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

[KingM]

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.

 

Mormons can better answer how they would answer the "becoming gods" question, but I do know that they do believe and teach that Jesus, together with his father, created the Earth and everything in the Universe. They also believe that He suffered and died to atone for the sins of mankind and they use the term "savior" when referring to Him.

 

Whether or not he was the brother of Satan or is the same personage as God, the Father, or merely working in complete harmony with Him, seem like interesting questions, to be sure, but don't seem to me to alter the central message.

 

Well, okay, I do have a take on the "becoming gods," question. I don't know what the afterlife holds, or am even certain that it exists, although I certainly have my opinions, but it doesn't seem far fetched to me that if I have a Heavenly Father, that He would want for me to grow and mature and some day partake of some of the same creative powers that He commands. Being His child, created in His image, I may grow and mature into a similar role, just as a human child becomes like his/her parents.

 

I do think that it's purely speculative, but it doesn't seem either outlandish or blasphemous to me.

[elizabeth]

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.

excerpt from Donna'a post. Anton La vey borrowed that from Greek myth-dear heavens are we to actually believe that a circus sideshow co-opts a name from another culture ,Greek, misuses it , claims it as his own and THAT is evidence that Mormonism is not Christian???Seriously????It would be comical if it were not so unbelievably silly and a heartless thing to say. There are plenty of interesting differences between say, Methodists and Mormons with regard to theological questions. This unfounded allegation relying on Anton La Vey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey as a source for "Mormo" as a serious piece of evidence demonstrting that Mormon faith is not Christian puts this idea squarely in the camp of ....:willy_nilly: Thanks for proving the wisdom of my earlier post though .

[HRAAB]

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.

 

Oh good grief. Here we go. All I wanted to know is if Christianity is a relationship why Mormons can't be Christians if they have a relationship with Jesus. Mea culpa, mea culpa....

 

Janet

[MamaSheep]

I'm just peeking in...dang floor's not going to sweep itself and dh wants me to go read a chapter of the book we're reading together, but I had to peek....so no time for real discussion, but...

 

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.

 

Consider it VERY verified. And thank you. Also, I can tell that the whole "becoming gods" bit is something you're quite curious about, and I'll try and come back at some point and write up something about it. Won't be today, though, sorry.

 

Oh good grief. Here we go. All I wanted to know is if Christianity is a relationship why Mormons can't be Christians if they have a relationship with Jesus. Mea culpa, mea culpa....

 

Janet

 

:grouphug: It's not your fault. This is what happens.

[Veritaserum]

Well, okay, I do have a take on the "becoming gods," question. I don't know what the afterlife holds, or am even certain that it exists, although I certainly have my opinions, but it doesn't seem far fetched to me that if I have a Heavenly Father, that He would want for me to grow and mature and some day partake of some of the same creative powers that He commands. Being His child, created in His image, I may grow and mature into a similar role, just as a human child becomes like his/her parents.

 

Bingo. :)

[DB in NJ]

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

 

The whole problem lies in the labels. There will be Catholics in heaven and Baptists in hell....there will be Mormons in heaven and Methodists in hell...there will be Episcopalians in heaven and Catholics in hell....there will be Baptists in heaven and Lutherans in hell....etc., etc., etc.

 

Those who have a REAL, TRUE relationship with Jesus Christ and have accepted him as their personal savior will spend eternity with Him in heaven. Those who do NOT have that relationship have chosen hell as their eternal destination.

 

The label doesn't make you a Christian. Belonging to any particular denomination or religion or church does NOT make you a Christian; no more than going to McDonald's makes you a cheeseburger.

 

You either have a personal savior who has paid the sin debt for you or you do not. It's a personal choice each and every human being has to make. Forget the labels, forget the denominations. They are insignificant. The matter is settled in each individual's heart.

[Orthodox6]

This is interesting to read. Thanks for your reply.

 

Just to share with you in passing, . . . The Book of Revelations is the ONLY book in the Bible which never is read during Orthodox liturgical services. OK, not strictly true, in that there are many books from the Septuagint OT -- the only OT accepted by us -- which are not read during services. Of the "customary for other groups" OT/NT, however, this is the one book omitted from public readings.

 

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.

[songbirdie]

Well Ishki, it looks like you asked a question and we've turned it into a discussion about Mormon vs. Christian doctrines. To try to answer your original question, may I say that I don't think the "Christianity is a relationship not a religion" is a good reason to believe Christianity over any other religion. Actually when you look up the word religion in the dictionary, you find that Christianity DOES fit the definition of the word. People back in the 1970's didn't like some of the empty ritualism they were seeing within some circles of Christianity, and began to focus more on the relationship aspect of it. I think it was Ravi Zacharias in his book, "Jesus Among Other Gods" who talked about the origins of that phrase. Any cult that loosely utilizes Christian principles can offer a "relationship", but that doesn't make it real anymore than a "relationship" makes Christianity real. Christianity is real because Jesus died and rose again, and that is realy no matter if I enter a relationship with Him or not. My point is this: "Christianity is a relationship not a religion" is not an argument that can be applied to prove that Mormons aren't Christians. I don't know what thread you found someone saying that in, but it's a poor arguement. Does that in any way address the original question you were asking?

[lionfamily1999]

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.

excerpt from Donna'a post. Anton La vey borrowed that from Greek myth-dear heavens are we to actually believe that a circus sideshow co-opts a name from another culture ,Greek, misuses it , claims it as his own and THAT is evidence that Mormonism is not Christian???Seriously????It would be comical if it were not so unbelievably silly and a heartless thing to say. There are plenty of interesting differences between say, Methodists and Mormons with regard to theological questions. This unfounded allegation relying on Anton La Vey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey as a source for "Mormo" as a serious piece of evidence demonstrting that Mormon faith is not Christian puts this idea squarely in the camp of ....:willy_nilly: Thanks for proving the wisdom of my earlier post though .

You know what I find delightfully ironic? That the same scriptures being used to make Mormons followers of the anti-christ could be used against many/most of the denominations that use them.

 

But no, let's not join together into a stronger church for God though Christ, remember Them? Let's just keep being divisive, let's keep fighting and pointing fingers and accusing fellow Christians as idolators (oops, that's not Mormons) I mean, necromancers (are you KIDDING ME?).

 

Seriously, I am so glad that Christians do not judge or condemn each other. I'm glad we all have and share the closest to agape that we are capable of attaining.

 

Elizabeth, hugs, what a hurtful and rediculous thing for someone to accuse another of.

[Jen+4dc]

Okay, I've been reading these religious threads all day and not said a thing yet. For the most part, people have been respectful of others. And, the other LDS folks on the board are doing a great job articulating our beliefs. But, finally, I can't NOT respond!!

 

Kind of makes alot of sense when one knows the things that go on in the Mormon Temples, with their practice of necromancy.

 

 

Forgive me, but you have no idea what you are talking about!! If you had ever been inside an LDS Temple for actual worship services you would be appalled at what you just said. As an active, devout, temple-worshipping Mormon who has a vibrant relationship with my Savior Jesus Christ, I find that statement eeply offensive!

