Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[ttribe]

I have no problem if you tell me that the infomation is from modern day revelation. I think that is a fair answer, the issue that I have is that people try to say that it is from the Bible, then can't give any support of that position.

There is "evidence", but you are restricting the identification of "acceptable evidence".

We know that the Levitical priesthood was a hereditary priesthood passed down the tribe of Levi. We also know that Christ came down the line of Judah which is the royal line. Christ did not have the Aaronic priesthood, but he did have the Melchezidek priesthood. You will likely tell me that Christ has the Aaronic because it is under the Melchezedek, but this is also from modern day revelation not from the Bible. John the Baptist is from the Levitical line on both his mother and his father's side, but he can't pass this priesthood on to non Levites. God could change this rule, but again there is no basis in the Bible that states that this is the case.

Heb 7:14 14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Back up a couple of verses - Heb. 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." What do you think changed?

[Flyonthewall]

I didn't say conversion happens with baptism, I said Christian initiation begins with baptism.

Perhaps I should ask for clarification on how you are using "initiation". Would some one be christian before baptism? Does someone become christian after baptism? Does someone become christian after their initiation, which starts at baptism? How long does "initiation" last? Is there a time after baptism but before the end of initiation where someone is still not christian? Does Christianity begin at baptism? or sometime before? or sometime after?

A very atheist pov, I have to say.

Hey, I used a smiley!

[Akboy]

I know their beliefs are wrong, and I know they aren't following Christ's teachings, they them selves don't call themselves Christians, they don't recognize Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior but they aren't also trying to call themselves Christian. Yes it is my job to tell people what GOD and Jesus Christ teaches, it is my job teach the restored Gospel and the real road to salvation, which you personally would actually learn if you'd take off the perverted blinders you're wearing. But if you or any other person says, sorry I don't believe than who am I to say, "oh well you're not Christian anyway".Ask Christ. No human gets to make that definition.

So you're fine teaching people those things in the bold. If you feel you need to teach those things, then you are implying they don't already know them, or at least don't follow them. So how is it any different when Evangelicals imply Mormons aren't following Christ's teachings, the Gospel or the road to salvation? That's what EVs mean. When they say Mormons aren't Christians, they are saying Mormons aren't doing those things. You may not say people aren't Christians, but you send the same message.

[Calm]

So you're fine teaching people those things in the bold. If you feel you need to teach those things, then you are implying they don't already know them, or at least don't follow them.

Or that they don't know all of them even if they know some of them and are trying to follow fully those they know...and they just might be seeking futher knowledge of God's Will.

[Billy]

There is "evidence", but you are restricting the identification of "acceptable evidence".

Back up a couple of verses - Heb. 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." What do you think changed?

Under the law the Aaronic priests did rites and rituals including animal sacrifices that covered the sins of themselves and others. These were done in the Temple. Once Christ died the rituals and animal sacrifices were no longer needed because of Christ's sacrifice.

[ttribe]

Under the law the Aaronic priests did rites and rituals including animal sacrifices that covered the sins of themselves and others. These were done in the Temple. Once Christ died the rituals and animal sacrifices were no longer needed because of Christ's sacrifice.

What you just described was a change in the performance of a rite or an ordinance by holders of said Priesthood(s) (the change in the law), not the Priesthood itself. How did the Priesthood change?

[Log]

There is "evidence", but you are restricting the identification of "acceptable evidence".

Back up a couple of verses - Heb. 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." What do you think changed?

Under the law the Aaronic priests did rites and rituals including animal sacrifices that covered the sins of themselves and others. These were done in the Temple. Once Christ died the rituals and animal sacrifices were no longer needed because of Christ's sacrifice.

That does not appear to be the subject of the verse. Maybe he should have asked "how was the priesthood changed?" For the change in the law is necessitated by the change in the priesthood.

[Billy]

What you just described was a change in the performance of a rite or an ordinance by holders of said Priesthood(s) (the change in the law), not the Priesthood itself. How did the Priesthood change?

The Aaronic priesthood was no longer needed after the death of Christ.

[ttribe]

The Aaronic priesthood was no longer needed after the death of Christ.

And where does the Bible say that?

And, does your statement imply that the Melchizedek Priesthood IS necessary?

[Billy]

And where does the Bible say that?

What was the purpose of the Aaronic priesthood acccording to the Bible?

