Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

That's too bad it doesn't answer your questions, take it up with God. Sorry, you don't get to decide. God does. Just because they don't follow your definition of Christianity, doesn't mean they aren't followers of Christ. Get over it.

No, this isn't trying to call people non-Christian. I'm not trying to decide anything. Regardless of what I think or what the answer to the question is, God still decides. But that doesn't make the question any less important. If someone says they're a Christian but doesn't follow Christ's teachings, are they a Christian?

This isn't my definition. It's the definition found in most dictionaries, which is 'someone who follows the teachings and example of Christ.' If that's not the definition, than what is?

Link to comment
I think your problem, and most of evangelicals, protestants etc, don't realize, is YOU DON'T MAKE THE RULES. You don't get to decide who is Christian and who isn't. GOD does. You don't get to say what qualifies as a Christian, it isn't ANY of your business. If the person in their heart is following Christ, the best way they know how, THEY ARE CHRISTIAN, THEY ARE A FOLLOWER.

You guys don't get to give out the membership cards, you don't decide the rules. GOD DOES, I could careless what you think the definition is, because you don't define it.

My edit of MatthewG's post above

I think your problem, and most of evangelicals, protestants etc, don't realize, is YOU DON'T MAKE THE RULES. You don't get to decide who is Christian Mormon and who isn't. GOD does. You don't get to say what qualifies as a Christian Mormon, it isn't ANY of your business. If the person in their heart is following Christ, the best way they know how, THEY ARE CHRISTIAN Mormon, THEY ARE A FOLLOWER.

You guys don't get to give out the membership cards, you don't decide the rules. GOD DOES, I could careless what you think the definition is, because you don't define it. END OF EDIT OF MATTHEWG'S POST

Do you agree with this post?

I am a Mormon, but I don't believe that Joseph was a prophet, who are you guys to say that I am not a Mormon? That is up to God to decide that, not you, right?

Link to comment
God calls everyone to Him, that is the basis of all belief, in every religion.

We are Christians because of a Person. There is no other reason to be a Christian.

We are Catholic because Christ's Church is where we belong.

The three are connected, supernaturally and physically. What Mormonism, Protestantism, and all other Christian sects and cults who are not in communion with Christ's Church have done, is separate themselves. Mormonism, by a larger degree than most.

It is good, to follow Christ, believe the Word of God. In this sense, yes, all of us are Christian.

Yet, "right belief", the careful preservation of Truth, requires that what is false or error not replace Truth. This is the issue with Mormonism, the majority of the Christian world perceives error, and a very large effort to replace Truth with error.

Can you blame us for drawing a line and saying, no, you will not cross it?

Then let the line that Catholics draw be "you are not Catholic". Let the line that Baptists draw be "you are not Baptists", and so forth.

Mormons do not deny anyone their faith in Christ, whether we agree with them or not. To state that we are not Christians is to state we do not believe in Christ, which is to deny our faith in Christ.

This whole issue smacks of the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant, where one thinks an elephant is like wall, another, a snake, another a rope, another a spear, and another a tree.

Each of the blind men argue with one another because in their view they are right and others are wrong. LDS would be like a man telling each of the blind men that there is some truth to what they say, but is not totally true. The Blind men then band together and tell the LDS that they are not looking at an elephant because what the LDS describe does not fit the views each of the blind men have.

What they need is a sighted man that can see the elephant and can teach the others the true nature of it.

Link to comment
Remember in theological terminology "Being" means nature. Person in latin persona means mask.

Tanyan, I would add to what you have said regarding the theological definition of "person". Even the developed definition of Boethius is considered inadequate. Certainly, person means more than "mask", "in theological terminology". But you are correct as to its original meaning in classical Latin.

The Latin word persona was originally used to denote the mask worn by an actor. From this it was applied to the role he assumed, and, finally, to any character on the stage of life, to any individual. This article discusses (1) the definition of "person", especially with reference to the doctrine of the Incarnation; and (2) the use of the word persona and its Greek equivalents in connection with the Trinitarian disputes. For the psychological treatment see PERSONALITY.

