Have you seen Apologia's blog that states LDS are not Christians? Thoughts?

[Mrs Mungo]

I haven't actually read the Apologia blog, but I would like to address the issue of calling Mormons Christians. The word Christian previously had a specific meaning that has now been blurred. This happened in England a long time ago, so that "Christian" basically meant "good and decent".

 

Many "orthodox" Christians (meaning those holding to the Nicene Creed, not referring to Eastern Orthodox only) recognize a significant difference in belief between themselves and Mormons. Mormons also recognize this difference. They don't feel a conflict when using the term Christian, but this can cause confusion if you begin to have so many different meanings to the word.

 

I'm sure it would cause problems if a new group arose that called itself Mormon, yet changed some core portions of the original Mormons belief (meaning that held by current members of Latter Day Saints - I do know that Mormonism can change). The problem would be one of identification. The word Mormon would lose its original meaning.

 

I think this is what has happened with the term Christian. The meaning of the term has changed for mainstream America.

 

There have been divisions in the church - but although Luther broke away from the practices of the Catholic church at that time, he still held most of the same doctrines to be true (and certainly the Nicene Creed).

 

It is too bad that the article was apparently so unkind and insensitive. But I have seen this discussion before, and I think the problem comes with the change of the definition. As a Christian in the more traditional sense, this is hard for me.

 

I will also mention that I am bothered when people come to my door trying to change my faith, yet start the conversation by affirming that they "are Christians, too." This bothers me because they know there are major differences between us, or they wouldn't be about to try to change my mind. This is one place where I don't like the use of the word Christian to be used by them. It feels misleading to me.

 

If it's okay to have different faiths, it should be okay to have names that distinguish them. I find it hard to even try to make my point here without risking saying something inflammatory. If it's okay to have different views, it should be okay to say what they are and to admit the difficulty of being called by the same name when there are different beliefs between the two groups.

 

 

Here's the thing-the article was not just unkind and insensitive. The problem, imo, is two-fold. One, it was inaccurate as far as representing the modern LDS church. Is it okay to *lie* about another religion in order to make your point? I don't think it is. Two, it's an unnecessary thing to point out. Do I believe in the Trinity? Yes, I do. Is my view of Christ different than that of the LDS church? Yes, it is. So, I disagree with the LDS church on those points. But, do I go around loudly informing my Mormon friends of how wrong I think they are? No, I don't. Do I need to explain to the random parents at a soccer game why each of them is wrong in their beliefs? No, I don't. It is unnecessary to purposely ostracize people. Obviously, each of us believes our own set of beliefs is correct and true. Most LDS people are aware that their views are different from mainstream Christianity and/or mainline Protestantism.

 

Now, that said, there are denominations like the United Church of Christ who *do* believe in the Nicene Creed, are considered mainline Protestants and *still* are not considered Christians by a this or that segment of the population. It's dumb to go around pointing out who is not Christiany enough for *you* to believe they cannot wear the label. The word Christian is not trademarked and cannot be co-opted by any particular group, no matter how strongly they believe in their own set of beliefs.

[Mrs Mungo]

The scholarly term "revisionist history" is coming to mind.

 

 

I don't believe revisionist history is a scholarly term. It is usually used by people who want to silence certain groups.

[Orthodox6]

 

I don't believe revisionist history is a scholarly term. It is usually used by people who want to silence certain groups.

 

Learned the term and its uses in academia during graduate level history courses.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

Learned the term and its uses in academia during graduate level history courses.

 

I'm really not sure how that negates what I said. Sometimes people mean a legitimate re-examination of history. More often people today use it as a term of derision to silence certain groups.

[Janie Grace]

If LDS are Christians and so am I... why do Mormon missionaries continue to try to convert me after I explain what I believe?

[Joanne]

If LDS are Christians and so am I... why do Mormon missionaries continue to try to convert me after I explain what I believe?

 

There are several logical fallacies in this post.

 

The answer, were it an actual question, is not pertinent to the OP.

[Orthodox6]

 

I'm really not sure how that negates what I said. Sometimes people mean a legitimate re-examination of history. More often people today use it as a term of derision to silence certain groups.