 

If you wish to disagree with our doctrine, fine, do so. If you wish to quote scripture to me, fine, do so. If you want to say we aren't Christians, fine. If you want to say we worship a different Jesus, I can even let that pass, but do NOT try to describe what happens in our temples as something so foul. Please, please, do not speak about things that you do not know or understand. There is no "divining of spirits" or seeking to commune with the dead (necromancy) in our temples.

 

If you want to know what a Mormon believes, please ask one!! Don't spout off about things you know nothing about.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Jen+4dc

[MyFourSons]

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".

 

The basic reason that the Catholic church does not recognize Mormonism as an orthodox form of Christianity is because of their beliefs about the Trinity. The original church, which many believe has continued throughout history through the orthodox and Catholic churches, wrote their Creeds in order to define what a Christian had to believe and profess in order to be a true Christian.

 

These Creeds include a description of the Holy Trinity, God as the Father, Jesus as the son "one in being with the father" and the Holy Spirit. Three in one. The Mormon church has a different take on this, one that differes from the Creeds written and taught by the original Christians.

 

I personally believe that every group has the right to set standards for membership and define what it means to belong to that particular group, whether it be the boy scouts, the YMCA, or Christianity. I personally choose to maintain the standards that were established in the early church. The Apostles Creed was written in the 2nd Century AD, and the early church Fathers had a lot to say about the Trinity. I don't think that the truths that have been passed down through the centuries can change, truth is absolute. And so, in my opinion, if you deny the true nature of the Trinity you are not an orthodox Christian and are in error.

Mormons believe in the distinct personages of the Father and Son, but do not believe the son is "one in being with the Father." They believe that they are wholly seperate.

 

I do not mean this as an insult, I do not hold this opinion out of malice or spite or hate. I have nothing against Mormons, I have several Mormon friends and acquaintances, including my brother in law and his family, and they are very good people. They consider themselves Christian. When I say I do not consider them to be Christian it is a simple observation after examining the facts about their doctrine and comparing it to the Creed of the church that defined Christianity. Mormons, in my opinion, are a break away group that have strayed so far from the original beliefs of Chrsitianity that they are in their own category.

 

I am only sharing this so that people of other faiths will hopefully understand where the Church is coming from on this matter, and realize that it is not born out of hate or stereotype. They are simply applying the standards the original Christians put forth, just as you apply standards when correcting your childs homework. We are called to love our Mormon brothers and sisters and reach out to them in friendship and love, but that does not mean that we have to look over their doctrine which is not in line with the original teachings and scriptures of the original Christian faith.

 

Mormons consider themselves Christians, that is fine by me. But they aer using different standards when they decide what a Christian is or is not. I prefer to use the original standards set by the original Christians. I am not stating these things to offend, I just want to shed light on what my Church teaches and what the actual history is so people will understand where my Church is coming from. My beliefs are very much misunderstood by a large number of the population, and so I like to shed light on the actual facts. As a Mormon, I'm sure this is something you have also experienced a great deal.

 

So, instead of being offended by my observation based on facts and historical precedents, please just try to understand where I am coming from. I already know where you are coming from, and we have to agree to disagree. This does not create any ill will on my part, I hope it doesn't on yours. What do you care if my church considers you to be Christian based on their standards and criteria? Your church is the one you should care about, and obviously their views are quite different.

[lionfamily1999]

Except that the original standards were accepting Christ as your Lord, putting God first in all things and loving your neighbor as yourself. Baptism, both by fire and water is a part of righteousness, not worshipping idols, not drinking blood and not fornicating come in too. Ultimately, though, if you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and confess with your mouth that God raised him from the dead, you. are. saved.

 

From my reading of the NT, they don't say anything regarding whether or not you have to believe that Jesus and God are one and the same, or the three in one idea. What they do say is that you cannot go to God except through Christ. What they demand is that you accept Jesus as the son of God, the messiah. Once you've accepted Christ you've accepted God, if you deny Christ you deny God.

 

Having done that, all the rest should fall into place (ten commandments, etc).

[MyFourSons]

Except that the original standards were accepting Christ as your Lord, putting God first in all things and loving your neighbor as yourself. Baptism, both by fire and water is a part of righteousness, not worshipping idols, not drinking blood and not fornicating come in too. Ultimately, though, if you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and confess with your mouth that God raised him from the dead, you. are. saved.

 

From my reading of the NT, they don't say anything regarding whether or not you have to believe that Jesus and God are one and the same, or the three in one idea. What they do say is that you cannot go to God except through Christ. What they demand is that you accept Jesus as the son of God, the messiah. Once you've accepted Christ you've accepted God, if you deny Christ you deny God.

 

Having done that, all the rest should fall into place (ten commandments, etc).

 

The original Church fathers didn't believe in Sola Scriptura, that was an invention of Martin Luther. If you look at the writings of the early church fathers, such as St. Iranaeus and Tertullian (who coined the phrase Trinity to describe it in the 2nd century AD), you can read about the early Christians belief in the Trinity, the Eucharist, and other matters of doctrine. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read their original works, the historical reasons why we do the things we do is well documented.

 

The Creeds were written to combat various heresies and errors in teaching that had arisen within Christianity. They had a need to define once and for all what a Christian should believe because it was being argued and debated, much as it still is today. The Apostles Creed became the standard used almost exclusively until the modern era. The Nicene creed was also written much later to help clarify certain aspects of doctrine, and it also mentions baptism. How you live the faith and practice it is also important, and the Creed is merely a profession of faith. Of course to be a true Christian you must also live your faith according to the Word of Christ. There are many other facets to Christianity that are not explicitly mentioned in the Creed, but the beliefs and practices of a true Christian should never contradict the Creed. If a certain sect holds beliefs or practices that contradict the Creeds, then they will not be considered Christian by the orthodox religions.

 

I am not saying that Mormons are not Christians because of their behavior, many of them are good people and behave in a very Christian manner. It is what they actually believe that in the opinion of the early church would not be considered Christian. I realize that other Christians today have different standards, but it is a historical fact that the standards found in the Apostles Creed were the standards created by the ancient church based on their original belief system. The documents exist to back this up if you choose to research further, you can go straight to the horses mouth on this one.

Edited August 21, 2009 by MyFourSons

[lionfamily1999]

Okay, I'm not talking about the church, I'm talking about the New Testament, the gospels, the words of Christ as recorded by his disciples. Doing what He said we should do, versus what other people thought we should do. That's where our differences lie :)

[usetoschool]

The original Church fathers didn't believe in Sola Scriptura, that was an invention of Martin Luther. If you look at the writings of the early church fathers, such as St. Iranaeus and Tertullian (who coined the phrase Trinity to describe it in the 2nd century AD), you can read about the early Christians belief in the Trinity, the Eucharist, and other matters of doctrine. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read their original works, the historical reasons why we do the things we do is well documented.

 

The Creeds were written to combat various heresies and errors in teaching that had arisen within Christianity. They had a need to define once and for all what a Christian should believe because it was being argued and debated, much as it still is today. The Apostles Creed became the standard used almost exclusively until the modern era. The Nicene creed was also written much later to help clarify certain aspects of doctrine, and it also mentions baptism. How you live the faith and practice it is also important, and the Creed is merely a profession of faith. Of course to be a true Christian you must also live your faith according to the Word of Christ. There are many other facets to Christianity that are not explicitly mentioned in the Creed, but the beliefs and practices of a true Christian should never contradict the Creed. If a certain sect holds beliefs or practices that contradict the Creeds, then they will not be considered Christian by the orthodox religions.