Definition

The classic definition is that given by Boethius in "De persona et duabus naturis", c. ii: Natur

Link to comment
Tanyan, I would add to what you have said regarding the theological definition of "person". Even the developed definition of Boethius is considered inadequate. Certainly, person means more than "mask", "in theological terminology". But you are correct as to its original meaning in classical Latin.

It is short article, but a little too long to post I think. For more, the article is found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

The definition of "person" as an individual substance of a rational nature" has always amazed me both becasue of its lucidity and obscurity. It seems at first ti cement the case against the Trinity, becasue the central concept expressed in person is "substance." It looks far more contradictory at frist to say "One substance possessed by three individual substances of a rational nature." The key to the whole thing is lies in the meaning of "individual." In finite matierial objects, things possessing the same nature are idividuated because the y each possess different instances of that nature present in separate pieces of matter. If, however, a being is infinite and therefore not material, matter cannot be claimed as the principle of its individuation, and so it must be indivudated according to a different rationale. That rationale in Trinitarianism are the processions of the Word and Spirit.

I generally think that every Mormon arguement against the Tirnity I have ever heard, ultimately reduces to some failed attempt to interpret the Trinity as a material being, since that is the only mode of reality Mormonism admits as conceivable. Any attempt to understand the Trinity through materialist consideration does yield contradiction. But since materialism is precisely denied in Trinitarian theology, arguments against it invariably reduce to nothing more than bare assertion of materialist dogmatism.

Link to comment

Flyonthewall

To state that we are not Christians is to state we do not believe in Christ, which is to deny our faith in Christ.

The issue is that Mormons believe in a different Christ than what the inspired word of God reveals. Mormons believe in a Christ that was born of heavenly parents, who has a Father that has a body of flesh, and who has a brother name Satan who was born of the same heavenly mother.

The Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith said it this way,

  • The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. ... ... God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. ... The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning."

Link to comment
Flyonthewall

The issue is that Mormons believe in a different Christ than what the inspired word of God reveals. Mormons believe in a Christ that was born of heavenly parents, who has a Father that has a body of flesh, and who has a brother name Satan who was born of the same heavenly mother.

The Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith said it this way,

  • The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. ... ... God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. ... The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning."

*Yawn*

Johnny your retohric is get old.

Link to comment
The definition of "person" as an individual substance of a rational nature" has always amazed me both becasue of its lucidity and obscurity. It seems at first ti cement the case against the Trinity, becasue the central concept expressed in person is "substance." It looks far more contradictory at frist to say "One substance possessed by three individual substances of a rational nature." The key to the whole thing is lies in the meaning of "individual." In finite matierial objects, things possessing the same nature are idividuated because the y each possess different instances of that nature present in separate pieces of matter. If, however, a being is infinite and therefore not material, matter cannot be claimed as the principle of its individuation, and so it must be indivudated according to a different rationale. That rationale in Trinitarianism are the processions of the Word and Spirit.

I generally think that every Mormon arguement against the Tirnity I have ever heard, ultimately reduces to some failed attempt to interpret the Trinity as a material being, since that is the only mode of reality Mormonism admits as conceivable. Any attempt to understand the Trinity through materialist consideration does yield contradiction. But since materialism is precisely denied in Trinitarian theology, arguments against it invariably reduce to nothing more than bare assertion of materialist dogmatism.

As always, good thoughts soren.

I noticed a probable difference of opinion between us. I think two schools of thought may be permissible, although I think I am probably in the minority. Elsewhere in the thread you attribute the subordination of the Son to His sacred humanity. Not here, but elsewhere, I have attributed His subordination to that, but also and primarily to His relationship to the Father as Second Person. I haven't been able to find it, but I thought I remembered St. Hilary of Poitiers taking this position to explain "the Father is greater than I". I have suggested in times past that the Son became incarnate, because He was subordinate already, before the Incarnation. Do you see any definite problem with this position? In either event, we are agreed as to the fact of the Son's subordination to the will of the Father, that it cannot possibly be a reflection on any supposed diminishing of divine nature to the Son.

3DOP

PS: Vince is at a place called Twenty-Nine Palms (not Psalms). This week he should receive orders that will send him wherever he is going to be stationed for the next three plus years. Of course, he will likely be deployed from one of several of these permanent duty stations. He is hoping to stay in So. Cal. for that. He already visited TAC one weekend on leave. I know his class is gone, but he has contacts of some kind. Anyway, keep him in your intentions if you would.

Link to comment
Flyonthewall

The issue is that Mormons believe in a different Christ than what the inspired word of God reveals. Mormons believe in a Christ that was born of heavenly parents, who has a Father that has a body of flesh, and who has a brother name Satan who was born of the same heavenly mother.

The Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith said it this way,

  • The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. ... ... God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. ... The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning."

Saying this over and over does not make it so. We see things in a different light. That is all. I will be the first one to agree with you that we are not Catholic. There are differences in our understandings, but we look towards the SAME God.

I know you will not change you outlook by anything I say, so I will just take comfort in the fact that I know in whom I believe.

Link to comment

Flyonthewall

Saying this over and over does not make it so. We see things in a different light. That is all. I will be the first one to agree with you that we are not Catholic. There are differences in our understandings, but we look towards the SAME God.

What makes it so is the inspired word of God. By comparing our understanding to the light of the inspired word of God we can see whose doctrine agrees with the word of God.

Link to comment
As always, good thoughts soren.

I noticed a probable difference of opinion between us. I think two schools of thought may be permissible, although I think I am probably in the minority. Elsewhere in the thread you attribute the subordination of the Son to His sacred humanity. Not here, but elsewhere, I have attributed His subordination to that, but also and primarily to His relationship to the Father as Second Person. I haven't been able to find it, but I thought I remembered St. Hilary of Poitiers taking this position to explain "the Father is greater than I". I have suggested in times past that the Son became incarnate, because He was subordinate already, before the Incarnation. Do you see any definite problem with this position? In either event, we are agreed as to the fact of the Son's subordination to the will of the Father, that it cannot possibly be a reflection on any supposed diminishing of divine nature to the Son.

I would need a reference to where Hilary says this before I could say if I agree. My thought is that the Son could be called subrdinate prior to the Incarnation only if what is meant by subordination is that he is second in numerical order among the persons. It could not be said that he was subordinate in degree or that the Father possessed anything the Son lacked.

PS: Vince is at a place called Twenty-Nine Palms (not Psalms). This week he should receive orders that will send him wherever he is going to be stationed for the next three plus years. Of course, he will likely be deployed from one of several of these permanent duty stations. He is hoping to stay in So. Cal. for that. He already visited TAC one weekend on leave. I know his class is gone, but he has contacts of some kind. Anyway, keep him in your intentions if you would.

I will pray for him. Have you ever noticed that Vince looks like Michael Phelps?

Link to comment
There are differences in our understandings, but we look towards the SAME God.

Maybe we can clear this up a little bit. Can you list some of the similarities between the LDS God and the traditional Christian God?

Link to comment
Then why does the church excommunicate followers who have different beliefs that are not in line with traditional LDS teachings, it is obviously somebody's business.

The Church does not excommunicate people who have different views, unless they began to teach and preach those views as doctrine OF THE CHURCH.

Link to comment
I guess being made perfect already means one doesn't have to obey all of Christ's instructions, top of this list of ones you can now safely ignore being this one: Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye not be judged. :P

I am not judging him, to the contrary, I am telling him he can't judge me whether I am a Christian or not. Only God decides.

Link to comment
I would need a reference to where Hilary says this before I could say if I agree. My thought is that the Son could be called subrdinate prior to the Incarnation only if what is meant by subordination is that he is second in numerical order among the persons. It could not be said that he was subordinate in degree or that the Father possessed anything the Son lacked.

I will pray for him. Have you ever noticed that Vince looks like Michael Phelps?

Found my source. An English translation of a portion of his commentary on Ps. 138 in Vol. 1 of the Jurgens compilation called, The Faith of the Early Fathers:

The Father is greater than the Son: but this is said in respect to generation--as a father is to a son--and not of classification. The Son is, and He comes forth from Him. The possession of a paternal designation is permissive of a distinction; but there is no distinction as to nature. The God born of God is not dissimilar in substance to the one who bore Him. He is not able, therefore, to be made equal to Him from whom He is. For although the One remains in the Other through the uniform and similar glory of the same nature, nevertheless, because the Father begot, it is clear that it is not possible for the Son to be made equal to Him from whom He was begotten.

It seems to me that if this is a good translation, St. Hilary meets the criteria you laid down above for a way in which the Son could be called subordinate prior to the Incarnation.

As for Vince and Monsieur Phelps, I am sure Vince will be amused at the comparison. As for me, I haven't paid much attention to Phelps, only seeing about fifteen minutes of the Olympics. But I will...Hehehe. I just went to Michael Phelps. com and assuredly, my boy bares a resemblance! Must be his mother's side, heh.

Link to comment
Maybe we can clear this up a little bit. Can you list some of the similarities between the LDS God and the traditional Christian God?

I'll take a shot at one of the most important similarities. They both have the same words said about them in the Old and New Testaments.

Link to comment
My edit of MatthewG's post above

I think your problem, and most of evangelicals, protestants etc, don't realize, is YOU DON'T MAKE THE RULES. You don't get to decide who is Christian Mormon and who isn't. GOD does. You don't get to say what qualifies as a Christian Mormon, it isn't ANY of your business. If the person in their heart is following Christ, the best way they know how, THEY ARE CHRISTIAN Mormon, THEY ARE A FOLLOWER.

You guys don't get to give out the membership cards, you don't decide the rules. GOD DOES, I could careless what you think the definition is, because you don't define it. END OF EDIT OF MATTHEWG'S POST

Do you agree with this post?

I am a Mormon, but I don't believe that Joseph was a prophet, who are you guys to say that I am not a Mormon? That is up to God to decide that, not you, right?

How can you accept anything about the LDS Church, call yourself a Mormon and not accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet. They are inseparable. And personally, I could careless if sicko Warren Jebbs, want's to call himself. He can call himself a Christian, or Mormon or whatever he wants. He's not LDS.

Link to comment
*Yawn*Johnny your retohric is get old.
Johnny's "rhetoric" is a coherent interpretation of Catholic. It belongs in the very nature of the Catholic worldview to affirm and deny certain facts about God that are respecitvely denied and affirmed by the Mormon worldview. Johnny is not a bigot, but the kind of responses his claims are generating among the Mormons are as prejudicial and disrespectful as anything I have read on this board.

What do I find disrespectful here? The fact that you are not willing to allow a distinct faith tradition to define itself and distinguish itself. Mormonism is not the only religion in the world that has first principles and acknowledges a teaching authority that defines what those principles are. Johnny does not own a trademark on the word 'Christian,' but neither do you. You have a right to use the world inclusively, and for the same reasons he has the right to use it exclusively.While I don't personally claim that Mormons are not Christian, I don't consider it a baseless allegation. I am convinced that the reason Mormons take such particular offense to the "non-Christian" label is that 99% have no meaningful understanding of the theological principles that underly it. It is once in a blue moon that I encounter a Mormon (like TOmNossor) who has any coherent understanding of Catholicism at all, let alone one who allows that understadning to inform the way he interacts with Catholics. The principle reason for this is, I think, that they just don't want to know. The situation this creates is that Mormon do not know how to respect the contents of Catholic teaching because since they don't know what tis contents are and therefore ascribe no meaning to them.

There are also people in the world who deny that Catholics are Christians, and I do not assume when I meet them that they are bullheaded, foolish, and ignorant or that they use "non-Christian" is a merely rhetoric label designed to create fear. Rather, I assume that they have specific theological principles that Catholic teaching offends and which hold a pride of place in their understanding of the gospel's first principles. Indeed, I typically find that this assumption holds good, and I have rarely met such a person who could not in fact be reasoned with. Of course, reasoing with them meant taking their theolgoy seriously and not substituting my own emotional prejudices about what their motives were as a substitute for listening and evangelizing.

I'll take a shot at one of the most important similarities. They both have the same words said about them in the Old and New Testaments.
That's it in a nutshell!
Link to comment
No, this isn't trying to call people non-Christian. I'm not trying to decide anything. Regardless of what I think or what the answer to the question is, God still decides. But that doesn't make the question any less important. If someone says they're a Christian but doesn't follow Christ's teachings, are they a Christian?

This isn't my definition. It's the definition found in most dictionaries, which is 'someone who follows the teachings and example of Christ.' If that's not the definition, than what is?

If they believe they are Christian and are following their interpretation of the bible how they see fit, who are you or I to say anything? Only God really knows. And since when are dictionaries God? Just because they have man made definitions doesn't mean they're the authority on earth.

The problem with evangelicals, protestants and whatever else they call themselves, think is that just because they believe they are Christians, they get to decide who else is as well, and it doesn't work that way. No One but God decides. No man made organization has the right to tell some other organization they aren't Christian.

Now, if Baptists want to tell another group they aren't baptists, that is different, because to be a BAPTIST, a sub-sect of Christianity, you must follow the definitions of what that MAN MADE organization has defined as to what is a BAPTIST.

Link to comment
How can you accept anything about the LDS Church, call yourself a Mormon and not accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet. They are inseparable. And personally, I could careless if sicko Warren Jebbs, want's to call himself. He can call himself a Christian, or Mormon or whatever he wants. He's not LDS.

I am trying to point out the double standard that you have. On the one hand, you as an LDS member can say who is and who is not another LDS member as you note above. But when a traditional Christian tries to do the same thing that you are doing, then you cry foul and say that they can't do that. That is why I took your post and lined out the Christian and put in Mormon as I will repost below.

My edit of MatthewG's post above

I think your problem, and most of evangelicals, protestants etc, don't realize, is YOU DON'T MAKE THE RULES. You don't get to decide who is Christian Mormon and who isn't. GOD does. You don't get to say what qualifies as a Christian Mormon, it isn't ANY of your business. If the person in their heart is following Christ, the best way they know how, THEY ARE CHRISTIAN Mormon, THEY ARE A FOLLOWER.

Link to comment
I am trying to point out the double standard that you have. On the one hand, you as an LDS member can say who is and who is not another LDS member as you note above. But when a traditional Christian tries to do the same thing that you are doing, then you cry foul and say that they can't do that. That is why I took your post and lined out the Christian and put in Mormon as I will repost below.

My edit of MatthewG's post above

I think your problem, and most of evangelicals, protestants etc, don't realize, is YOU DON'T MAKE THE RULES. You don't get to decide who is Christian Mormon and who isn't. GOD does. You don't get to say what qualifies as a Christian Mormon, it isn't ANY of your business. If the person in their heart is following Christ, the best way they know how, THEY ARE CHRISTIAN Mormon, THEY ARE A FOLLOWER.

You fail to see the difference between MAN MADE and GOD. Baptists decide who are baptists, Cathlics decide who is Catholic, and LDS decide who is LDS. These are man made organizations on this earth. ONLY Christ gets to decide who is truly His.

Link to comment
Johnny's "rhetoric" is a coherent interpretation of Catholic. It belongs in the very nature of the Catholic worldview to affirm and deny certain facts about God that are respecitvely denied and affirmed by the Mormon worldview. Johnny is not a bigot, but the kind of responses his claims are generating among the Mormons are as prejudicial and disrespectful as anything I have read on this board.

WHoa!!

I know that you do not think that mormons are not Christians. So that is the probelem Ihave. Johnny can spout it all he wants, but after a while it gets old. I could in turn do that same to him but that isnt what Christ taught, and both you and him know it.

Link to comment
You fail to see the difference between MAN MADE and GOD. Baptists decide who are baptists, Cathlics decide who is Catholic, and LDS decide who is LDS. These are man made organizations on this earth. ONLY Christ gets to decide who is truly His.

So would you agree the LDS religion is man made?

Link to comment
So would you agree the LDS religion is man made?

That's not what MatthewG said; quit trying to twist people's words for sport. Your use of the word "religion" completely changes the meaning of the statement...and I suspect you know it. Very Decker of you.

Link to comment
Maybe we can clear this up a little bit. Can you list some of the similarities between the LDS God and the traditional Christian God?

If a list has to be made, then you really have no idea about mormonism.

I guess we can start with the basics:

Creator of the world

Born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem

Is the only Begotten Son of God the Father

Was baptized in the river Jordan by John the Baptist

Called 12 Apostles

Preached to the house of Israel in the area of Jerusalem

Was betrayed and crucified

Was resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day

Fulfilled the Law of Moses.

Is the author of our salvation through the atonement.

Appeared to many after His resurrection

Promised to return

His story is written in the book called "The Holy Bible" in the New Testament, in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...