 

Perhaps they do. I would not know about that, never having heard it applied in such a context.

 

I used the term in one of its customary meanings, which includes both legitimate and illegitimate restatings of the historical record.

[mom31257]

 

I was born and raised in the LDS church. It has only been in the past year that I've become aware of hateful, anti-traditional Christianity Mormon teachings. I only became aware of them because I decided to really delve into the history of the church. Mormon doctrine is difficult to pin down because there isn't much in the way of an organized creed. ~180 years of teachings from various leaders (some of which directly contradict each other) means you can find all kinds of crazy things that were said and even believed by the members of the church. Some of the points of "doctrine" cited by Apologia were indeed taught and even believed by Mormons in the past. However, most modern Mormons will have no knowledge of these previous teachings since they are definitely not taught currently. Mormonism is a living, changing religion. It's different today than it was 10, 20, 50, or 100+ years ago.

 

 

This is the very reason that a lot of Christians would never consider Mormons to be true Christians. I think most would not accept new doctrines on a continual basis.

 

I'm sure there are people in the Mormon church (as in any other denomination) who are Christians and some who are not. Surely people will admit that the Mormon teachings and beliefs are VERY different from most Christian denominations out there. But it will be up to God to decide who is a Christian and who is not.

[Live2Ride]

If LDS are Christians and so am I... why do Mormon missionaries continue to try to convert me after I explain what I believe?

 

You need it explained? :huh:

[milovany]

This is the very reason that a lot of Christians would never consider Mormons to be true Christians. I think most would not accept new doctrines on a continual basis.

 

Heh heh.

[Butter]

If LDS are Christians and so am I... why do Mormon missionaries continue to try to convert me after I explain what I believe?

 

Why did the Baptist minister knock on my door (without knowing anything abut me - he was going door to door) to try to convert me to his religion? Because he thought Baptist is best and even though I told him I was Christian, he encouraged me to look into the Baptist church. Same thing... the Mormon missionaries think Mormonism is best and want to share it with you. I mean, really, by what you said that would indicated that any proselyting church (including Baptist apparently) are not Christian simply because they want you to be a member of their denomination.

[I.Dup.]

But it will be up to God to decide who is a Christian and who is not.

 

This is very true and the only thing any of us should worry about in this regard.

[NotSoObvious]

 

This is the very reason that a lot of Christians would never consider Mormons to be true Christians. I think most would not accept new doctrines on a continual basis.

 

I'm sure there are people in the Mormon church (as in any other denomination) who are Christians and some who are not. Surely people will admit that the Mormon teachings and beliefs are VERY different from most Christian denominations out there. But it will be up to God to decide who is a Christian and who is not.

 

 

You can't be serious.

 

All Mormons consider themselves Christians. Not some. (And I say this as a former Mormon who has very different beliefs now. I still find the idea of deciding who can call themselves Christians or not completely ludicrous.)

[Murphy101]

If LDS are Christians and so am I... why do Mormon missionaries continue to try to convert me after I explain what I believe?

 

The same reason a Catholic would explain why we disagree with Protestant beliefs to a Protestant. A desire for greater unity.

[Janie Grace]

There are several logical fallacies in this post.

 

The answer, were it an actual question, is not pertinent to the OP.

 

Wow, "revisionist history" has nothing on this shut-down. Please forgive me my logical fallacies.

 

My point was merely this... here on the WTM board (where there are many Mormons), people seem quick to embrace the LDS church as just another form of Christianity. However, whenever I have interacted with a Mormon missionary and explained what I believe (I'm a Presbyterian, run-of-the-mill Christian, nothing fancy), my sense is that, in their mind, I am not believing the full or correct gospel.

 

How is this not pertinent to the OP? Apologia is saying that the LDS church has beliefs that aren't the same as mainstream Christianity. My experience concurs.

[Janie Grace]

The same reason a Catholic would explain why we disagree with Protestant beliefs to a Protestant. A desire for greater unity.

 

Wait, so LDS missionaries are out to promote greater unity? Not to make converts?

[I.Dup.]

