Question about Mormons and Christianity

[MamaSheep]

You know, I was raised in an evangelical denomination that regularly demonized the LDS, and there were many youth group meetings where we were warned of how dangerous a cult it is (The Godmakers featured prominently in many of these discussions). Tales of magic underwear, secret rites, and perhaps most horrific of all, temple plays involving interpretative dancing Jesus and his side-kick brother, Lucifer (that nutty guy).

 

Point being, obviously I am exceedingly well-informed. (Almost as well-informed as a certain other poster on this thread.) I got some seriously credible info here, folks. Like, 60 Minutes expose worthy, ya know? My sources are solid.

 

And so I'm a little ticked off that with all those cautionary tales, I never once heard about intimidating home visitors. WTH, guys, seriously, you're holding back on me??

 

Now, I've got all these images of like, Neo-type guys in black trench coats and sunglasses coming to LDS doorsteps and demanding that they "TKAE THE BLUE PILL NOW OK CUZ THE RED PILL IZ TOTALLY EVIL!!!" and breaking up nice family dinner scenes all across the state of Utah.

 

WHY haven't I ever been told about this??? It's precisely the kind of sensational, fear-inducing, kinda-mostly-totally-untrue, true-sounding thing that would have sold in the next bestseller, God-Makers: Revenge of the Fallen.

 

I am inconsolable.

 

:lol: I think I grew up with some of your Sunday School classmates. And after college graduation I had an office mate of another faith who would come in every Monday (EVERY Monday!) and tell me the new outrageously juicy thing her preacher had said about Mormons from the pulpit that week. Some really bizarre stuff. It made me wonder why he was so obsessed with us. And why, if he WAS so obsessed, his information was so blatantly ridiculous.

[Veritaserum]

You know, I was raised in an evangelical denomination that regularly demonized the LDS, and there were many youth group meetings where we were warned of how dangerous a cult it is (The Godmakers featured prominently in many of these discussions). Tales of magic underwear, secret rites, and perhaps most horrific of all, temple plays involving interpretative dancing Jesus and his side-kick brother, Lucifer (that nutty guy).

 

Point being, obviously I am exceedingly well-informed. (Almost as well-informed as a certain other poster on this thread.) I got some seriously credible info here, folks. Like, 60 Minutes expose worthy, ya know? My sources are solid.

 

And so I'm a little ticked off that with all those cautionary tales, I never once heard about intimidating home visitors. WTH, guys, seriously, you're holding back on me??

 

Now, I've got all these images of like, Neo-type guys in black trench coats and sunglasses coming to LDS doorsteps and demanding that they "TKAE THE BLUE PILL NOW OK CUZ THE RED PILL IZ TOTALLY EVIL!!!" and breaking up nice family dinner scenes all across the state of Utah.

 

WHY haven't I ever been told about this??? It's precisely the kind of sensational, fear-inducing, kinda-mostly-totally-untrue, true-sounding thing that would have sold in the next bestseller, God-Makers: Revenge of the Fallen.

 

I am inconsolable.

 

:lol: I'll let you know if Neo and Morpheus show up. ;)

[meggie]

You know, I was raised in an evangelical denomination that regularly demonized the LDS, and there were many youth group meetings where we were warned of how dangerous a cult it is (The Godmakers featured prominently in many of these discussions). Tales of magic underwear, secret rites, and perhaps most horrific of all, temple plays involving interpretative dancing Jesus and his side-kick brother, Lucifer (that nutty guy).

 

Point being, obviously I am exceedingly well-informed. (Almost as well-informed as a certain other poster on this thread.) I got some seriously credible info here, folks. Like, 60 Minutes expose worthy, ya know? My sources are solid.

 

And so I'm a little ticked off that with all those cautionary tales, I never once heard about intimidating home visitors. WTH, guys, seriously, you're holding back on me??

 

Now, I've got all these images of like, Neo-type guys in black trench coats and sunglasses coming to LDS doorsteps and demanding that they "TKAE THE BLUE PILL NOW OK CUZ THE RED PILL IZ TOTALLY EVIL!!!" and breaking up nice family dinner scenes all across the state of Utah.

 

WHY haven't I ever been told about this??? It's precisely the kind of sensational, fear-inducing, kinda-mostly-totally-untrue, true-sounding thing that would have sold in the next bestseller, God-Makers: Revenge of the Fallen.

 

I am inconsolable.

 

First of all :lol:.