 

I am not saying that Mormons are not Christians because of their behavior, many of them are good people and behave in a very Christian manner. It is what they actually believe that in the opinion of the early church would not be considered Christian. I realize that other Christians today have different standards, but it is a historical fact that the standards found in the Apostles Creed were the standards created by the ancient church based on their original belief system. The documents exist to back this up if you choose to research further, you can go straight to the horses mouth on this one.

 

Just as a disclaimer - I have no bone to pick with the Catholic church - I know this sounds trite but my favorite aunt and my sister in law are both devout Catholics and as I have read about the Catholic church I have been very much impressed by the spirituality, community service and devotion to family, the need for priesthood authority etc.

 

Having said that, you are right in that the main point of departure between the two is the view of the Godhead. (And priesthood/papal lineage, which kind of follows from the point I am about to make). The LDS view is that priesthood keys and authority left the earth when Peter and the other apostles died, thus beginning a long day of apostasy. So to quote the early church fathers wouldn't have any meaning for me because I believe the church had already fallen into apostasy by that point - even by the time of Iranaeus. You, I think, if I have this right, would say that the priesthood authority was passed on to Linus and continues in an unbroken chain until today. So, if I believe that the guidance of the spirit for the church as a whole, and priesthood authority, ended with the death of Peter et al, then I would also say that no matter how well meaning and good the early church fathers were, they weren't acting with authority, from my perspective - they just had their own ideas. And my argument would be, based on my beliefs and my church teachings, that those ideas about the Godhead were not in harmony with what was taught since the beginning.

 

So, not trying to prove you "wrong" about what you believe or convince you that I am right, just agreeing, that yes, that is a point of departure between the two churches and this is why.

[Lovedtodeath]

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

I did not read the other replies. I hope I am not getting into hot water. I will read the others later. I am often told that I am not a Christian because I do not believe that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. Since Mormons also believe that he is the Son, not part of an equal Trinity/Godhead, then I would imagine that people think that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses cannot have a relationship with Jesus, since they do not believe/understand a fundamental teaching of who he is.

 

Just guessing.

 

It goes the other way around too. I do not believe that someone who believes in the Trinity has the full truth of who Jesus and His Father are. As to whether that means they are not Christian, or don't have a relationship... I am not thinking that I can judge that at this time. Jesus said to keep on searching and keep on knocking, surely many people are doing this and God will answer such prayers.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[MyFourSons]

Just as a disclaimer - I have no bone to pick with the Catholic church - I know this sounds trite but my favorite aunt and my sister in law are both devout Catholics and as I have read about the Catholic church I have been very much impressed by the spirituality, community service and devotion to family, the need for priesthood authority etc.

 

Having said that, you are right in that the main point of departure between the two is the view of the Godhead. (And priesthood/papal lineage, which kind of follows from the point I am about to make). The LDS view is that priesthood keys and authority left the earth when Peter and the other apostles died, thus beginning a long day of apostasy. So to quote the early church fathers wouldn't have any meaning for me because I believe the church had already fallen into apostasy by that point - even by the time of Iranaeus. You, I think, if I have this right, would say that the priesthood authority was passed on to Linus and continues in an unbroken chain until today. So, if I believe that the guidance of the spirit for the church as a whole, and priesthood authority, ended with the death of Peter et al, then I would also say that no matter how well meaning and good the early church fathers were, they weren't acting with authority, from my perspective - they just had their own ideas. And my argument would be, based on my beliefs and my church teachings, that those ideas about the Godhead were not in harmony with what was taught since the beginning.

 

So, not trying to prove you "wrong" about what you believe or convince you that I am right, just agreeing, that yes, that is a point of departure between the two churches and this is why.

 

 

I agree that the Mormon church does not hold the Apostolic succesion of the Catholic, or any other Christian church. I did not mention this because this is not a requirement to be considered a Christian by the Catholic church. Lutherans, Methodists, and other Christian groups still maintain the basic doctrines found in the creed, so although we don't necessarily recognize the authority of their clergy, and they don't recognize ours, they are still considered Christian.

 

I was only trying to point out the facts and reasons as to why Catholocism does not recognize Mormonism as a Christian sect. It does not have to do with your practices, although they are unorthodox, but with your doctrine.

 

And you are right, for us to debate is impossible since we hold different views on what Chrsitianity actually is. I realize that Mormons feel that all of Christianity from the time of Jesus until the time of Joseph Smith has been an apostosy, and that even the early Church leaders were in grave error, and the only church that has the true teachings of Jesus right is the Mormon church. In that way, it could be argued that Mormonism is much more condemning and isolated than Catholocism, and in my experience I have found the Mormon Church to also be much more exclusive and secretive as well. My church's history is out there in the open for anyone to read, the good the bad and the ugly. Also, anyone can go to a Cathedral or Bascillica or church, regardless of whether or not your church leader finds you worthy enough. After all, sinners are the ones in most need of the grace.

 

If you investigate Church history and the Old and New Testament you will find that the doctrines and practices of the early Christians I have described, and that the church has maintained, are biblical and based on the teachings of Christ. Here is a link that explains the biblical sources for the doctrine of the Trinity:

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

 

 

I hope that didn't come off as too snarky, I have Mormon friends and acquaintances that I greatly respect, including a brother in law and his family. Just wanted to let the facts come out.

Edited August 21, 2009 by MyFourSons

[lionfamily1999]

I did not read the other replies. I hope I am not getting into hot water. I will read the others later. I am often told that I am not a Christian because I do not believe that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. Since Mormons also believe that he is the Son, not part of an equal Trinity/Godhead, then I would imagine that people think that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses cannot have a relationship with Jesus, since they do not believe/understand a fundamental teaching of who he is.

 

Just guessing.

 

It goes the other way around too. I do not believe that someone who believes in the Trinity has the full truth of who Jesus and His Father are. As to whether that means they are not Christian, or don't have a relationship... I am not thinking that I can judge that at this time. Jesus said to keep on searching and keep on knocking, surely many people are doing this and God will answer such prayers.

Do you think it really matters? I mean, we have to believe He is Lord (you do, right?) and all the rest. It says you cannot get to God except through Him. I just think it is all a big stink over semantics, maybe? Like, another way to divide us. I just finished and restarted the NT and I can't find where this is important.

 

Perhaps it's a straw man (that's the term, right?).

[HRAAB]

The basic reason that the Catholic church does not recognize Mormonism as an orthodox form of Christianity is because of their beliefs about the Trinity. The original church, which many believe has continued throughout history through the orthodox and Catholic churches, wrote their Creeds in order to define what a Christian had to believe and profess in order to be a true Christian.

 

I'm just going to jump in here for a minute (on my way out the door) to say something. I haven't even read this entire post, but this first paragraph jumped out at me. The Catholic Diocese I live does most certainly Mormonism as a Christian religion. As I understand, this does vary from Diocese to Diocese. My sister married a LDS who later converted, had his previous marriage annulled - I worked with him on the annulment and through his RCIA journey. I myself had some questions about this since I spoke with people who said the LDS religion was not recognized in their Diocese. Every priest my bil spoke with, including those on the Marriage Tribunal, all held the same position.