Add on

The Aaronic Priest performed rites and rituals in and around the temple for forgiveness of sins. On the day of atonement the ONE High Priest who was an Aaronic priest, not a Melchezedek priest, went into the Holy of Holies to offer a sacrifice for forgiveness of sins for the whole nation. That single High Priest was the intermediary between God and Man. These rights and rituals point ultimately to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. After Christs' death on the cross he became our High Priest after the order of Melchezedek not like the previous living High Priests who were after the order of Aaron. He is our High Priest forever, in distinction to the previous High Priests who obviously died and were replaced. Once Christ died, the role of the Aaronic priests was no longer necessary.

[ttribe]

What was the purpose of the Aaronic priesthood acccording to the Bible?

Nope, no engaging in the build up of evidence by trying to link together a variety of verses to suit your argument (since you won't let us LDS do that). You want us to come up with a verse that says specifically that Peter and the Apostles SPECIFICALLY held the Priesthood; I'm continuing to hold you to that standard. Where does it say the Aaronic Priesthood was no longer necessary - specifically?

[ttribe]

Once Christ died, the role of the Aaronic priests was no longer necessary.

So because that ordinance was no longer necessary (a change in the law), you have concluded that the ENTIRE Aaronic Priesthood was no longer necessary as well? Please cite the verse in the NT which specifically says this...in keeping with the spirit of the requirements of evidence you have established.

Also, you have yet to answer - was the Melchizidek Priesthood still necessary?

[Billy]

So because that ordinance was no longer necessary (a change in the law), you have concluded that the ENTIRE Aaronic Priesthood was no longer necessary as well? Please cite the verse in the NT which specifically says this...in keeping with the spirit of the requirements of evidence you have established.

The best I can do is in Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Also, you have yet to answer - was the Melchizidek Priesthood still necessary?

Yes, because Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchezedek FOREVER. But you will not find another Melchezedek priest in the entire Bible, except of course Melchezedek.

[ttribe]

The best I can do is in Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

That's a covenant, not specifically the Priesthood.

Yes, because Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchezedek FOREVER. But you will not find another Melchezedek priest in the entire Bible, except of course Melchezedek.

Two things: 1) so the Melchizedek Priesthood is still necessary, but no one holds it (besides Christ, of course)? What if Christ said he was giving it to them? Can He? 2) Why was Melchizidek allowed to hold that authority and no one else was?

[saemo]

Perhaps I should ask for clarification on how you are using "initiation".

I think I see what you are getting at. So, let me say this and you can say whether or not this satisfies all of your questions.

Initiation = Baptism (of course, I mean a valid Christian baptism, not clarifying that to jab at anything or anyone, just saying)

Confirmation and First Communion are the Sacraments that complete a Christian Initiation.

For an adult convert, conversion to Christ, a belief in the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again, is required before baptism. As the Holy Spirit is a convert's Guide, the one doing the converting, God is with the convert and the convert is with God. The desire (for most, the hunger) for baptism is a sign of this.

For a newborn, the desire is that of the parents. A desire for the child to grow in Christian life, which begins with baptism. Before a grown child receives the Sacraments of confirmation and first communion, they are taught by parents and their Christian community, and so to are converted to Christ. The desire for confirmation and first communion is a sign of this.

This is the beginning of conversion. Conversion continues and is a life-long journey.

Where you use the word "becoming", I use the word "being". Being a disciple of Christ, following His Way...sometimes I like St Paul's words...a slave of Christ. Which, denotes a two-way relationship, that of Owner, and of one who is Owned. Our Master, who is kind and patient and waits for us to die to self, to belong wholly to Him. This does not occur over night.

[Billy]

That's a covenant, not specifically the Priesthood.

You are right, it does not say priesthood, but the priesthood was set up under this covenant, so if the covenant dies, so does those things under that covenant. Note that the covenant is still in effect during the life of Christ, so the rules and regulations like sacrifices and tithing were in full effect until after his death.

Two things: 1) so the Melchizedek Priesthood is still necessary, but no one holds it (besides Christ, of course)? What if Christ said he was giving it to them? Can He? 2) Why was Melchizidek allowed to hold that authority and no one else was?

Christ can do anything that he wants and could give that Melchezedek priesthood to anyone he wants. The "keys of the kingdom" quote is what I often hear when I talk about priesthood. And I can see the implication, but it does not specifically say priesthood, and the NT is silent on Melchezedek priesthood specifically for Christian believers. (priesthood for all believers 1 Peter 2:9)

Melchezedek is a mystery and there are many theories about him. Many feel his role in the OT was as a type of Christ because of the verse in Hebrews 7 below. There are other priests in the OT prior to the establishment of the Aaronic Priesthood. But they were never designated as Aaronic or Melchezedek priests.

Hebrews 7:3 "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (speaking of Melchezedek)

[Flyonthewall]

I think I see what you are getting at. So, let me say this and you can say whether or not this satisfies all of your questions.