 

And second of all: because the world as we know would end if people knew how really (un)scary our home teachers are. We can't let that happen yet, we've got more missionary work to do! :auto: So for now, sweet old men like MamaSheep's home teachers must be kept on the DL. Keep it secret, keep it safe!:tongue_smilie:

[MamaSheep]

My responses in red.

 

I think you're right that a lot of people are curious. And not to get political (PLEASE let's not turn this into a political thing) but at a time when one of the stronger candidates for the Republican nomination is LDS I can't blame people for wanting to know more about what he might bring to the presidency as far as personal beliefs. If we believed half the weird stuff that's credited to us, I'd be concerned too.

[Aelwydd]

:lol: I'll let you know if Neo and Morpheus show up. ;)

 

Well, geez, you don't have to be so hostile about it!!

[meggie]

Well, geez, you don't have to be so hostile about it!!

 

*wipes water off the computer monitor* :lol:

[meggie]

I think you're right that a lot of people are curious. And not to get political (PLEASE let's not turn this into a political thing) but at a time when one of the stronger candidates for the Republican nomination is LDS I can't blame people for wanting to know more about what he might bring to the presidency as far as personal beliefs. If we believed half the weird stuff that's credited to us, I'd be concerned too.

 

That's a good point. Growing up with all this stuff, it seems normal to me. I forget that other people have heard some bizarre things that are completely untrue. Another reason why I don't mind when they ask questions. If I can tell one more person, "We don't have horns," then I consider it a good day.

[Myeightkiddies]

I personally believe sincere questions are just peachy, but I suspect passive aggressive statements are being made in the guise of questions. Why all of the constant questioning of faith? Didn't someone (a moderator?) suggest laying off the religion threads for a while? A wise suggestion in my opinion.

 

Keep in mind that the questions may be passive-aggressive statements by the poster; however, there are hundreds of people reading the answers to the questions.

 

A lot of churches teach (not just pulpit but via publications and classes) that LDS is a cult. They also teach that the Catholic Church is a cult. This isn't one particular church in one town, there are a lot of them. Some people only know that side (cult - their label and not mine is the nicest aspect of the teachings, so one can imagine how much worse it is) of both the LDS and Catholic churches. Some of the responses, by the LDS (and Catholic on those threads) members, to the questions is the first time many have heard differently.

 

I always appreciate civil, religious threads.

[Lawana]

 

TBH I did get burned out over on another message board, and don't do it any more there, but that's because of the really mean tone that got overwhelming. Real questions got drowned out in the tidal wave of jerkiness. I've never felt like that here at all and it's by far the most civilized place on the web I've ever found for these conversations.

 

That wouldn't be StraightDope by any chance, would it?

[Veritaserum]

Well, geez, you don't have to be so hostile about it!!

 

Here, let me try again.

 

:cursing::mad::cursing: You'll be the last to know if they ever do come! :mad::cursing::mad:

 

Better? :biggrinjester:

[MamaSheep]

Keep in mind that the questions may be passive-aggressive statements by the poster; however, there are hundreds of people reading the answers to the questions.

 

A lot of churches teach (not just pulpit but via publications and classes) that LDS is a cult. They also teach that the Catholic Church is a cult. This isn't one particular church in one town, there are a lot of them. Some people only know that side (cult - their label and not mine is the nicest aspect of the teachings, so one can imagine how much worse it is) of both the LDS and Catholic churches. Some of the responses, by the LDS (and Catholic on those threads) members, to the questions is the first time many have heard differently.

 

I always appreciate civil, religious threads.

 

Very true. There are whole "ministries" (and I use the term loosely) that earn their paycheck by coming up with this nonsense and spreading it around to churches and Christian bookstores. The more sensational the "gossip" the more they get paid.

[mlbuchina]

Here's a blog article telling about the word. It's a coinage. Though looking around the web, it seems to be in wider use now than I would expect!

 

Thank you. When I first looked it up I was directed to something to do with cell phones! LOL

 

I am still a little puzzled as to why 1 Cor. would be used as a reference with it or vise versa. Ah well.

[dangermom]

You know, I was raised in an evangelical denomination that regularly demonized the LDS, and there were many youth group meetings where we were warned of how dangerous a cult it is (The Godmakers featured prominently in many of these discussions). Tales of magic underwear, secret rites, and perhaps most horrific of all, temple plays involving interpretative dancing Jesus and his side-kick brother, Lucifer (that nutty guy).

 

Point being, obviously I am exceedingly well-informed. (Almost as well-informed as a certain other poster on this thread.) I got some seriously credible info here, folks. Like, 60 Minutes expose worthy, ya know? My sources are solid.