:lurk5:

[Murphy101]

The greatest unity is in conversion.

[mom31257]

 

 

You can't be serious.

 

All Mormons consider themselves Christians. Not some. (And I say this as a former Mormon who has very different beliefs now. I still find the idea of deciding who can call themselves Christians or not completely ludicrous.)

 

 

I mean that most Christians who aren't Mormons would not accept new doctrine all the time. Most churches use the Bible as it is (not new prophets) for doctrine of the faith.

[milovany]

I mean that most Christians who aren't Mormons would not accept new doctrine all the time. Most churches use the Bible as it is (not new prophets) for doctrine of the faith.

 

 

I knew what you meant, it's just kinda funny if you're referring to modern protestant Christianity.

[Butter]

 

Wow, "revisionist history" has nothing on this shut-down. Please forgive me my logical fallacies.

 

My point was merely this... here on the WTM board (where there are many Mormons), people seem quick to embrace the LDS church as just another form of Christianity. However, whenever I have interacted with a Mormon missionary and explained what I believe (I'm a Presbyterian, run-of-the-mill Christian, nothing fancy), my sense is that, in their mind, I am not believing the full or correct gospel.

 

How is this not pertinent to the OP? Apologia is saying that the LDS church has beliefs that aren't the same as mainstream Christianity. My experience concurs.

 

 

Believing we have the fullness of the gospel does not mean that we think other Christian denominations are wrong. All Christian denominations have differences. Heck, within a single denomination there are differences. A friend of mine visited half a dozen Baptist churches before she found one like the one where she had been raised. She said she never knew there were so many subsets to her denomination. Of course Mormon missioanries would like you to convert to Mormonism. Apparently, the Baptist minister wanted people to convert to be Baptists. What's the difference? I've seen a lot of times where someone is looking for a new church and people say "try mine" and it's just another branch of Christianity.

 

And Apologia was *not* saying the LDS church beliefs are not the same as mainstream Christianity. They were saying that Mormons are not Christian at all. Period. AND that they have the corner on defining what a Christian is.

[Forgiven]

I've got many opinions and thoughts based on the article itself and on the responses to the OP, but all I'm going to say is this:

 

A Christian is someone who professes Jesus Christ as Lord. You'll find Christians in all denominations--I won't say all religions because not all religions believe in the one, true God. And I know just saying that will offend, but it's the truth I know and believe with everything that I am.

 

If you have a personal relationship with God, then you are saved, and are a Christian. Though I believe that there are saved people amongst the denominations that "Christians" don't believe are Christian religions, I also believe that there are a lot of people who consider themselves to be Christians that aren't really saved.

 

We are saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ. There is no other way to be saved. None. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the father except through Jesus.

[Murphy101]

Meh. Apologia can define Christians any way they want. They have the option to believe anything they want. People have the option to agree or not.

 

I don't agree with Apologia.

 

Neither do I think one can be anything they choose to call themselves. I call that kind of reasoning Flamingo Flawed.

 

I can paint myself pink, have a big nose, and stand on one leg on a riverbank while fishing. I can call myself a flamingo and validly claim I meet many qualities of a flamingo.

But I still wouldn't be a flamingo.

 

As for converting people. From a catholic pov, the greatest unity is in conversion. But a dialog between two people about what their beliefs are and why can also build unity by hopefully finding common ground or at least better understanding.

[Mrs Mungo]

Apologia is saying that the LDS church has beliefs that aren't the same as mainstream Christianity. My experience concurs.

 

It doesn't answer the question of why a company would feel the need to make a public declaration about it.

[milovany]

A Christian is someone who professes Jesus Christ as Lord. You'll find Christians in all denominations--I won't say all religions because not all religions believe in the one, true God. And I know just saying that will offend, but it's the truth I know and believe with everything that I am.

 

If you have a personal relationship with God, then you are saved, and are a Christian ...

 

We are saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ. There is no other way to be saved. None. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the father except through Jesus.

 

I think this kind of proves the point, though. Not all Christians would agree with the above. The church that Christ delivered the faith to, that one that gave us the Bible and the Nicene creed, wouldn't. This is one of the innovative doctrines referenced above (something like "a personal relationship with Christ is all you need to be saved, and this makes you a Christian").