 

If you have something (a link, publication) to the contrary, from an authoritative source (Magisterium) I would be most interested. I'm not trying to argue; I would really like to know.

 

Got to run.

 

Janet

[MyFourSons]

It was important enough for the early Christians to make it a substantial part of their creed, and for the Orthodox and Catholic churches to break apart because of their disagreement over the Trinity. You can dismiss this as foolish, but there are biblical reasons for this doctrine. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but what you believe is important, and dismissing what is considered a key doctrine as unimportant should be based on a true understanding of theology history, not just a wish to get along with others.

 

I'm not trying to tell you what to believe, just don't dismiss the importance of the Trinity until you actually investigate the issue. Here is a link for some biblical reasons for the Trinity.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

 

There are also other reasons that Mormons do not fit into what many churches consider to be the definition of Christian, such as the baptism of the dead and the temple rituals. I am not saying this as a slam or to be hateful, I love learning about other religions and understanding what other beliefs are about, not just Christian ones, and I have respect for many of the Mormons I know, including the ones I am related to. Many of them do have a personal relationship with Jesus, and are good Christians. I just like for people to have the actual facts in a discussion.

 

BTW, most Mormons consider the only true church to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and that all other Christians throughout history have been and are in grave error. So, you could say according to their own standards, that they are the only real Christians.

Edited August 21, 2009 by MyFourSons

[Lovedtodeath]

Do you think it really matters? I mean, we have to believe He is Lord (you do, right?) and all the rest. It says you cannot get to God except through Him. I just think it is all a big stink over semantics, maybe? Like, another way to divide us. I just finished and restarted the NT and I can't find where this is important.

 

Perhaps it's a straw man (that's the term, right?).

Yes it matters. There are many scriptures that point to there being one faith, one truth, and one God. There are scriptures that point out that many will think that they are Christ's followers and belong in his kingdom when they are not/do not. There are many scriptures that encourage us to seek out the truth. There are scriptures that point to the importance of truth in worship.

 

We are to follow Jesus' example. He was the perfect example of love, and leadership. He was also the perfect example of obedience and submission. I have grown spiritually more in one year than in the many years before by intimately getting to know the personality of my God and his Son. We cannot get to know God or Jesus intimately if we do not recognize this aspect of their personalities.

 

For example: Could God himself be tempted? Matthew 4:1-9, Duet 32:4; James 1:13; Matthew 4:10 Could he be lower than angels? Hebrews 2:9 What about John 1:18? How is Jesus a perfect example of obedience, submission, and humility? John 5:19, 6:38, 7:16; Acts 4:23, 27, 30; Matthew 20:23 Could the Almighty God really set an example in those areas? Should he? Matthew 3:16,17 Would you say this about your son or daughter? Or would you say this about your equal, or yourself?

Edited August 21, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[cougarmom4]

I agree that the Mormon church does not hold the Apostolic succesion of the Catholic, or any other Christian church. I did not mention this because this is not a requirement to be considered a Christian by the Catholic church. Lutherans, Methodists, and other Christian groups still maintain the basic doctrines found in the creed, so although we don't necessarily recognize the authority of their clergy, and they don't recognize ours, they are still considered Christian.

 

I was only trying to point out the facts and reasons as to why Catholocism does not recognize Mormonism as a Christian sect. It does not have to do with your practices, although they are unorthodox, but with your doctrine.

 

And you are right, for us to debate is impossible since we hold different views on what Chrsitianity actually is. I realize that Mormons feel that all of Christianity from the time of Jesus until the time of Joseph Smith has been an apostosy, and that even the early Church leaders were in grave error, and the only church that has the true teachings of Jesus right is the Mormon church. In that way, it could be argued that Mormonism is much more condemning and isolated than Catholocism, and in my experience I have found the Mormon Church to also be much more exclusive and secretive as well. My church's history is out there in the open for anyone to read, the good the bad and the ugly. Also, anyone can go to a Cathedral or Bascillica or church, regardless of whether or not your church leader finds you worthy enough. After all, sinners are the ones in most need of the grace.

 

If you investigate Church history and the Old and New Testament you will find that the doctrines and practices of the early Christians I have described, and that the church has maintained, are biblical and based on the teachings of Christ. Here is a link that explains the biblical sources for the doctrine of the Trinity:

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

 

 

I hope that didn't come off as too snarky, I have Mormon friends and acquaintances that I greatly respect, including a brother in law and his family. Just wanted to let the facts come out.

 

 

Well, I suppose 'letting the facts come out' may depend on an acceptance of your comments as fact or opinion, eh? Sometimes a lack of understanding or negative experiences may lead to misconceptions of another's faith, but I do not feel that gives you the right to make judgments or overgeneralizations and present them as fact. I would never claim to know all of the facts about another faith simply because I know a few members of a church...or even if I've read a book or two.

 

Every time I get on here, I wonder if this thread will ever just die...and yes I shouldn't even click on this thread, but I feel compelled to see what crazy new allegation is being thrown at us Mormons. I'm torn between the desire to correct misconceptions and knowing that no matter what I say, it's not going to change anything anyway.

 

It's hard to sit by and listen to others degrade things that are precious to me. But I guess as long as someone says "bless their hearts," I'm not supposed to be offended.

 

How about this...I'm a Mormon and I'm a Christian. I accept that we all have differences and will agree it is helpful to learn about one another to further our understanding...but I am not here to prove to anyone that I am right and he/she is wrong. This is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion, and this will be my last comment on the matter. For those who are genuinely seeking truth and understanding, I know the Lord will guide you in your search.

 

I'll respect your freedom to worship as you choose and appreciate your respect of my freedom to worship as I choose.

[Lovedtodeath]

The Apostles Creed was written in the 2nd Century AD, and the early church Fathers had a lot to say about the Trinity.

The Apostles Creed that you speak of does not contain any doctrine of the Trinity.

 

The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

Here is an entire brochure online dedicated to this topic.

 

The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."

 

"Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine.

 

And this council did not mention the Holy Spirit at all.

 

The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology." "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

 

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

Edited August 21, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[hornblower]

Those who have a REAL, TRUE relationship with Jesus Christ and have accepted him as their personal savior will spend eternity with Him in heaven. Those who do NOT have that relationship have chosen hell as their eternal destination.

 

<snip>

 

You either have a personal savior who has paid the sin debt for you or you do not. It's a personal choice each and every human being has to make. Forget the labels, forget the denominations. They are insignificant. The matter is settled in each individual's heart.

 

But, but, but - isn't that your interpretation of it? Aren't certain denominations teaching that certain things have to be done in a certain way & that it's not just your personal relationship that's important?

 

For example, (though there is as usual, some division of thought on this) Catholic doctrine is that Holy Communion and receiving the Eucharist is necessary for salvation.

 

Weren't many of schisms in the Christian faith throughout history exactly about these issues of personal relationship versus a relationship mediated by the church?

[Lovedtodeath]

The Bible also has examples of group leadership by a selected body of men, and instructions to worship as a group, and to respect your ministers. There are also scriptures that state that God is not a God of chaos, but a God of order and peace. Faith, works, and a close personal relationship are needed. Not just one of them. The Bible states that we must obey all of Christ's and God's commandments.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[DB in NJ]

But, but, but - isn't that your interpretation of it? Aren't certain denominations teaching that certain things have to be done in a certain way & that it's not just your personal relationship that's important?