 

And so I'm a little ticked off that with all those cautionary tales, I never once heard about intimidating home visitors. WTH, guys, seriously, you're holding back on me??

 

Now, I've got all these images of like, Neo-type guys in black trench coats and sunglasses coming to LDS doorsteps and demanding that they "TKAE THE BLUE PILL NOW OK CUZ THE RED PILL IZ TOTALLY EVIL!!!" and breaking up nice family dinner scenes all across the state of Utah.

 

WHY haven't I ever been told about this??? It's precisely the kind of sensational, fear-inducing, kinda-mostly-totally-untrue, true-sounding thing that would have sold in the next bestseller, God-Makers: Revenge of the Fallen.

 

I am inconsolable.

 

:lol::lol:

 

You know, I have never seen the Godmakers. Is it true that there's a bit showing kids in slo-mo doing evil flicking with their fingers, as though to cast a spell or something? That's what I've heard (it's very funny because those are the hand motions to a little-kid song about spring and flowers blooming).

[meggie]

:lol::lol:

 

You know, I have never seen the Godmakers. Is it true that there's a bit showing kids in slo-mo doing evil flicking with their fingers, as though to cast a spell or something? That's what I've heard (it's very funny because those are the hand motions to a little-kid song about spring and flowers blooming).

Popcorn popping on the apricot tree?!

[Aelwydd]

Here, let me try again.

 

:cursing::mad::cursing: You'll be the last to know if they ever do come! :mad::cursing::mad:

 

Better? :biggrinjester:

 

Yes, much. The constipated facial expressions make me feel like I'm back home again in the evangelical church I grew up in.

[Lawana]

Popcorn popping on the apricot tree?!

I looked out the window and what did I see?

[Aelwydd]

:lol::lol:

 

You know, I have never seen the Godmakers. Is it true that there's a bit showing kids in slo-mo doing evil flicking with their fingers, as though to cast a spell or something? That's what I've heard (it's very funny because those are the hand motions to a little-kid song about spring and flowers blooming).

 

It's been years, but I always hoped for an MST3K'ing of the movie.

 

Instant. classic.

[Maus]

Oh, I KNOW that "someone is wrong on the Internet" problem! :lol: But it's nice to see you back.

 

I am very happy to answer honest questions. There are enough LDS here to be able to take shifts, so if one or two of us get burned out it's no big deal, there will always be a few more to do the job.

 

TBH I did get burned out over on another message board, and don't do it any more there, but that's because of the really mean tone that got overwhelming. Real questions got drowned out in the tidal wave of jerkiness. I've never felt like that here at all and it's by far the most civilized place on the web I've ever found for these conversations.

:iagree:, especially with the bolded.

[MamaSheep]

Thank you. When I first looked it up I was directed to something to do with cell phones! LOL

 

I am still a little puzzled as to why 1 Cor. would be used as a reference with it or vise versa. Ah well.

 

We consider the passage in 1 Cor. to metaphorically describe all three degrees of glory (sun, moon, stars) even though it doesn't specifically name all three. I don't know why all three names are not given here. But if you read the whole passage in context, Paul is talking about the resurrection, and he's pointing out that just as there are different "kinds" of flesh (man, beast, fish, fowl) in life, there are also different "kinds" of resurrected bodies, each with its own level of glory--some with glory compared to that of the sun, some with glory metaphorically like that of the moon (less than the sun, more than the stars) and some with lesser glory, like the light of the stars compared to the sun and the moon. The idea is developed further elsewhere in LDS scripture, particulary in the Doctrine and Covenants (which records many of the revelations of God given to the prophet Joseph Smith). But even though it's not as explicit and clear as we'd like it to be, we view this passage as a Biblical reference to the same concept. We do understand, though, that not everyone sees it that way. And that's ok. :)

[dangermom]

That wouldn't be StraightDope by any chance, would it?

 

Oh, you've been there? :001_smile: I don't spend a lot of time there anymore, I'm here more.

[...................]

Mormons can only be "Christians" be redefining what the word means. Orthodox Christianity would adhere to the Nicene creed and the original definition of the Trinity. Since Mormons do not believe that Jesus is Equal to God the father and the Son, eternally co-existing, one in being with the father, begotten, not made...

[Maus]

I've come to the conclusion that I'm too slow to participate in a current, active discussion. By the time I post my reply to aother post, it's three pages back.....