 

It's fine for you to have your thoughts and opinions on this and I respect that; truly I do. I just think it's important to realize that not all believers (and especially not those from the early, united church -- the one that existed for 1000+ years before a Great Schism) ascribe to what you wrote above.

 

You and I have different opinions on what makes someone a Christian. How do we know who's right? And so, in relation to this post, why did Apologia feel the need to try and define what a true Christian is, purposely to exclude of a group of people who say they are in fact Christian? How do we know who's right?

 

ETA -- I definitely have an opinion about the answer to that question, but it's not the point of my post.

[sheryl]

You know, I'm just not even sure why this debate even exists. I was not going to approach this hornet's nest, but feel compelled to chime in.

 

Define Christian? By the world's definition I'm a "Christian". Our country's founders were "Christian"..........well, some, but not all. Sure, they were in "name", but in practice. ???? George Washington was a Freemason. This group is very innocent at the entry level, but as one progresses up the ladder, the core of the existence changes, their platform is different, practices are observed that are anything but "Christian". Oh, I forgot to mention. I know from personal experience on this. :)

 

Most cults appear innocent on the surface, but are entirely different once years of service is practiced. I know of 3 people locally (1 just moved) who used to be involved in cults and the occult. They will be the first to validate what I'm saying, They are now saved by God's grace and have met Jesus in God's Word. These ladies are some of the strongest and most spiritually-mature people I know. There may be some that will scoff at what I'm writing - so be it. Hopefully though some/all folks will get it.

 

So, LDS! Well, it takes only a "thorough", balanced and dedicated research on the topic to "fully" understand Apologia's position. I would say the same for any person/group who "strays" from God's word.

 

Oh, I call myself: Daughter of the One, True King, Follower of Jesus, Bond Servant to Christ, Believer in Jesus. My Messianic Jewish friend told me the other day she doesn't even say anymore "believer" b/c everyone does believe in something or someone. She's right. Jesus is set apart. He came. He died. He rose again! So, yes, I do "believe"........................in Jesus!

[Murphy101]

If you read the very beginning of the blog post, the writer states that their classes and texts stated or referenced this belief about Mormons and Mormons asked them to explain this so that Mormons could make a decision about using their materials.

 

Personally, I'd rather a company state up front that their materials are anti whatever. It's a lot easier in time and finances than doing a ton of research and or getting to chapter whatever in a book and discovering it.

 

I don't agree with them, but I'm fine with them stating it up front publicly. Makes it easier to shop, yes?

 

 

 

It doesn't answer the question of why a company would feel the need to make a public declaration about it.

[dangermom]

 

A couple of years ago I would have thought the list of Mormon doctrine in the Apologia post was full of anti-Mormon lies. Now I understand that they are all things that were once taught. Because I wasn't taught them in the modern LDS church, I believed them to be fictitious. Studying more in depth and less polished (LDS) church history has shown me otherwise.

 

I am also familiar with the early history of the LDS Church and the things that they used to say (I hope you're not saying that the other LDS folks here are all ignorant of their church's history). Happily, we have moved on and received greater light and truth and improved on some things. I think we could say that about many denominations--after all, Catholics and Protestants used to torture and kill each other, believing that a proper salvation was worth some physical pain, but few people would try to say that that history dictates current beliefs.

[Mrs Mungo]

If you read the very beginning of the blog post, the writer states that their classes and texts stated or referenced this belief about Mormons and Mormons asked them to explain this so that Mormons could make a decision about using their materials.

 

Let me rephrase. Here's the quote that you reference:

A conversation has taken place publicly in the last few days, which was prompted by concerns that some in the Mormon community voiced about an online class and a biblical worldview text offered by Apologia. In both cases, Apologia makes it clear that we do not view Mormons as Christians. There are two issues at hand. The first question, primarily raised by the Mormons participating in this conversation: Should Mormons continue to buy Apologia curriculum and resources? The second question is: What are some basic differences between the Mormon religion and Christianity?