 

For example, (though there is as usual, some division of thought on this) Catholic doctrine is that Holy Communion and receiving the Eucharist is necessary for salvation.

 

Weren't many of schisms in the Christian faith throughout history exactly about these issues of personal relationship versus a relationship mediated by the church?

 

No, it isn't my personal interpretation; it's what scripture says, plain and simple. This is not my take on it, it's just what it says :)

 

The Catholic doctrine of Eucharist being necessary for salvation is not scriptural. That's a works salvation, which scripture clearly speaks against.

[MyFourSons]

The Apostles Creed that you speak of does not contain any doctrine of the Trinity.

 

 

 

Here is an entire brochure online dedicated to this topic.

 

The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."

 

"Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine.

 

And this council did not mention the Holy Spirit at all.

 

The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology." "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

 

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

 

The brochure you suggest is from a Jehovah's Witness site, therefore it is not unbiased as they reject much of what orthodox Christianity espouses. I did read through it, and their arguments seemed to me to be biased and not based on factual historical evidence. Also, the quotes that you have listed above are missing some very important sections and are taken out of context, so it is hard to glean any meaning from them let alone the correct meaning. To me this is a very inflammatory and disresptful way to frame an argument. I prefer to go to the horses mouth.

 

You can look at the original writings of the church leaders themselves, as well as the text of the Creed, and the Old and New Testaments and see that the doctrine of the Trinity was being defended by the Creed and by early Christians in their writings.

 

The Creed does not mention the Trinity by name, but it is essentially one long explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, even if it is not specifically referred to as the Trinity:

 

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting

 

So, what you have is a document that describes the three parts of the Trinity and their relationship to one another. God the Father, His only Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. As a Christian you would believe in one true God, therefore they are three in one. It would have been obvious to the early Christians what the meaning of this was, as there was a heated debate and several different heresies at the time that the Creed was addressing.

 

The term Trinity was coined by Tertullian in the 2nd century AD. The doctrine and dogma behind the term is based in scripture, here is a link to an article that explains the origins of this, both scriptural and theological:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#I

 

However, this is a Catholic encyclopedia. If you would like an article from a non-catholic perspective, here is one:

 

http://www.piney.com/HsTertTrinity.html

 

Later, other heresies and debates arose, and so Constantine called the Council of Nicea so the issues could be settled once and for all. The Nicene Creed was written to help clarify the nature of the Trinity that had been described in the Apostles Creed. The Nicene Creed states that we believe in God the Father, and Jesus who is, as the creed states, "begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." It also describes the Holy Spirit as "the Lord and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and Son, and with the Father and Son is worshipped and Glorified." These words have caused division and argument themselves, and not everyone at the council could agree. But the creed was written by Church leaders NOT Constantine as your previously mentioned quotes imply.

 

You can also read about the the Nicene Creed on Wikipedia:

 

"The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief. The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines. For that reason a creed was called in Greek a σύμβολον, a word that meant half of a broken object which, when placed together with the other half verified the bearer's identity. The Greek word passed through Latin "symbolum" into English "symbol", which only later took on the meaning of an outward sign of something.[2] The Nicene Creed was adopted in the face of the Arian controversy. Arius, a Libyan preacher, had declared that although Jesus Christ was divine, God had actually created him, and there was a time when he was not. This made Jesus less than the Father and contradicted the doctrine of the Trinity. [3] Arius's teaching provoked a serious crisis.

The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus, applying to him the term "God". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles' Creed, not formulated in reaction to Arianism, makes no explicit statements about the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but, in the view of many who use it, the doctrine is implicit in it."

 

As far as the role of Constantine in the formation of the Creed, Wikipedia states that:

 

"The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy.[18] The emperor did not decide doctrine — that was the responsibility of the bishops —, rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[19] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship (orthodoxy) and doctrine (dogma) consisted of was for the Church to determine."

 

So, although Constantine called the council that created the Nicene Creed, he did not dictate what it was to say. His purpose was to end confusion and conflict within the church by having the clergy create a statement as to what Christians were to believe, but the actual Creed was left to the clergy.

 

I hope that cleared up some of the misinformation your previous post contained. I am not trying to disrespect anyone, just let the historical facts come to light. I chose wikipedia as a source because it is unbiased, however there are many more sources that are much more in depth and well written, go out and investigate the matter for yourself. Just try to make sure you look at both sides of the argument.

Edited August 21, 2009 by MyFourSons

[hornblower]

No, it isn't my personal interpretation; it's what scripture says, plain and simple. This is not my take on it, it's just what it says :)

 

The Catholic doctrine of Eucharist being necessary for salvation is not scriptural. That's a works salvation, which scripture clearly speaks against.

 

 

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54 (NIV)

 

 

You know what, this is absurd.

Surely you can admit that the Catholic church, which was THE foundational church of your faith has different views of this & many other issues. You're choosing to interpret things one way. Various churches have interpreted things many ways; are you denying theological schisms? Why is it that if it's so obvious to you that this is what the bible says & this is what is meant, why is it not clear to millions of other people in the world?

 

This kind of b&w argument doesn't really address the nuances of two millenia of thought.

 

As a total aside - here is an interesting post from an Orthodox priest on the issue of personal relationship with Christ.

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/the-orthodox-church-and-personal-salvation/

"We recently had a Franklin Graham crusade in our metro area. I am told that there are flyers being passed out by some associated with the crusade that describe Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches as places to avoid because they do not teach a “personal†relationship with Christ – which, of course, is simply not true."

[Tea Time]

No, it isn't my personal interpretation; it's what scripture says, plain and simple. This is not my take on it, it's just what it says :)

 

The Catholic doctrine of Eucharist being necessary for salvation is not scriptural. That's a works salvation, which scripture clearly speaks against.

 

Maybe you should check some other souces:

 

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap060500.htm

 

The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.

 

1 Cor 11:23-29 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.

 

Mk 14:22-24 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

 

The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.

 

Mt 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

 

Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.

 

Lk 22:15-20 He (Jesus) said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

 

The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).

 

Jn 6:53-56 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

 

Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul. The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.

 

Jn 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

 

Jn 6:53 Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

 

Jn 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

 

Jn 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

 

Jn 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

 

Jn 6:60,66 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

 

You can say a lot of things, but you can't say it isn't Scriptural.

[MyFourSons]

Well, I suppose 'letting the facts come out' may depend on an acceptance of your comments as fact or opinion, eh? Sometimes a lack of understanding or negative experiences may lead to misconceptions of another's faith, but I do not feel that gives you the right to make judgments or overgeneralizations and present them as fact. I would never claim to know all of the facts about another faith simply because I know a few members of a church...or even if I've read a book or two.

 

Every time I get on here, I wonder if this thread will ever just die...and yes I shouldn't even click on this thread, but I feel compelled to see what crazy new allegation is being thrown at us Mormons. I'm torn between the desire to correct misconceptions and knowing that no matter what I say, it's not going to change anything anyway.

 

It's hard to sit by and listen to others degrade things that are precious to me. But I guess as long as someone says "bless their hearts," I'm not supposed to be offended.