[dangermom]

Mormons can only be "Christians" be redefining what the word means. Orthodox Christianity would adhere to the Nicene creed and the original definition of the Trinity. Since Mormons do not believe that Jesus is Equal to God the father and the Son, eternally co-existing, one in being with the father, begotten, not made...

 

Mormons wonder why the Nicene Creed is considered necessary for inclusion in the 'Christian' circle. Is it scripture? It's not in the Bible. Nor is the Trinity clearly defined in the Bible. I think that people can honestly study the Bible and come to a different conclusion about the Trinity question.

 

In the end I'm not sure if God cares much about exactly what we think about how the Trinity/Godhead is constructed. I think He probably cares more about whether we have faith in Him and in Christ as Savior, if we repent, and if we love Him and our fellow creatures. I'm sure all of us limited and fallen humans have many misconceptions about God that will eventually be cleared up. :001_smile:

[MamaSheep]

Mormons can only be "Christians" be redefining what the word means. Orthodox Christianity would adhere to the Nicene creed and the original definition of the Trinity. Since Mormons do not believe that Jesus is Equal to God the father and the Son, eternally co-existing, one in being with the father, begotten, not made...

 

I would like to gently point out that there were Christians around for several centuries before the Nicene Creed was ever even written. If one only includes as Christians those who adhere to that specific creed, then that would rule out all of the original apostles, as well as about three hundred years' worth of wonderful Christian people who evidently didn't need the Nicene Creed to consider themselves Christian either.

[Xuzi]

Mormons can only be "Christians" be redefining what the word means. Orthodox Christianity would adhere to the Nicene creed and the original definition of the Trinity. Since Mormons do not believe that Jesus is Equal to God the father and the Son, eternally co-existing, one in being with the father, begotten, not made...

 

But then you have to ask: who has the authority to set the definition of the word Christian?

[MamaSheep]

I've come to the conclusion that I'm too slow to participate in a current, active discussion. By the time I post my reply to aother post, it's three pages back.....

 

It can be hard to keep up, all right. I have to go find some shoes and take ds to his seminary class, and I just KNOW by the time I get back all kinds of interesting discussion will have taken place without me. That's almost as bad as someone being wrong on the internet.:lol:

 

FWIW, I always go back and read the past posts in a discussion like this, and I imagine others do too, so your posts would probably not be overlooked even if they are three pages back. I vote that you go ahead and write it up, toss it out there, and see what happens.

 

And I'll see you people again in an hour and a half or so. Try not to get too interesting without me.

Edited January 6, 2012 by MamaSheep

[mlbuchina]

We consider the passage in 1 Cor. to metaphorically describe all three degrees of glory (sun, moon, stars) even though it doesn't specifically name all three. I don't know why all three names are not given here. But if you read the whole passage in context, Paul is talking about the resurrection, and he's pointing out that just as there are different "kinds" of flesh (man, beast, fish, fowl) in life, there are also different "kinds" of resurrected bodies, each with its own level of glory--some with glory compared to that of the sun, some with glory metaphorically like that of the moon (less than the sun, more than the stars) and some with lesser glory, like the light of the stars compared to the sun and the moon. The idea is developed further elsewhere in LDS scripture, particulary in the Doctrine and Covenants (which records many of the revelations of God given to the prophet Joseph Smith). But even though it's not as explicit and clear as we'd like it to be, we view this passage as a Biblical reference to the same concept. We do understand, though, that not everyone sees it that way. And that's ok. :)

 

Thank you, MamaSheep. While I completely agree with you that the context is about resurrection, I'm not seeing the the different "kinds" of resurrected bodies. Only that we have a temporal, "earthly" or "have borne the image of the earthly" (vs 49) body, and that one day we will be changed into the spiritual, incorruptible, "bear the image of the heavenly" body.

 

Again, thank you so much for your time in answering my questions. I do hope that no one thinks that I am being passive aggressive in them! I wouldn't ask if I didn't really want to know and try to understand a different opinion.:)

[...................]

Here's part of an article that teaches why Christians do not consider Mormons Christians...

 

And I certainly do not wish to get into a debate or attack nice Mormon ladies on this forums...I'm just explaining why. I don't even usually post over here but was looking for info on Mitt so I opened this thread. :001_smile:

 

 

"The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (that there is only one God in all existence, Jesus is divine, God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 4:1-5), and Jesus rose from the dead physically (1 John 2:19; Luke 24:39), the gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, 1 Cor. 15:1-4), Mormonism denies three of them:*how many gods there are, the God of Christianity, and His work of salvation.