 

If *I* ran a curricula company and wanted to answer the question of worldview, then I would have said something a little more neutral. I would have said, "our worldview matches the denomination of X and is OEC" or "will fit with anyone who believes in the Nicene Creed and is OEC" or "probably only people who describe themselves as Christian fundamentalists will agree with our worldview." I don't think it was necessary or wise or encourages unity to say "oh, we don't believe that Mormons are Christians." It was not necessary to answer the question posed to them.

 

IMO, the next bit of their post is positively *laughable*, given their first paragraph. You are not Christians and are probably going to hell. Still, you should have zero problem purchasing and using our awesome textbooks that contain a worldview that is *definitely* in opposition to your own! :D That is how it comes across.

[Ameena]

You know, I'm just not even sure why this debate even exists. I was not going to approach this hornet's nest, but feel compelled to chime in.

 

Well, it takes only a "thorough", balanced and dedicated research on the topic to "fully" understand Apologia's position. I would say the same for any person/group who "strays" from God's word.

 

Oh, I call myself: Daughter of the One, True King, Follower of Jesus, Bond Servant to Christ, Believer in Jesus. My Messianic Jewish friend told me the other day she doesn't even say anymore "believer" b/c everyone does believe in something or someone. She's right. Jesus is set apart. He came. He died. He rose again! So, yes, I do "believe"........................in Jesus!

 

 

I wasn't going to get into the hornet's nest either, but I just couldn't resist.

 

Define God's Word, and defend it's infallibility and which version is correct. WITHOUT using Biblical references.

 

Every branch uses a different Bible, and no two ones are translated the same. In many cases when you look at a typical american bible today, it doesn't even resemble the original scriptures, which I might add were written AT LEAST 40 years AFTER Jesus. So how do we really know there isn't error in the Christian bible? I studied biblical studies at the college level, and you cannot prove, without a reasonable doubt, that the Christian bible that exists today is the same teachings Jesus taught while alive. In fact when it comes to the new testament, you can't even prove the sources - since the early Catholic Church destroyed them.

 

 

And for the record, I believe in Jesus too. I just call him Isa and believe he was a prophet just like Mohammed, but not Messiah as Christians refer to him as. :) I also believe that the Qu'ran is without error, as the edition I have today is an exact match to the very text given to Mohammed.

 

I can honestly say I believe in Jesus as Messiah - When you delve down into the linguistic root of the word Messiah, the root word doesn't mean anything like Messiah does today. It was just another word for Prophet.

[Mergath]

You know, I'm just not even sure why this debate even exists. I was not going to approach this hornet's nest, but feel compelled to chime in.

 

Define Christian? By the world's definition I'm a "Christian". Our country's founders were "Christian"..........well, some, but not all. Sure, they were in "name", but in practice. ???? George Washington was a Freemason. This group is very innocent at the entry level, but as one progresses up the ladder, the core of the existence changes, their platform is different, practices are observed that are anything but "Christian". Oh, I forgot to mention. I know from personal experience on this. :)

 

Most cults appear innocent on the surface, but are entirely different once years of service is practiced. I know of 3 people locally (1 just moved) who used to be involved in cults and the occult. They will be the first to validate what I'm saying, They are now saved by God's grace and have met Jesus in God's Word. These ladies are some of the strongest and most spiritually-mature people I know. There may be some that will scoff at what I'm writing - so be it. Hopefully though some/all folks will get it.

 

So, LDS! Well, it takes only a "thorough", balanced and dedicated research on the topic to "fully" understand Apologia's position. I would say the same for any person/group who "strays" from God's word.

 

Oh, I call myself: Daughter of the One, True King, Follower of Jesus, Bond Servant to Christ, Believer in Jesus. My Messianic Jewish friend told me the other day she doesn't even say anymore "believer" b/c everyone does believe in something or someone. She's right. Jesus is set apart. He came. He died. He rose again! So, yes, I do "believe"........................in Jesus!

 

 

I'm not sure how any of this ties in to the topic at hand. Are you saying that members of the LDS church aren't Christians? Or that you're way more Christian than they are?