 

How about this...I'm a Mormon and I'm a Christian. I accept that we all have differences and will agree it is helpful to learn about one another to further our understanding...but I am not here to prove to anyone that I am right and he/she is wrong. This is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion, and this will be my last comment on the matter. For those who are genuinely seeking truth and understanding, I know the Lord will guide you in your search.

 

I'll respect your freedom to worship as you choose and appreciate your respect of my freedom to worship as I choose.

 

I do respect your freedom to worship, I was not throwing any "crazy allegations" at you, just stating what the Mormon church proclaims and why my church considers it to be un-Christian. It was not meant as a personal attack against anyone, the facts I was trying to bring to light were simply the teachings of the two traditions, respectfully.

 

You may be right that this is not an appropriate forum for this discussion, I apologize if I have offended anyone. But I do not think that discussing your beliefs in an open and public way should be so taboo, escpecially if you are respectful about it.

 

We should not only be able to agree to disagree, but also discuss the reasons why we disagree.

[DB in NJ]

I was born & raised in the Catholic church. I left it as an adult. I went to 12 years of Catholic school, learning the doctrine year in and year out. I am familiar with the arguments, the teachings, etc. And I disagree.

 

Communion is symbolic; it is NOT the actual flesh & blood. And it is most certainly NOT necessary for salvation.

[MyFourSons]

I was born & raised in the Catholic church. I left it as an adult. I went to 12 years of Catholic school, learning the doctrine year in and year out. I am familiar with the arguments, the teachings, etc. And I disagree.

 

Communion is symbolic; it is NOT the actual flesh & blood. And it is most certainly NOT necessary for salvation.

 

This is an important issue, it warrants being examined continually from both sides throughout the course of ones life. And so I am posting an amazing blog in the hopes you will read it.

 

http://soladeicaritas.blogspot.com/2006/03/eucharist-is-it-really-jesus.html

 

I will say, the true presence of the Christ in the Eucharist was not questioned at all, by anyone until after the reformation. Even Luther, the guy who started it all believed that the body and blood of Christ was present, and that the bread and wine coexisted with the body and blood of our Lord.

[Lovedtodeath]

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54 (NIV)

This is a very good example of why we need to consider the scriptures as a whole and not pick and choose certain passages.

 

After seeing a passage that does not agree with one's beliefs, one does more research into scriptures on a similar topic and if not done previously, reads the rest of the scriptures.

[hornblower]

This is a very good example of why we need to consider the scriptures as a whole and not pick and choose certain passages.

 

After seeing a passage that does not agree with one's beliefs, one does more research into scriptures on a similar topic and if not done previously, reads the rest of the scriptures.

 

I'm guessing that the Catholic church has done that?

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Keep reading until you find something that you can interpret differently so that it matches your belief? Isn't it dangerous if your belief comes first & then you try to find things to match it?

 

It's all moot to me btw - I'm an atheist. I do find it academically fascinating.

 

But I also find it mind-boggling how many folks think they have THE answer & THE correct interpretation.

[Lovedtodeath]

The Creed .....:

 

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting

 

Yes, I am sure that the early Christians knew exactly what was meant by this creed. They had the rest of the scriptures available to them, and this creed does not say anything contrary to those.

 

(NIV)1 Corinthians 15:27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

 

John 17:3, John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Psalm 104:30; 2 Peter 1:20-21

 

go out and investigate the matter for yourself. Just try to make sure you look at both sides of the argument.

I find it very insulting that you feel that I have not. What a presumption. I would also encourage anyone to look into the matter for themselves and go to the original documents that have been cited.

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm guessing that the Catholic church has done that?

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Keep reading until you find something that you can interpret differently so that it matches your belief? Isn't it dangerous if your belief comes first & then you try to find things to match it?

 

It's all moot to me btw - I'm an atheist. I do find it academically fascinating.

 

But I also find it mind-boggling how many folks think they have THE answer & THE correct interpretation.

I am not accusing anyone of doing that. No... That was exactly my point. One cannot make all scripture match one's belief. We take other scriptures in order to explain the scriptures that we do not understand and along with God's help, we can come to an accurate understanding. Acts 17:11 "for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

 

In the case of the scripture speaking about drinking blood and eating flesh, we can for one example, read the account of the Lord's Evening Meal. We can also continue reading and see what Jesus told his disciples after it was said.

[lionfamily1999]

Yes it matters. There are many scriptures that point to there being one faith, one truth, and one God. There are scriptures that point out that many will think that they are Christ's followers and belong in his kingdom when they are not/do not. There are many scriptures that encourage us to seek out the truth. There are scriptures that point to the importance of truth in worship.

 

We are to follow Jesus' example. He was the perfect example of love, and leadership. He was also the perfect example of obedience and submission. I have grown spiritually more in one year than in the many years before by intimately getting to know the personality of my God and his Son. We cannot get to know God or Jesus intimately if we do not recognize this aspect of their personalities.

 

For example: Could God himself be tempted? Matthew 4:1-9, Duet 32:4; James 1:13; Matthew 4:10 Could he be lower than angels? Hebrews 2:9 What about John 1:18? How is Jesus a perfect example of obedience, submission, and humility? John 5:19, 6:38, 7:16; Acts 4:23, 27, 30; Matthew 20:23 Could the Almighty God really set an example in those areas? Should he? Matthew 3:16,17 Would you say this about your son or daughter? Or would you say this about your equal, or yourself?

So, you cannot have a relationship with Christ, you can't believe in God, until you're sure of the difference (and which is right)?

 

Carmen, I'm reading it, I'm looking, I'm learning, I'm seeking and as far as this goes, all I'm seeing is, Christ is the only way we can reach God. We have to go through him, all of our blessings and life come from God through Christ. Christ set us up to recieve the Holy Ghost and my knowledge of the Holy Spirit is really minimal (Spirit or Ghost, for instance, I've heard it both ways and don't see where it matters one way or another). I know there is one way, I know the road is narrow, what I don't know is how arguments of doctrine fit in.

 

Don't drink blood. Don't fornicate. Don't have idols. Love God above all else. Love your neighbor as yourself. Don't deny Christ, but confess and believe. Jesus was baptized with water, because it was righteous to do so, so we should get baptized and cleanse the flesh, before we can try to accept the spirit. We should be apart from the world and worldly cares.

 

Where do creeds and repitition and whether or not Mary had sex or how the hierarchy in heaven works fit in? Why do they matter? Doesn't that just stand in the way of doing the right thing? I mean, Jesus is Lord, ok, halleluja, what is the argument?

[MyFourSons]

Yes, I am sure that the early Christians knew exactly what was meant by this creed. They had the rest of the scriptures available to them, and this creed does not say anything contrary to those.

 

(NIV)1 Corinthians 15:27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

 

John 17:3, John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Psalm 104:30; 2 Peter 1:20-21

 

I find it very insulting that you feel that I have not. What a presumption. I would also encourage anyone to look into the matter for themselves and go to the original documents that have been cited.

 

 

I do not mean to insult you, I am sorry if you feel insulted. But the fact of the matter is that the way you presented your argument was one sided and insulting as well, although I was not personally offended by it.

 

That is what I was trying to get at, that the sources you listed when you presented your argument to me were one sided, and some of the quotes were inaccurate and at times misleading if not false. I love a good debate, and I realize not everyone agrees with me, but I expect the arguments to be made with respect and truthfulness.