 

Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation.* It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8).* This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is God in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5).* See Trinity for a correct discussion of what the Trinity is (see also, false trinity)

 

Because Mormonism denies the biblical truth of who God is, who Jesus is, how forgiveness of sins is attained, and what the gospel is, the Mormon is not Christian -- in spite of all his claims that he is Christian.* Quite simply, the Mormon god doesn't exist.

 

Mormonism teaches

 

Mormon theology teaches that God is only one of countless gods, that he used to be a man on another planet, that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that he brought one of his wives to this world with whom he produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was Satan, and then we all followed.* But, the Bible says that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5), that God has* been God eternally (Psalm 90:2) -- which means he was never a man on another planet.* Since the Bible denies the existence of other gods (and goddesses), the idea that Jesus is the product of a god and goddess couple is rejected.* The Bible tells us that Jesus - The Jesus of Mormonism -*is definitely not the same Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Mormon Jesus is faith misplaced because the Mormon Jesus doesn't exist.

 

Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with God; that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon church in order to obtain forgiveness. Consider James Talmage, a very important Mormon figure who said, "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil," (Articles, p. 432), and "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience," (Articles, p. 81).* This clearly contradicts the biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) and the doctrine that works are not part of our salvation but a result of them (Rom. 4:5, James 2:14-18).

 

To further confuse the matter, Mormonism further states that salvation is twofold.* It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins, not simple universal resurrection. Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone, the Bible does teache it is by faith alone. Which is correct? Obviously, it is the Bible.

[Maus]

Mormons can only be "Christians" be redefining what the word means. Orthodox Christianity would adhere to the Nicene creed and the original definition of the Trinity. Since Mormons do not believe that Jesus is Equal to God the father and the Son, eternally co-existing, one in being with the father, begotten, not made...

We don't claim to be part of "Orthodox Christianity."

 

However, the primary definition of the word "Christian" is: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" (Merriam-Webster). We do claim that.

[jennsmile]

I have tried to stay out of this thread mostly because others were doing a great job answering.

 

No we don't follow the Nicene Creed you are absolutely correct in that statement. Neither did anybody else prior to 325 AD But I think you would still call the followers of Jesus prior to that time Christian. :001_smile:

 

As for our views on Jesus and the Trinity, here is a great talk.

 

 

ETA, I was posting while everybody else was they are just faster...

Edited January 6, 2012 by jennsmile

[...................]

No, because before the Arian heresy, all of the believers took it as fact that Jesus was God, one in being with the father. Therefore they completely adhered to and believed everything put forth in the Nicene Creed but had no need to get a council together to form such a creed until the Arian heresy.

[dangermom]

Here's part of an article that teaches why Christians do not consider Mormons Christians...

 

I'm sorry, but there are certainly some inaccuracies in that article. Would you like us to explain where they are?

 

We LDS certainly have quite a bit of doctrine that is very different from what mainstream Christians believe. We still consider ourselves to come under the very large umbrella of Christianity, though. :001_smile:

 

 

ETA: Ooo! I just looked at my post count and it's going to flip! :D

[Virg]

While I do not agree with a lot of LDS doctrine, I must say I have always admired the way you all share your faith (so graciously!), the way you serve others, and the community you build with each other. I know that all faiths have their difficulties, but I have always loved that part of yours.

:iagree:

In fact our denomination does a lot of the same things. I think there are more similarities than differences and God judges what is in others' hearts. It is not up to me to decide who is or isn't a Christian. My best friend is LDS and her and I have never had any issues discussing religion. If we have different beliefs then we do, not a big deal.

 

I think whether you agree, just have questions or completely disagree there is no reason to be disrespectful to others. I love it when people post on threads like these (respectfully!) it is so interesting to learn what other people believe. Isn't that the point of TWTM and classical learning? You love to learn, always want to learn more, even after being out of school? Even if you think people are horribly wrong (not saying in this thread) or terribly misguided, you are still able to see a new side of topics and how other people think.

 

Anyways... after rambling, thank you so much for answering questions. I don't normally participate but I love to read these threads and many times the questions are a little different or someone different responds with a slightly different view.

[...................]

And again of course they all believed everything put forth in the Nicebe Creed but it was not necessary to form such a creed before the Arian heresy became popular. Therefore all of the apostles and Jesus himself certainly adhered to to beliefs later set forth in the Nicene Creed.

[...................]

I have a lot to do and wasn't up for a debate. My point is to explain why most denominations do not accept Mormons as Christians.