[Veritaserum]

I am also familiar with the early history of the LDS Church and the things that they used to say (I hope you're not saying that the other LDS folks here are all ignorant of their church's history). Happily, we have moved on and received greater light and truth and improved on some things. I think we could say that about many denominations--after all, Catholics and Protestants used to torture and kill each other, believing that a proper salvation was worth some physical pain, but few people would try to say that that history dictates current beliefs.

 

 

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that! I was speaking from my own experience. I was completely ignorant of anything but a very rosy, Sunday School view and that seems to be the case for most (though certainly not all!) Mormons I know. :) I wanted to give an explanation here as to why some Mormons would look at the list and say "lies!" when Apologia cited references documenting the claims.

[Mergath]

Posts like this make me glad I'm a Pagan. No one has ever questioned whether or not I'm a true Pagan, or told me I'm not Pagan enough. :p And while we obviously wouldn't ever use Apologia, if we were so inclined, that blog post would have been enough for me to boycott them. With that much judgment and scorn, you know some if it is going to leak into their materials.

[Murphy101]

 

Lol. Oh I completely agree with you. I was just saying they stated why they were bringing it up publicly and that, thank to them not hiding their crazy, no one has to be unpleasantly surprised by it after buying the materials. :D

 

Let me rephrase. If *I* ran a curricula company and wanted to answer the question of worldview, then I would have said something a little more neutral. I would have said, "our worldview matches the denomination of X and is OEC" or "will fit with anyone who believes in the Nicene Creed and is OEC" or "probably only people who describe themselves as Christian fundamentalists will agree with our worldview." I don't think it was necessary or wise or encourages unity to say "oh, we don't believe that Mormons are Christians." It was not necessary to answer the question posed to them.

 

IMO, the next bit of their post is positively *laughable*, given their first paragraph. You are not Christians and are probably going to hell. Still, you should have zero problem purchasing and using our awesome textbooks that contain a worldview that is *definitely* in opposition to your own! :D That is how it comes across.

 

[VeritasMama]

I haven't read the whole thread, thought I'd wade into the argument.

 

The original Christians defined what one must believe in order to be a Christian. It is found in the creed.

 

Mormonism has theology and doctrines regarding the Trinity that differ from the traditional creed of Christianity. So do other groups of reformed Christians. Their doctrine regarding the Godhead and the relationship between the Father and the Son differs greatly from the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed. Christians are to believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons in One God. That is not quite what the Mormon church teachings, though it may be what some Mormons individually believe. Most Mormons I know do not truly understand either concept, they don't really know the Traditional doctrine of the Trinity, but they can't really explain the concept of godhead or the fact that the father and son are seperate entities entirely, like the Mormon prophets have taught and the Temple ceremonies still teach.

 

If you belong to a group that uses the Apostle's Creed and the clarified Nicene Creed as the definition of what you must believe in order to be a Christian, then you will apply those standards to the doctrine of other churches and make a judgement based on that. The Nicene creed was clarified to include the words that Jesus is "one in being" with the father in order to combat heresies that had arisen that denied Christ's divinity, or claimed that Christ was divine but less than God. Heresy has always been present in the church, and people have always spoken out against it.

 

This is history, it is not an insult. I'm not sure why Apologia felt the need to state this publically, as some do find it insulting, but it is not secret that the Church has always had standards when it comes to what is and what is not acceptable Christian doctrine. These standards existed long before the LDS church did.

 

You may disagree with the standards used, and have your own definition of what a Christian is. I'm not going to argue whether or not Mormons are Christians. I'm just trying to state some historical facts.

 

Mormons have a different standard for what they consider Christianity to be, so I'm not sure why they get so riled up when other Christian groups criticize their doctrine. After all, my beliefs are considered heretical by the Mormon church, and this doesn't offend me. When my Mormon friends have tried to point out the errors in my religion, even convert me, I have not been personally offended by it.

 

I'm not trying to offend anyone, I have LDS family and friends. Just trying to state some facts in a conversation that is all too often ruled by emotions.

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree, Martha. I said it early in the thread. I love it when companies weed themselves out of the competition for my curricula dollars (around $2k/year for me at this stage in the game). ;)

[albeto]

I'm not sure how any of this ties in to the topic at hand. Are you saying that members of the LDS church aren't Christians? Or that you're way more Christian than they are?

 

Or maybe that defining "Christian" as "believing the teachings of Jesus," is about easy as nailing jell-o to the wall.

[DianeW88]

I haven't read the whole thread, thought I'd wade into the argument.

 

The original Christians defined what one must believe in order to be a Christian. It is found in the creed.

 

Mormonism has theology and doctrines regarding the Trinity that differ from the traditional creed of Christianity. So do other groups of reformed Christians. Their doctrine regarding the Godhead and the relationship between the Father and the Son differs greatly from the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed. Christians are to believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons in One God. That is not quite what the Mormon church teachings, though it may be what some Mormons individually believe. Most Mormons I know do not truly understand either concept, they don't really know the Traditional doctrine of the Trinity, but they can't really explain the concept of godhead or the fact that the father and son are seperate entities entirely, like the Mormon prophets have taught and the Temple ceremonies still teach.

 

Uh....that's pretty presumptive of you. I can assure you that most LDS people do understand the concept of the Trinity. I converted to LDS church after growing up as a Roman Catholic and attending twelve years of Catholic school. I have a very firm grasp on the tradtional concept of a triune God.

 

This is an explanation of our view of the Godhead, in case anyone is interested. http://www.lds.org/g...h-sent?lang=eng

[albeto]

but they can't really explain the concept of godhead or the fact that the father and son are seperate entities entirely,

 

Just once I'd like to hear a Christian explain it without falling back on "it's a mystery," or "it's faith," or some other loophole.

[Xuzi]

I actually find the doctrine of the Godhead to be incredibly easy to explain: Three personages, two with physical bodies of flesh and bone (Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ), one a spirit (Holy Ghost), working in complete unity to carry out the Father's Will. Heavenly Father is the Father of us all. His Son came and died and rose on the third day that we might be cleansed of our sins and be resurrected after death. The Holy Ghost is a special witness of the two, bearing witness of the Truthfulness of the Gospel, and offering us comfort and guidance in times of trial.

 

No "mystery". ;) God wants us to know Him. :)

 

ETA: And I taught this to a bunch of 7 year olds yesterday, and they "got it" pretty quick.

[mommaduck]

 

 

I knew what you meant, it's just kinda funny if you're referring to modern protestant Christianity.

You're right...there is a bit of irony.

[Maus]

Mormon doctrine is difficult to pin down because there isn't much in the way of an organized creed. ~180 years of teachings from various leaders (some of which directly contradict each other) means you can find all kinds of crazy things that were said and even believed by the members of the church. Some of the points of "doctrine" cited by Apologia were indeed taught and even believed by Mormons in the past. However, most modern Mormons will have no knowledge of these previous teachings since they are definitely not taught currently. Mormonism is a living, changing religion. It's different today than it was 10, 20, 50, or 100+ years ago.

I want to point out the quotes around "doctrine" in the above. "Doctrines" (fundamental beliefs) are different from "teachings" (which allows for the interpretation of the teacher).

 

 

I mean that most Christians who aren't Mormons would not accept new doctrine all the time. Most churches use the Bible as it is (not new prophets) for doctrine of the faith.

The doctrines of the "Mormon" church haven't actually changed much at all. If you compare the fundamental beliefs from Joseph Smith's era to the fundamental beliefs today, you probably couldn't find any noticeable difference. The "teachings" have changed fairly dramatically, especially as the last few decades of prophets have really emphasized NOT teaching anything that isn't doctrine. Early Latter-day Saints seemed not to find that so important and careful study of early history and looking at the context some of the odder quotes come from make that quite clear.

 

I've never heard any "new" revelation that changed any doctrine; some have clarified our beliefs where we didn't have a clear position before. Others change procedure.

 

The LDS church uses the Bible as it is. We prefer the King James Bible for English speakers. We have not discarded any portion of it.