 

That is what I was getting at, you need to examine both sides of an argument fairly and then make a decision or form an opinion based on the facts. You listed Catholic sources in your argument, but the quotes were taken out of context and sections were missing so that the actual meaning was lost. It is very easy to factcheck these things you are arguing about, the historical documents still exist and the creed and the catechism of the church is very clear. I am not debating whether or not you agree with the teachings of the church, I just hope you would present them in a truthful manner.

 

That was the point of my post, along presenting the facts about the history of this particular doctrine in Christianity.

[MyFourSons]

So, you cannot have a relationship with Christ, you can't believe in God, until you're sure of the difference (and which is right)?

 

Carmen, I'm reading it, I'm looking, I'm learning, I'm seeking and as far as this goes, all I'm seeing is, Christ is the only way we can reach God. We have to go through him, all of our blessings and life come from God through Christ. Christ set us up to recieve the Holy Ghost and my knowledge of the Holy Spirit is really minimal (Spirit or Ghost, for instance, I've heard it both ways and don't see where it matters one way or another). I know there is one way, I know the road is narrow, what I don't know is how arguments of doctrine fit in.

 

Don't drink blood. Don't fornicate. Don't have idols. Love God above all else. Love your neighbor as yourself. Don't deny Christ, but confess and believe. Jesus was baptized with water, because it was righteous to do so, so we should get baptized and cleanse the flesh, before we can try to accept the spirit. We should be apart from the world and worldly cares.

 

Where do creeds and repitition and whether or not Mary had sex or how the hierarchy in heaven works fit in? Why do they matter? Doesn't that just stand in the way of doing the right thing? I mean, Jesus is Lord, ok, halleluja, what is the argument?

 

 

There's that old song that says "to know him is to love him." That is why people are so preoccupied with the nature of God and the relationship of the Trinity, and other matters of Doctrine. Many Christians don't just want to follow blindly, they want to know their God. And they believe that God became man in the form of Jesus because he wanted to reveal Himself to His people.

 

It also isn't really fair to bash someone who takes a more analytical approach to their faith and happens to be more drawn to this type of debate. It can be seen as very intellectually stimulating, and some people respond better to that type of spirituality. People experience spritituality differently just as people learn differently. Some approach it from analytical view, while some prefer to rely more on their intuition and emotions, and others want more hands on or physical expressions of faith such as singing or dancing. There isn't one right way to go about it.

[Peek a Boo]

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

 

I'm fine with lumping Mormons in w/ all us other Christians ;)

 

My response would be that Christianity isn't *only* about a relationship, but that you can't be a Christian WITHOUT that relationship.

 

I can get married and licensed through the state, claim marital status on my taxes, live w/the same guy for 15 years and have 5 kids with him, but if there's no RELATIONSHIP then the marriage will be less than Godly in God's eyes, even tho we "followed all the rules."

 

Same w/ Christianity: you can "follow all the rules" but if there's no relationship it's NOT Christianity. But you can't just make up your own rules [like about marriage] and expect God to look favorably at your situation when he's spelled it out for you.

 

 

like Hornblower said:

I have THE answer & THE correct interpretation, cuz I'm All That and a Bag of Chips. [or matzo crackers, lol] :D

 

ok, ok, honestly? since i know there are several valid, wildly different interpretations of scripture, i came to a Body of Christ conclusion a while back:

 

from a previous thread.....

 

 

So how is the continuity of the church maintained, without heresy and without division in the congregation.

Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

How is it that our body functions so well, when so many of its systems work in COMPLETELY different ways from each other?

 

When Christ mentions the BODY i think He was talking more about the different denominations [systems] than he was individual members within those denominations[organs w/in a system]. The Catholic church serves one purpose, the Lutheran another, the Baptists have their function, the Mormons have theirs, etc. each one looks drastically different from the other [heart, kidney, brain, etc], and each belongs to different systems, but they each play a vital role in serving the Body.

 

Kinda like the verse "don't let there be divisions among you" has been interpreted to NEEDING divisions[denominations] to make sure each person in a congregation is on the same page.....and I read it the absolute opposite: don't let differences of opinion DIVIDE you as the Body of Christ: "I was baptised in the Lutheran church; i was baptized in the Southern Baptist church; i was baptised in the Episcopal Church; i was baptised in the Catholic church;" etc etc etc.

 

Theologians call those differences heresy. i consider it a matter of different SYSTEMs.

Not every body part can belong to the same system.

When Christians figure that out, I think we'll do just fine w/o worrying about heresies or divisions.

and if i'm wrong, God can slap me upside the head and make me clean toilets w/ a toothbrush in heaven.

[Lovedtodeath]

I love a good debate, and I realize not everyone agrees with me, but I expect the arguments to be made with respect and truthfulness.

Well, I still feel insulted by this statement especially. But I understand that you are "me on the other side". So it's okay. I have been told before to check the context (in respect to Darwinism) and the context that I have checked hasn't changed anything.

 

I know why people believe in the Trinity and other doctrines that I do not agree with. I know that there are scriptures that those who hold to these doctrines can cite as well. I have not always been a Jehovah's Witness. I did a pretty thorough search of other faiths and denominations for about 6 years.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

My response would be that Christianity isn't *only* about a relationship, but that you can't be a Christian WITHOUT that relationship.

:iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

I did a pretty thorough search of other faiths and denominations for about 6 years.

 

soemthing we also need to keep in context is that there are manymanymany theological "experts" who have professionally studied the doctrines of different denominations and still come to opposing conclusions. ;)

[HRAAB]

I'm fine with lumping Mormons in w/ all us other Christians ;)

 

My response would be that Christianity isn't *only* about a relationship, but that you can't be a Christian WITHOUT that relationship.

 

I can get married and licensed through the state, claim marital status on my taxes, live w/the same guy for 15 years and have 5 kids with him, but if there's no RELATIONSHIP then the marriage will be less than Godly in God's eyes, even tho we "followed all the rules."

 

Same w/ Christianity: you can "follow all the rules" but if there's no relationship it's NOT Christianity. But you can't just make up your own rules [like about marriage] and expect God to look favorably at your situation when he's spelled it out for you.

 

I agree with the above. I do believe Christianity is a religion, but doesn't amount to much without the relationship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Christ mentions the BODY i think He was talking more about the different denominations [systems] than he was individual members within those denominations[organs w/in a system]. The Catholic church serves one purpose, the Lutheran another, the Baptists have their function, the Mormons have theirs, etc. each one looks drastically different from the other [heart, kidney, brain, etc], and each belongs to different systems, but they each play a vital role in serving the Body.

 

I like that analogy. All serving the Body.

 

Kinda like the verse "don't let there be divisions among you" has been interpreted to NEEDING divisions[denominations] to make sure each person in a congregation is on the same page.....and I read it the absolute opposite: don't let differences of opinion DIVIDE you as the Body of Christ: "I was baptised in the Lutheran church; i was baptized in the Southern Baptist church; i was baptised in the Episcopal Church; i was baptised in the Catholic church;" etc etc etc.

 

I see the broken Body of Christ on the cross, and then I see the broken Body here on earth with all the divisions and arguing. It makes me very sad. Regarding the bolded part: I was baptized a Christian in the Catholic Church. Those who were baptized in other Christian faiths (Trinitarian with water) aren't re-baptized if they convert to Catholicism. There is one baptism. Episcopal is the same. Just got me to thinking.