Initiation = Baptism (of course, I mean a valid Christian baptism, not clarifying that to jab at anything or anyone, just saying)

Confirmation and First Communion are the Sacraments that complete a Christian Initiation.

Ok, I see what you mean.

Conversion to Christ, a belief in the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again, is required before baptism. As the Holy Spirit is a convert's Guide, the one doing the converting, God is with the convert and the convert is with God. The desire (for most, the hunger) for baptism is a sign of this.

This somewhat the same as LDS belief.

This is the beginning of conversion. Conversion continues and is a life-long journey.

I agree. I see a topical conversion, when someone changes direction of their belief, and there is a deeper conversion that is a process of obtaining deeper understanding of their faith.

Where you use the word "becoming", I use the word "being". Being a disciple of Christ, following His Way...sometimes I like St Paul's words...a slave of Christ. Which, denotes a two-way relationship, that of Owner, and of one who is Owned. Our Master, who is kind and patient and waits for us to die to self, to belong wholly to Him. This does not occur over night.

I see the two way relationship being entered into at baptism. At baptism, one is not an expert, but has the desire to learn more and live their life accordingly, so essentially the same thing you state.

[ttribe]

You are right, it does not say priesthood, but the priesthood was set up under this covenant, so if the covenant dies, so does those things under that covenant.

Please provide evidence that the Priesthood was set up under the covenant (I will give you that a particular office or set of responsibilities might have been set up under the covenant, but the Priesthood itself, that's a different story). Now, again, we are keeping with your rules - the verse has to specifically say it.

Note that the covenant is still in effect during the life of Christ, so the rules and regulations like sacrifices and tithing were in full effect until after his death.

Christ can do anything that he wants and could give that Melchezedek priesthood to anyone he wants. The "keys of the kingdom" quote is what I often hear when I talk about priesthood. And I can see the implication, but it does not specifically say priesthood, and the NT is silent on priesthood specifically for Christian believers.

See, you are applying your rules to us, but not yourself. Please make sure the playing field is even.

Melchezedek is a mystery and there are many theories about him. Many feel his role in the OT was as a type of Christ because of the verse in Hebrews 7 below. There are other priests in the OT prior to the establishment of the Aaronic Priesthood. But they were never designated as Aaronic or Melchezedek priests.

What were they "priests" of then if not the Priesthood?

Hebrews 7:3 "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

I submit that this - "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;" is referring to the Priesthood itself and that this - "but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." is referring to the man that was Melchizedek. However, if you want to know more about the "mystery" you'll have to turn to the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and the Doctrine & Covenants. But, since you reject all three of those, I guess he, and the Priesthood, will remain a mystery to you.

[saemo]

Ok, I see what you mean.

This somewhat the same as LDS belief.

I agree. I see a topical conversion, when someone changes direction of their belief, and there is a deeper conversion that is a process of obtaining deeper understanding of their faith.

I see the two way relationship being entered into at baptism. At baptism, one is not an expert, but has the desire to learn more and live their life accordingly, so essentially the same thing you state.

Agreed. Reading what I wrote, I kinda mixed two things in there. One is *being* Christian, which begins at baptism. The other, becoming holy, is our goal.

[moriancamur]

That's a covenant, not specifically the Priesthood.

Two things: 1) so the Melchizedek Priesthood is still necessary, but no one holds it (besides Christ, of course)? What if Christ said he was giving it to them? Can He? 2) Why was Melchizidek allowed to hold that authority and no one else was?

You are reading these verses through Mormon eyes with presumption that a priesthood authoerity was restored through Joseph Smith. Of course you are entitled to believe what you want, but in your argument at least try to demonstrate you comprehend the others point of view. So firstly this scripture was never intended to demonstrate the need for a Melchizedek priesthood. Paul is comparing the sacrifice performed by the high priest annually. which had no power in and of itself to save anyone and had to be repeated, with the power of Christs' sacrifice which was done once for everyone and has the power to save. By noting that father Abraham paid tithes to a priest called Melchizedek he shows how Abraham who is considered the start of the chosen race and therefore held in the highest esteem, was not as great as this man. Jews thought they were something special to be the children of Abraham. He is therefore suggesting Melchizedek was a great high priest even above Abraham and comparing this with the fact that Christ performed a sacrifice far greater than any high priest under the law of Moses. Christ is therefore the great High Priest with a power incomprehensibly greater than the law of Moses. In fact through Him the law was fulfilled. Paul notes how the annual sacrifice in the holy of holies was a type of the great sacrifice of Christ. We will agree here. The whole thing should be read as Paul showing the power of the atonement and the fulfillment of the law. The comparison with Melchizedek is purely to show his power was of a higher order than the earthly priests just as the ancient high priest was even greater than father Abraham. After all, to them, who was greater than Abraham. So whilst I understand your belief in modern revelation puts a new slant on this, the words in the bible in no way prove your belief. No one else without your modern revelation believes it says what you think it says because it doesn't say that there was a Melchizedek priesthood or that Melchizedek held a priesthood at all! Thats the mormon slant. A slant pivotal in your belief and claim to be the true church. You cannot come to this conclusion without the claim of new revelation and seeing this scripture through the eyes of one who believes in the Mormon perspective.