[Butter]

 

I am also familiar with the early history of the LDS Church and the things that they used to say (I hope you're not saying that the other LDS folks here are all ignorant of their church's history). Happily, we have moved on and received greater light and truth and improved on some things. I think we could say that about many denominations--after all, Catholics and Protestants used to torture and kill each other, believing that a proper salvation was worth some physical pain, but few people would try to say that that history dictates current beliefs.

 

Ditto.

 

And Apologia was saying that the Mormon Church *teaches* and Mormons *believe* x, y, and z. Present tense. As in right now today.

[Butter]

Every branch uses a different Bible, and no two ones are translated the same. In many cases when you look at a typical american bible today, it doesn't even resemble the original scriptures, which I might add were written AT LEAST 40 years AFTER Jesus. So how do we really know there isn't error in the Christian bible?

 

 

I just wanted to throw out that most Mormons (in the US and I would suppose other English speaking countries) use the King James Version (Saviour looks so pretty, don't you think lol). We are free to use whatever we wish, but the "official" one (i.e. printed by the Church in our quads) is the KJV.

[Mrs Mungo]

The LDS church uses the Bible as it is. We prefer the King James Bible for English speakers. We have not discarded any portion of it.

 

 

Which Bible? The Roman Catholic or Protestant version? Or something else? Roman Catholic Bibles typically have 46 books in the Old Testament while Protestant Bibles only have 39 books. I *think* Greek/Eastern Orthodox Bibles even have a few more?

[mommaduck]

I actually find the doctrine of the Godhead to be incredibly easy to explain: Three personages, two with physical bodies of flesh and bone (Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ), one a spirit (Holy Ghost), working in complete unity to carry out the Father's Will. Heavenly Father is the Father of us all. His Son came and died and rose on the third day that we might be cleansed of our sins and be resurrected after death. The Holy Ghost is a special witness of the two, bearing witness of the Truthfulness of the Gospel, and offering us comfort and guidance in times of trial.

 

No "mystery". ;) God wants us to know Him. :)

 

ETA: And I taught this to a bunch of 7 year olds yesterday, and they "got it" pretty quick.

 

 

Well explained, but very different from what Christians throughout history have believed and the Early Church Fathers wrote and believed.

 

Eh, but the fact is, we all have our differences and different standards by which we judge or determine things. :)

[mommaduck]

 

 

Which Bible? The Roman Catholic or Protestant version? Or something else? Roman Catholic Bibles typically have 46 books in the Old Testament while Protestant Bibles only have 39 books. I *think* Greek/Eastern Orthodox Bibles even have a few more?

 

Yes, we have more.

[Orthodox6]

I actually find the doctrine of the Godhead to be incredibly easy to explain: Three personages, two with physical bodies of flesh and bone (Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ), one a spirit (Holy Ghost), working in complete unity to carry out the Father's Will. Heavenly Father is the Father of us all. His Son came and died and rose on the third day that we might be cleansed of our sins and be resurrected after death. The Holy Ghost is a special witness of the two, bearing witness of the Truthfulness of the Gospel, and offering us comfort and guidance in times of trial.

 

No "mystery". ;) God wants us to know Him. :)

 

ETA: And I taught this to a bunch of 7 year olds yesterday, and they "got it" pretty quick.

 

 

 

Stopped by the last page and read this. Xuzi, are you LDS? If so, then I understand this better. As it is written, I all but fell off of the typewriter chair in extreme shock. However, if this is what your religion teaches, then I'll take it as face value for your religious group, and be glad that I learned something new. Thanks!

[Butter]

Which Bible? The Roman Catholic or Protestant version? Or something else? Roman Catholic Bibles typically have 46 books in the Old Testament while Protestant Bibles only have 39 books. I *think* Greek/Eastern Orthodox Bibles even have a few more?

 

 

As Maus stated in the quote where you quoted her... King James Version. That's the Bible most English speakers in the Mormon Church use.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

As Maus stated in the quote where you quoted her... King James Version. That's the Bible most English speakers in the Mormon Church use.

 

 

My point was that there is not agreement between various groups that Apologia would consider "Christian" or who would agree to the Nicene Creed upon what makes up "The Bible."