 

Theologians call those differences heresy. i consider it a matter of different SYSTEMs.

Not every body part can belong to the same system.

When Christians figure that out, I think we'll do just fine w/o worrying about heresies or divisions.

and if i'm wrong, God can slap me upside the head and make me clean toilets w/ a toothbrush in heaven.

 

I don't think we're going to need toilets in heaven - or God forbid, I might be cleaning them alongside you.

 

Janet

[usetoschool]

I agree that the Mormon church does not hold the Apostolic succesion of the Catholic, or any other Christian church. I did not mention this because this is not a requirement to be considered a Christian by the Catholic church. Lutherans, Methodists, and other Christian groups still maintain the basic doctrines found in the creed, so although we don't necessarily recognize the authority of their clergy, and they don't recognize ours, they are still considered Christian. I brought that up, not to say succession makes anybody christian or not, but to point out that the creed would be meaningless to me because I would say the church was already without leadership by the time the creed was codified. So to determine if someone fits within the parameters of christianity, using a measuring stick that I don't find necessarily accurate...it is just your measuring stick, not mine. And I think that is where so many conversations like this go astray - not that I think this one has, I agree with a post you made later about enjoying discussions and not being offended by them, and I hope I haven't said anything wrong or offensive and hope I have portrayed the position of the LDS church accurately without creating any misunderstanding - we can only see things through our own faith and understanding of truth. You believe the creed is truth and that it represents a certain version of the Godhead, I don't see it the same way and even reading it see a different version of the Godhead based on my own beliefs. I can only see out of my own eyes, though I do try to understand other peoples point of view.

 

I was only trying to point out the facts and reasons as to why Catholocism does not recognize Mormonism as a Christian sect. It does not have to do with your practices, although they are unorthodox - from your perspective - but with your doctrine. I completely understand the point you are trying to make.

 

And you are right, for us to debate is impossible since we hold different views on what Chrsitianity actually is. I realize that Mormons feel that all of Christianity from the time of Jesus until the time of Joseph Smith has been an apostosy, and that even the early Church leaders were in grave error, and the only church that has the true teachings of Jesus right is the Mormon church. I wouldn't say true, I would say complete. There are many churches with truth. In that way, it could be argued that Mormonism is much more condemning (no - condemns no one) and isolated than Catholocism, and in my experience I have found the Mormon Church to also be much more exclusive and secretive as well. My church's history is out there in the open for anyone to read, the good the bad and the ugly. I am not sure what parts are unavailable regarding church history. Also, anyone can go to a Cathedral or Bascillica or church, regardless of whether or not your church leader finds you worthy enough. After all, sinners are the ones in most need of the grace. I think there is some confusion about who is able to go where. Anyone is welcome at any Sunday service in any chapel anywhere in the world at any time. That is where worship services are. There isn't any thing secret about anything in the LDS church - if you refer to the temple, I would say that Temple worship is an ordinance, not a church service. Anybody who has participated in foundational ordinances such as baptism into the Church etc and is prepared to keep the covenants and committments you make in the temple is welcome to. The sacrament/eucharist might be a comparison. I assume you have to take the sacrament worthily, not just anyone can take it any time they want. It has to be administered by a...sorry don't know the right term, priest?...and the person has to be living in accordance with church doctrine or has repented of things he has done not in accordance with commandments etc - is that correct? Honestly, I don't know enough about what the Catholic church considers an ordinance, or if that is the word you even use, to make a good analogy.

 

If you investigate Church history and the Old and New Testament you will find that the doctrines and practices of the early Christians I have described, and that the church has maintained, are biblical and based on the teachings of Christ. Here is a link that explains the biblical sources for the doctrine of the Trinity:

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

 

 

I hope that didn't come off as too snarky, I have Mormon friends and acquaintances that I greatly respect, including a brother in law and his family. Just wanted to let the facts come out.

 

Nope, not snarky. Totally fine. It is hard to find ways to express ideas without being able to see faces and understand nuance. This has been interesting to me.

[Greta]

I have been told before to check the context (in respect to Darwinism) and the context that I have checked hasn't changed anything.

 

It was kind funny for me to hear you say this, because I was thinking the same thing about this:

 

In the case of the scripture speaking about drinking blood and eating flesh, we can for one example, read the account of the Lord's Evening Meal. We can also continue reading and see what Jesus told his disciples after it was said.

 

I have read all four of the gospels, and I'm working on the rest of the NT (this is after taking an almost two decade long "break" from Christianity). I have found nothing that contradicts or in any way changes the obvious meaning of those scriptures in John 6, and much that reinforces it.

 

As far as what Jesus told his disciples after he said it, that part is interesting. Some people who were listening did not like what Jesus had said, so they turned and walked away. Jesus didn't go after them and change his mind or soften what he had said. Instead, he asked his disciples if any of them wanted to leave too. That says to me: "case closed". Not up for debate or discussion. It's a deal breaker.

[Lovedtodeath]

soemthing we also need to keep in context is that there are manymanymany theological "experts" who have professionally studied the doctrines of different denominations and still come to opposing conclusions. ;)

I don't know if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing. I just wanted to say that I am not calling myself an expert. I am defending myself from the allegation that I have not looked at the other side.

 

It was kind funny for me to hear you say this, because I was thinking the same thing about this:

 

 

 

I have read all four of the gospels, and I'm working on the rest of the NT (this is after taking an almost two decade long "break" from Christianity). I have found nothing that contradicts or in any way changes the obvious meaning of those scriptures in John 6, and much that reinforces it.

 

As far as what Jesus told his disciples after he said it, that part is interesting. Some people who were listening did not like what Jesus had said, so they turned and walked away. Jesus didn't go after them and change his mind or soften what he had said. Instead, he asked his disciples if any of them wanted to leave too. That says to me: "case closed". Not up for debate or discussion. It's a deal breaker.

 

:) Love ya. Actually, I intend to do some more research on this scripture. I didn't say that I understood it. I explained how to try to understand it. LOL

[Lovedtodeath]

There's that old song that says "to know him is to love him." That is why people are so preoccupied with the nature of God and the relationship of the Trinity, and other matters of Doctrine. Many Christians don't just want to follow blindly, they want to know their God. And they believe that God became man in the form of Jesus because he wanted to reveal Himself to His people.

 

It also isn't really fair to bash someone who takes a more analytical approach to their faith and happens to be more drawn to this type of debate.

Thank you for answering this. I am very analytical. It used to irritate me to no end that some of the publications by Jehovah's Witnesses would make a statement and then follow it with only one scripture and move on. One scripture is not enough for me at all. And then some of those one scriptures really didn't seem to apply IMO. So I would get out the concordance and find my own scriptures for the topic. One scripture... no thanks. I need 7.:D

[Greta]

:) Love ya. Actually, I intend to do some more research on this scripture. I didn't say that I understood it. I explained how to try to understand it. LOL

 

:lol: Ah, I gotcha! :cheers2:

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing. I just wanted to say that I am not calling myself an expert. I am defending myself from the allegation that I have not looked at the other side.

 

neither :D

Just stating the obvious for any and everyone. ;)