 

Of course, you have a right to call yourself that and you seem very fair and kind in your posts and have done nicely in defending your position. Thank you.

 

I really only meant to answer the OP's question, rather than to convince you that you might not be a Christian.

 

Thanks for being so reasonable. These conversations are often hurtful and difficult, and it's hard not to offend. :grouphug:

 

I am curious though....if you feel like spending a few moments highliting the glaring inacurracies in the article. I won't debate it though.

[Joanne]

Mormons can only be "Christians" be redefining what the word means. Orthodox Christianity would adhere to the Nicene creed and the original definition of the Trinity. Since Mormons do not believe that Jesus is Equal to God the father and the Son, eternally co-existing, one in being with the father, begotten, not made...

 

Let me rephrase this more accurately.

 

According to my Christian doctrine, Mormons can't be Christian. I believe in the Trinity, and Mormons do not. Therefore, I do not believe Mormons can be Christian.

 

Hey, that's what you believe of LDS. OK. But at least own it as opinion, not fact. I'm in the middle of inventorying 27K books in a seminary, and I don't see anyONE person who speaks for Christianity.

[Aelwydd]

The whole debate about what constitutes a "Christian" is meaningless and arbitrary to me.

 

I don't care anymore what doctrine or beliefs you profess to have about God, Jesus, or the rest of it.

 

It comes down to this for me: if Jesus was divine, and his life and his death was truly done for the whole world, then we each of us have a measure of that grace already accorded to us.

 

What matters to me is the degree to which a person grows into that grace, exhibited by fruits such as love, kindness, gentleness, integrity, and so forth.

 

I consider that the best measure to how close a person is to God's likeness and God's favor is this, rather than any label such as Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. Those are extraneous and meaningless.

 

What does the severely mentally handicapped person know about "believing" this or that verse or doctrine? What does a mute say about professing faith? Or a blind person about seeing the Word? Yet I hold them to be fully endowed with the same gift of grace as anyone else, whether they own a creed to define it or not.

 

It's never been about the head, but the heart of the person. Doctrine is all well and good, and it's a fascinating exercise for the mind. But there is no person alive who doesn't have at least one erroneous or imperfect belief about the Divine.

 

Which is why the standard for what list of beliefs constitutes "Christian" is absurd and meaningless to me.

 

I don't hold to the same views or beliefs as LDS. Doesn't matter. Most LDS I've met have something far more important to me than "orthodox Christian" beliefs.

 

Charity.

 

Which makes them more the children of God than most "Christians" I've known, myself included.

[mlbuchina]

But then you have to ask: who has the authority to set the definition of the word Christian?

 

I guess if you want to get technical about it, it would have to be the Romans who occupied ancient Antioch as they were the first to coin the phrase. And then it was a wordy dird :eek:. :lol:

[dangermom]

 

I am curious though....if you feel like spending a few moments highliting the glaring inacurracies in the article. I won't debate it though.

I'll try but it will take me a while. Julie in Austin...where are you?

[jennsmile]

And again of course they all believed everything put forth in the Nicebe Creed but it was not necessary to form such a creed before the Arian heresy became popular. Therefore all of the apostles and Jesus himself certainly adhered to to beliefs later set forth in the Nicene Creed.

 

I am sure you know more than I do when it comes to Nicene Creed but if everybody was in 100% agreement why was this stated by a monk that lived at the time?

 

“Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.†Quoted in Owen Chadwick, Western Asceticism (1958), 235.

 

It is in the article I cited earlier.

 

And you are right that these conversations do get sticky and feelings get hurt. Thank you for sharing your point of view. :grouphug: No hard feelings here.

[jennsmile]

The whole debate about what constitutes a "Christian" is meaningless and arbitrary to me.

 

I don't care anymore what doctrine or beliefs you profess to have about God, Jesus, or the rest of it.

 

It comes down to this for me: if Jesus was divine, and his life and his death was truly done for the whole world, then we each of us have a measure of that grace already accorded to us.

 

What matters to me is the degree to which a person grows into that grace, exhibited by fruits such as love, kindness, gentleness, integrity, and so forth.

 

I consider that the best measure to how close a person is to God's likeness and God's favor is this, rather than any label such as Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. Those are extraneous and meaningless.

 

What does the severely mentally handicapped person know about "believing" this or that verse or doctrine? What does a mute say about professing faith? Or a blind person about seeing the Word? Yet I hold them to be fully endowed with the same gift of grace as anyone else, whether they own a creed to define it or not.

 

It's never been about the head, but the heart of the person. Doctrine is all well and good, and it's a fascinating exercise for the mind. But there is no person alive who doesn't have at least one erroneous or imperfect belief about the Divine.

 

Which is why the standard for what list of beliefs constitutes "Christian" is absurd and meaningless to me.

 

I don't hold to the same views or beliefs as LDS. Doesn't matter. Most LDS I've met have something far more important to me than "orthodox Christian" beliefs.

 

Charity.

 

Which makes them more the children of God than most "Christians" I've known, myself included.

 

Thank you Rebekah

[KingM]

They have these sorts of discussions in plenty of other contexts. Many Mormons say that fundamentalists are not Mormon when they really mean they are not LDS. Sunni sometimes say that Shi'a or Alawites or Sufi are not Islamic. Maybe in this case it's more accurate to say that LDS are not mainstream Christianity.

 

Also interesting, the heterodox LDS theologies (eternal progression, the war in Heaven, three degrees of glory, temple ordinances, etc.) are found more in the Doctrine & Covenants, than in the Book of Mormon, which teaches a fairly conservative Protestant theology. For example, would non-LDS Christians have trouble with these verses?

 

3 Nephi 11:32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

 

 

 

3 Nephi 11:33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

 

 

3 Nephi 11:34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be ****ed.

 

 

 

3 Nephi 11:35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

 

 

 

3 Nephi 11:36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

[TravelingChris]

I have never been in a church that devoted even one sermon on the LDS church. Certainly we never had a campaign against it. I am sure that some classes have been taught but never in the style that some here have mentioned. I don't go to sensationalistic churches- it just isn't my or my family's style at all.

 

I also am interested in what you see as errors in Calming Tea's explanation of why other churches don't see LDS as Christian.

[mlbuchina]

I'm sorry, but there are certainly some inaccuracies in that article. Would you like us to explain where they are?

 

We LDS certainly have quite a bit of doctrine that is very different from what mainstream Christians believe. We still consider ourselves to come under the very large umbrella of Christianity, though. :001_smile:

 

 

ETA: Ooo! I just looked at my post count and it's going to flip! :D

 

Dangermom, on a COMPLETELY different topic, I just have to say I love, love, love your avitar compared to your name. It just looks so dangerous.:D

[mlbuchina]

I have never been in a church that devoted even one sermon on the LDS church. Certainly we never had a campaign against it. I am sure that some classes have been taught but never in the style that some here have mentioned. I don't go to sensationalistic churches- it just isn't my or my family's style at all.

 

I also am interested in what you see as errors in Calming Tea's explanation of why other churches don't see LDS as Christian.

 

Me, either. I have heard it from individuals in conversations or read it on the internet.

[jennsmile]

I have never been in a church that devoted even one sermon on the LDS church. Certainly we never had a campaign against it. I am sure that some classes have been taught but never in the style that some here have mentioned. I don't go to sensationalistic churches- it just isn't my or my family's style at all.

 

I also am interested in what you see as errors in Calming Tea's explanation of why other churches don't see LDS as Christian.

 

 

For the record we don't have sermons on other religions. I did attend an institute (college level religion class) on World Religions and I enjoyed it. They had a muslim come and explain his beliefs which was fascinating. And an eastern religon which I can't remember also had somebody explain their beliefs.

 

I remember when I was teen another group/religion was going to hold their convention in SLC and my friend was excited to go and witness to the "Mormons." I know she enjoyed the time in SLC.

 

I am going to let the others find the errors if they wish. ;) I need to fold laundry and cook dinner.

[Lawana]

Oh, you've been there? :001_smile: I don't spend a lot of time there anymore, I'm here more.

Only in passing. Not my cuppa. But enough to have witnessed dangermom baiting in Mormon threads.

[goldberry]

Just a short comment...belief in the Trinity is not a Biblical requirement for salvation. The Bible defines faith in Jesus' sacrifice as the requirement. The Bible also says faith without works as dead, so there is a legitimate debate about how works play into the exercising of faith. But either way, that is secondary to the initial concept of faith in Jesus' sacrifice.

 

After doing much reading on early Christianity, a favorite subject of mine lately, there was definitely NOT a consensus on the Trinity prior to the Nicene Creed and even for quite awhile thereafter.

[dangermom]

OK folks here it is--my 3000th post! Please do not think that I've done this terribly well. I'm just trying to make things a little clearer, but I'm not a theologian. Probably other folks should come in and fix this up.