So the crucial question is "Does this make you Christian or non Christian"? I don't think its relevant to God in the least, but to evengelicals it puts your belief outside the teaching of the bible and therefore non christian. I don't think its relevant because I believe God chooses people because they give their hearts to God in faith not because they follow or understand His doctrines correctly in detail or because they believe in a priesthood that doesn't exist. Since there is very little difference between the fundamentals of giving ones heart to Christ and relying on Him in your life, then I am assured that neither being mormon or being evangelist will have any bearing on Gods choice whatsoever. Christians will live in both camps and some will merrily try to spiritually beat the living daylights out of each other, which is more importantly than being non christian, unchristian. Of course it is helpful once converted to believe the correct doctrines. Its far more helpful to live the gospel. Its living the gospel, not whether you believe there is a Melchizedek priesthood or not which will bring you closer to God. But just for the record, only Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek according to the bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You can have him.

Awsome. Hoops I love you.!!!

I dont want him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are right, it does not say priesthood, but the priesthood was set up under this covenant, so if the covenant dies, so does those things under that covenant. Note that the covenant is still in effect during the life of Christ, so the rules and regulations like sacrifices and tithing were in full effect until after his death.

Billy

I can certainly appreciate your thoughts. Sometiems I think I may be to hard on you.

[ttribe]

You are reading these verses through Mormon eyes with presumption that a priesthood authoerity was restored through Joseph Smith.

Go back and read the entire exchange. I am responding to Billy's reading of these verses and asking him to provide evidence that the Bible says that Peter and the Apostles specifically didn't have the Priesthood. I understand the context of the referenced scriptures just fine (without your help); it's Billy who took us there, I'm just responding. Your assertion that I cannot understand another perspective is unfounded and is not backed up by anything I've said.

[MatthewG]

Nice! That felt really positive, and stated what you believed. What do you mean by baptism is nessisary. I know i just go to a mainline protestant church and I think we teach that while baptism is good, it wont make or break salvation.

Um then there is no point to baptism, if it doesn't make a difference. See how Christ was baptized, as it is a requirement for entering the Kingdom of God, I think it's rather important that not only are we baptized, but baptized by someone who actually has authority from God, and not a book.

[consiglieri]

Awsome. Hoops I love you.!!!

Expressions of love and affection for non-Mormons are expressly prohibited on this thread.

I confess to being surprised upon coming back to this thread and seeing it having grown beyond all reasonable expectation.

Then upon reviewing the contents, I was surprised again by the numerous twists and turns the thread has taken since its inception. (But that, I suppose, is the nature of threads.)

Let me mention some things that I have learned as I have read through the posts:

1. It seems that many Christians think the word "Christian" is a name containing a value judgment; in other words, "Christians" are those who are saved; or in a right relationship with God. Hence, for them, the word "Christian" could not meaningfully be applied to those (such as Mormons) whom they see as not being saved or in a right relationship with God.

2. From my 30-years as a Mormon, it seems Mormons use the term "Christian" as value-neutral; in other words, a person is a "Christian" if they believe in Christ as Savior; regardless of any additional beliefs they may have; or whether they have accepted the "fullness of the restored gospel," or how, in large measure, they act in their daily life.

I think this difference in view between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians may stem from the fact that Mormons tend to see salvation as more of a continuum from hell to exaltation, with many a stage of gray in between.

For most non-LDS Christians, they see salvation as black and white; either one is in heaven or in hell ("that damned, elusive Pimpernel").

I see the LDS view of gradations of salvation as perhaps causing the LDS to view with greater liberality those who may be called Christian. In fact, LDS continue to show this liberality by believing that non-LDS Christians (such as Luther and Calvin) as well as completely non-Christians (such as the Buddha and Mohammed) were inspired by God.

In sum, then, it is easier for me to understand why some Christians cannot bring themselves to allow Mormons to be called "Christian," now that I understand that to call Mormons "Christian" is tantamount for them to saying that Mormons are "saved."

This, I think, is a valuable insight for me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri