. The former LDS members also relate that they are persecuted for questioning elements of the religion, and persecuted for attempting to leave. "Easy in, extraordinarily difficult out", to express their reported experiences.

 

Again, thank you for any LDS observations.

 

LDS belief is not something that is easily boiled down into three paragraphs in a tract (in fact, we believe that it encompasses all truth, regardless of the subject matter), and as with learning any large body of knowledge you have to begin SOMEWHERE and expand from there. In that sense, I guess you could say that someone who is in the early stages of learning about the church and its teachings would be taught, first, a somewhat distilled outline of the most important aspects of the faith in order to get them started--sort of a scaffolding. Then that scaffolding would be continually fleshed out. You can't learn all truth in six easy lessons, it's an ongoing effort throughout life and then beyond. But I do know that a sincere effort is made to make sure the person has a good idea what they're getting into, and they are specifically asked if they agree with the major, central tenets before they are allowed to be baptized and become a member of the church.

 

I think a lot of the notions about secret teachings stem from two main sources. One is from the temple ordinances, and the other is from ideas that are fringe speculations but are not part of the actual doctrine of the church. I suppose a third would be from sources outside the church that cherry pick quotes out of context and twist them to seem to mean something other than what is actually taught in the church.

 

Temple entrance is restricted to church members who have demonstrated a certain minimal level of commitment (not hard to do at all, btw), and that does make some people suspicious about there being secret teachings in the temple. I can say that the first time I participated in temple worship there was nothing that grabbed me as being new or different from what I had been taught in the church up to that point. Nor have I found anything of that sort in the years since, as I attended temple services. Temple worship is more formalized than regular Sunday worship (a rough analogy might be between "low" church and "high" church as described by dh's Episcopalian relatives), so the format is different, but the teachings are very consistent. Almost all of it is paraphrasing of scripture, and what is not is referred to in scripture as well. (Just to be clear, when I say scripture here, I mean the LDS canon of scripture). Since the church goes out of its way to publicize its scriptures, even to the point of having the entire text accessible online with cross references and footnotes and whatnot, I can't see how the substance of the teachings in the temple are hidden, secret knowledge, as I've heard some people claim. However, temple worship does include making "new" promises to God, in a sense. Really they're just a more formal declaration of commitment to God, not something really "new" -- which is why I put the word in quotes. It's sort of like someone becoming part of a religious order in orthodoxy. It's an increased level of commitment, but not a whole different set of teachings. We do take these commitments seriously, as a church, and in fact the main reason that a church member has to exhibit a minimum level of commitment before being admitted to the temple is because it would be irresponsible to allow someone to make deeper, more serious obligations to God if he or she is not yet able to live up to the obligations he or she has already entered into in joining God's church in the first place.

 

I've also heard rumors (outside the church, not in it) that you get told more if you serve in higher up levels of leadership in the church. I've personally served in leadership positions at the ward and stake level (a stake would be roughly similar to a smallish diocese). My close relatives, male and female, who are very open with me about everything and who would be highly offended by such a thing as different teachings for different "levels" in the church, have also served in ward and stake level leadership callings, including as bishops and in stake presidencies, as well as leading services in the temples. I've never heard of such a thing, and neither have any of them. And actually, the whole idea seems very foreign as "leadership" in the church is really viewed as a position of service to those you "lead", rather than as an authoritarian position. In other words, you don't tell people what to do, you make sure they have what they need. The whole idea of secret knowledge for leaders is just foreign to the Mormon mindset.

 

Which I guess brings us to some of those fringe speculations. Every group, religious or otherwise, I think, has some of those. The topic of angels seems to be an area that falls into this category for a lot of Christians I know. People extrapolate from extrapolations of extrapolations of actual teachings, and then sometimes talk about it as if it's "fact". There are some that are pretty wild, and some find more support in the church than others. But they are tangential to Mormonism, not part of the actual church teachings, and you can be a good and faithful Mormon and still think they're a load of bunk. Most Mormons are a little more open-minded than that and leave it at "who knows, could be true, might not be, it'll be interesting to find out when we get to the other side". These kinds of things are not included in church instruction manuals (except that I do remember seeing a couple of warnings not to buy into some of them that clearly contradict scripture, but even that doesn't happen much; mostly they're just not addressed one way or the other). Church members are encouraged to focus on the basics and the things that we do know for sure and not to get sidetracked by speculation about non-essentials. A lot of the supposed "secrets" of Mormonism fall into this category.

 

It has also been my experience, and that of most Mormons I know, that asking very searching questions is actually encouraged in the church, and indeed there is quite an emphasis on finding out for yourself whether any particular teaching is true, through study and prayer and discussion with other church members and leaders. What is NOT encouraged is campaigning to get other people to believe something contrary to church teachings. So in other words, it's good to ask questions and seek real, solid answers. It is not good to demand that other people accept your answers.

 

As far as "easy in, difficult out", I hear as many complaints from people who stopped going to church and "nobody noticed or came to ask me why". I suppose it's partly a matter of perception. But yes, if you become a member of the church (and it's considered entrance into Christ's worldwide church body, not just a club membership at a local congregation), you are counted as such unless you take specific action to remove yourself from the church body, and if you should decide to take that drastic action, breaking covenants you've made with God and severing your connection with His church, your church leaders are likely to try to encourage you to change your mind. I guess my opinion on that is that it SHOULD be easy to come to Christ, and more difficult to leave Him. But people should be treated with kindness and respect regardless.

 

Anyway, these are my observations from my own experience as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I hope that's helpful.

 

(-split-)

[MamaSheep]

(-continued-)

 

On the other side of that coin. . .there are many beliefs that are actually part of Mormon doctrine that every LDS person I've ever known had no idea were in there and could've laughed cocoa out of their noses until they actually did some research and found that those beliefs really are within Mormon doctrine. I'm not saying it's the same beliefs you're referring to, just some outlandish beliefs in general.

 

Certainly there are many Mormons who could be better informed if they took a little trouble, it's true. That irritates me too. But I suppose a little of a good thing is better than none at all.

 

I agree, but to be fair, there is some disagreements within Mormonism itself as to what is official LDS doctrine. For example:

 

1. Are all Native Americans descended from a group of Jews who left the Holy Land or just some of them?

2. Is the Earth thousands of years old, or billions?

3. Were blacks denied the priesthood before 1978 because they were fence sitters in a conflict between God and Satan in the preexistence or because of human prejudice or simply some unknown reason of God's?

4. Will humans literally become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, with the ability to create and reign over new universes?

5. Who is Heavenly Mother?

 

I'm not meaning to debate these individual points, but I think it's clear that if you look at the more speculative elements of LDS theology, or at teachings of earlier leaders, you can certainly come up with enough justification for some of the evangelical talking points.

 

That is not to say that evangelical films like the God Makers are not designed with the idea of expounding upon LDS doctrine in an attempt to make it look as ridiculous and out-of-the-mainstream as possible. Nevertheless, they're not just making it up whole-cloth.

 

Part of the problem, I think, is that some speculations are held up by critics as central doctrines, when not even church leaders would call them such.

 

What about this? It seems it is either no longer believed, or no longer emphasized.

 

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man? A: I wouldn't say that. There was a couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about. (President Gordon B. Hinckley with Don Lattin, the San Francisco Chronicle religion writer. The article was dated Sunday, April 13, 1997)

 

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet. A: Yeah Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are? A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, Time magazine of August 4, 1997, in an article titled "Kingdom Come," page 56)

 

Gordon Hinckley was the LDS prophet just before the current leader of their church, so it seems pretty authoritative, but I have certainly heard Mormons talk about this doctrine since 1997.

 

But wait, if Mormons don't know that doctrine and don't believe that doctrine, how can you say that this is what Mormons believe? Maybe some did, or some do, but that doesn't matter anyway, if the most important detail of Christianity is one individual's relationship with God, which I think both sides more or less agree with.

 

In this case President Hinckley was asked a question that would require a very long time to explain properly, but was only given a few seconds to respond. I think he did the best he could with the circumstances he was handed. I don't see the quotes as mutually exclusive at all, but certainly as requiring additional explanation.

 

Unfortunately I do need to go make lunch. I have hungry clamoring children and a dh who is looking a little low in the blood sugar department. If you would like to discuss this specific concept further, I'd be happy to do so. I think it might be better to start a new thread, though, and I would ask your patience as I probably won't be able to respond in as timely a manner as we both might prefer.

[KingM]

So the long and short of it is this- they have a different Jesus. There are many differences between Mormons and Christians that make them incompatible, but this is just one of them.

 

Presumably, there is/was only one Jesus. So they can't believe in another Jesus, because another one doesn't exist. One or both of you might have incorrect ideas about the nature of Jesus, but this is different, and not so insurmountable in the end.

[WistfulRidge]

Just in case it would be of interest to you, that is not the commonly accepted viewpoint. The Pauline Epistles are the oldest NT books.

 

[excerpt quote]: ". . .Of the books that became part of the New Testament, the oldest are the letters of Paul, usually considered to have been written in the 40s and 50s of the first century. Other letters are thought to have been written over the next couple of decades. Of the four gospels, Mark is the earliest at about 68-70 ce, while John is the latest at about 110. Acts is later than Luke (around 100) and Revelation was probably composed in the 90s. . . . [end quote]

 

Also of interest: http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm#250

 

I am well aware that the majority of Paul's Epistles are the oldest, having had a love-hate relationship with them for all of my academic career (love the teachings, but as an academic I get desperately sick of him). The hive generally has a higher collective intelligence, especially in the area of history, than your average American... but many of the people I faced growing up who used that verse in Revelations as an reason for insisting that I could not be chrisitian were not. When you get yelled at, as a 9 year old, over it it tends to stick with you :glare:. I could have phrased my sentence a little better ("Revelations is older than several other books in the NT"), but the fact remains that if John had meant "the Bible" with that verse than quite a few books, including most of -if not the rest of - John's own writing would have been in violation.

 

Maybe my own view is slightly scewed in that currently all the NE historians I work with are LDS or very familiar with the LDS beliefs, but in a secular (well, as secular as you can get with it being the bible) historical study of the writing of the NT a HUGE amount of emphasis is placed on Revelations being older than other books, if only because many of the new students in the program and a lot of people on the street (in my experience) hold to the view that the Bible is organized, more or less, chronologically. Which, in the matters of the spirit, doesn't really matter in the long run, but in the purely academic it gets really annoying having to explain (and prove) over and over again that this is not, in fact, the case.

[WistfulRidge]

So the long and short of it is this- they have a different Jesus. There are many differences between Mormons and Christians that make them incompatible, but this is just one of them.

 

KingM replied to this in a much more serious way and I completely agree with him. There are probably a thousand different views of Jesus, even within any one denomination and I agree with his point that in the end this is really not as big a deal as many make it out to be. Christ, and his acts as a savior, are going to have a different meaning to everyone simply because everyone has had different experiences within their own life, have unique burdens and sins to be saved from etc.

 

On a lighter note, I remember an older, very laid back friend of the family being involved in a discussion about this topic with one of the (many!) local Baptist preachers. The friend of the family made a comment along the lines of what KingM said, but the preacher kept getting more and more worked up, so Bill (the friend) finally replied with:

 

"Which is more incorrect that Mormons have a different Jesus, or that you believe that there are two?"

 

Shocked the preacher into complete silence for a good five minutes. :tongue_smilie:

[coralloyd]

Presumably, there is/was only one Jesus. So they can't believe in another Jesus, because another one doesn't exist. One or both of you might have incorrect ideas about the nature of Jesus, but this is different, and not so insurmountable in the end.

 

Yes it might be the same Jesus in history that they are talking about. However, there are two distinctly different views of who He is. They do not view Him as the same person. They have given Him different characteristics. Therefore they believe in a different Jesus.

[Donna T.]

Presumably, there is/was only one Jesus. So they can't believe in another Jesus, because another one doesn't exist. One or both of you might have incorrect ideas about the nature of Jesus, but this is different, and not so insurmountable in the end.

 

That's not what the Bible says.

 

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (King James Version)

 

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

 

The Bible warns that even if an angel from Heaven comes and preaches another gospel, we are not to receive it. And, that's EXACTLY what Joseph Smith claimed happened to him. An angel gave him the gospel of Mormonism. Where did the word Mormonism even come from? It's no where mentioned in the Bible. It's another gospel preaching another Jesus. If you look at the verse above, you see that Paul is saying that this other Jesus that could be preached would be as if the serpent that beguiled Eve through his subtilty... Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible says that "Mormo" is the god of ghouls. Kind of makes alot of sense when one knows the things that go on in the Mormon Temples, with their practice of necromancy.

[coralloyd]

KingM replied to this in a much more serious way and I completely agree with him. There are probably a thousand different views of Jesus, even within any one denomination and I agree with his point that in the end this is really not as big a deal as many make it out to be. Christ, and his acts as a savior, are going to have a different meaning to everyone simply because everyone has had different experiences within their own life, have unique burdens and sins to be saved from etc.

 

On a lighter note, I remember an older, very laid back friend of the family being involved in a discussion about this topic with one of the (many!) local Baptist preachers. The friend of the family made a comment along the lines of what KingM said, but the preacher kept getting more and more worked up, so Bill (the friend) finally replied with:

 

"Which is more incorrect that Mormons have a different Jesus, or that you believe that there are two?"

 

Shocked the preacher into complete silence for a good five minutes. :tongue_smilie:

 

Mormons believe that we as humans can achieve godhood, and that Jesus remains a created being who achieved godhood; not our Creator who is worthy of worship as the one true God. If this is true Jesus Christ wouldn't be much of a savior would He. If you don't see how that difference could be a big deal, I don't know what more I can say.

Edited August 19, 2009 by coralloyd

[WistfulRidge]

That's not what the Bible says.

 

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (King James Version)

 

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

 

The Bible warns that even if an angel from Heaven comes and preaches another gospel, we are not to receive it. And, that's EXACTLY what Joseph Smith claimed happened to him. An angel gave him the gospel of Mormonism. Where did the word Mormonism even come from? It's no where mentioned in the Bible. It's another gospel preaching another Jesus. If you look at the verse above, you see that Paul is saying that this other Jesus that could be preached would be as if the serpent that beguiled Eve through his subtilty... Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible says that "Mormo" is the god of ghouls. Kind of makes alot of sense when one knows the things that go on in the Mormon Temples, with their practice of necromancy.

 

The gospel of Mormonism? First of all it is not a gospel of "Mormonism". It is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mormonism came about because of "The Book of Mormon" which, we believe, is a series of writings from people that lived in ancient America, who were originally from Jerusalem. The man that compiled the writings into an abridged version was a man named "Mormon", hence "The Book of Mormon". We became known as "Mormons" simply because it is easy to remember people for their differences. We claim to have additional scripture...different. So we were called after the book. The name of our church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". We don't believe that we have "another gospel" than the one that is taught in the bible. We believe that we practice the gospel that Christ taught during his ministry while he was here on Earth.

 

As for the necromancy in our temples, and the "god of ghouls" and whatever else... that is pure ignorance on your part and unwilling to do any research into what actually goes on. There is no dark necromancy, no worshiping of devils, eating of infants, sacrificing of virgins (just to name a few things that I've been asked over the years) etc... As a pp put it we worship in the temples. It is a place were we make a deeper commitment to Christ. There is nothing in there that is not in our scriptures, which are posted in full on the internet, and thus available for anyone who cares to look.

[KingM]

From Wikipedia:

 

Necromancy (pronounced /ˈnɛkrɵmænsi/; Greek νεκρομαντία nekromantía) is a form of magic in which the practitioner seeks to summon "operative spirits" or "spirits of divination", for multiple reasons, from spiritual protection to wisdom. The word necromancy derives from the Greek νεκρός (nekrós), "dead", and μαντεία (manteía), "prophecy".

However, since the Renaissance, necromancy (or nigromancy) has come to be associated more broadly with black magic and demon-summoning in general, sometimes losing its earlier, more specialized meaning.

 

Just to quickly get this out of the way, I'm sure our LDS posters can verify that their temple rituals do not involve either summoning spirits, demons, or in any way practicing black magic.

[WistfulRidge]

From Wikipedia:

 

 

 

Just to quickly get this out of the way, I'm sure our LDS posters can verify that their temple rituals do not involve either summoning spirits, demons, or in any way practicing black magic.

They do not.