 

 

"The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (that there is only one God in all existence, Jesus is divine, God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 4:1-5), and Jesus rose from the dead physically (1 John 2:19; Luke 24:39), the gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, 1 Cor. 15:1-4), Mormonism denies three of them:*how many gods there are, the God of Christianity, and His work of salvation.

I'm not sure who decided those were the official essential doctrines, but we do believe in them. I think the whole grace/works thing gets blown way out of proportion and usually we're much closer than we've realized, but anyway I addressed it a bit below, and we do agree with Eph. 2:8-9 and Rom. 4:1-5.

 

Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation.* It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8).* This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time.

Yes to the 'flesh and bones' belief. We believe that God has an eternal and glorified body, and so does the resurrected Christ. The list: God in flesh, eternal, uncreated, yet born on earth, and the creator all--yep, we agree with those too. Jesus created the earth by commandment of the Father. This part: "Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time." I'm afraid that Mormons would counter that yes, He can indeed be eternal and uncreated, and also one of God's spirit children, and His Only Begotten. (We think that the Trinity doctrine is mind-twisting, but have no problem with this one. ;))

 

Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is God in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5).*

I guess here we'd just have to disagree over what constitutes "one God" and the Trinity. We believe that the Godhead is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three distinct beings who are completely unified in purpose. You could call the Godhead 'one God,' or you could say that the Father is 'one God,' I suppose. I'm not well-versed enough in fine shades of distinction to be able to say with authority, nor am I convinced that it's a terribly important point.

 

Mormon theology teaches that God is only one of countless gods, that he used to be a man on another planet, that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that he brought one of his wives to this world with whom he produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was Satan, and then we all followed.* But, the Bible says that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5), that God has* been God eternally (Psalm 90:2) -- which means he was never a man on another planet.* [snipped for length]

That is not actually something that we talk about a whole lot, because we do not understand it very well (nor have I ever heard anything as specific as 'bringing one of his wives to this world,' etc.). I think we would say that God is indeed an eternal God, but that somewhere far back--before this universe was created--that all happened too. Remember, Jesus said that He didn't do anything He hadn't seen His Father do first. I don't think I've ever heard of Satan as the 'second son.' Remember that he is supposed to have been an important personage before he fell, but so were others. Mormons do see all people as part of one family--God as the literal Father of our spirits and Jesus as the firstborn and Only Begotten. We don't think that angels are a different sort of being altogether, for instance. We are all children of our heavenly Father, and some of His children rebel.

 

Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with God; that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon church in order to obtain forgiveness. Consider James Talmage, a very important Mormon figure who said, "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil," (Articles, p. 432), and "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience," (Articles, p. 81).* This clearly contradicts the biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) and the doctrine that works are not part of our salvation but a result of them (Rom. 4:5, James 2:14-18).

I think you're probably aware that the whole grace/works thing is a topic of discussion throughout Christianity, and there are many Christians who think that grace and not works is not the whole story. Also such discussions usually seem to classify things like baptism as a dead work, which I find confusing. So: here are the "laws and ordinances of the Mormon church" they're talking about: 1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Repentance. 3. Baptism. 4. The gift of the Holy Ghost. Now, many churches do indeed argue about whether baptism is necessary to be saved, but the Bible seems to imply that baptism is part of faithfulness (as in for example Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.). We feel that making (and doing our best to keep) covenants with God is part of being saved. If you believe in Jesus, then you'll repent and get baptized, thus receiving grace. Then you'll continue to walk with Jesus and try to do as He commanded, and when you inevitably fail, His grace will sustain you and save you. I don't think that's so very different from what many Christians teach. No LDS person would ever try to tell you that people can become perfect and get to heaven through their own efforts, without Jesus Christ.

 

To further confuse the matter, Mormonism further states that salvation is twofold.* It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins, not simple universal resurrection.

We do believe that universal resurrection is a free gift of the Atonement; without Christ's resurrection, none of us could be resurrected either. One does not need to accept Christ in order to be resurrected at the end--that will happen to everyone. I think Mormons would say, however, that salvation is what happens when you believe in Christ and are baptized--your sins are forgiven and you are part of God's kingdom. Thus some people will be resurrected, but not saved.

 

 

Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone, the Bible does teach it is by faith alone. Which is correct? Obviously, it is the Bible.

I am not quite sure what this means actually, but I hope I covered it in the faith/baptism part above.

[dangermom]

Dangermom, on a COMPLETELY different topic, I just have to say I love, love, love your avitar compared to your name. It just looks so dangerous.:D

 

Hey thanks :D. You can tell it's a librarian, right? I'm a librarian.