Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[ckonrad]

Now, obviously, this does not apply to all Christians; but we have to go no further than the postings on this board to know that a sizeable number of Christians refuse to allow the Mormons to use that sobriquet.

This is specifically NOT a thread about WHETHER Mormons are Christian. (We really have had enough of that, I think.)

This IS a thread about WHY some Christians refuse to allow that Mormonism is Christian.

Any takers?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well Catholicism and all denominations of protestantism have the Nicene creed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed in common, so anyone who doesn't believe in that is branded a non-Christian cult by them. If you look very closely though we Mormons agree with the Nicene creed for the most part, we run into some issue with the nature of God the Father and Christ the Son though. One issue is the nature of the oneness of Christ and God, we, like them, believe Christ is one with God in substance in the sense that Christ has a body like the Fathers. Christs body is probably made of the same "stuff" the fathers is, just like we all have physical bodies made of the same "stuff" here in this world, in this world our bodies are made of atoms. In heaven our bodies might be made of something physically different that we can't understand but we probably will all be made of the same substance as the Father. They just think we believe in three different Gods since we believe in three distinct persons, but they believe that as well. The other issue has to do with eternity, we believe God the Father is an exalted person. So other Christians say that there must have been a time when "our God" didn't exist, and also they believe that Christ has always existed and is "eternally begotten" of the Father. There is also this very common idea amongst Christians that the Father and the Son are the exact same person, that Jesus was like an incarnation of the Father. So those are really the main foundational issues..the nature of God and Jesus.

-corey

[jwhitlock]

Interesting that you see the obligation to compromise about this all on the LDS side and none of the EVs side. Do you demand the same response from all the rest of the Christians and all those nonChristians who use the more expansive definition as well, including all those editors of those ubiquitous dictionaries? Doesn't that seem a little unrealistic to you? Why not just add on an modifier/qualifier to avoid the confusion in the first place?

I've also often noticed this implicit demand for compromise from our side, without anything in return.

It seems to be rooted in the viewpoint that many EVs have interpreted the Bible entirely objectively, and that the doctrines they unitedly (snicker!) profess are not subject to being questioned - since they really are the "clear" reading.

Of course, all this varies depending on which individual EV one is talking to.

[jwhitlock]

I really don't care what the traditional christians (TC) say about what the definition of a Christian is or who can use the title...they are not in charge. I am the one who gets to decide what my beliefs are and how I define who I am, like it or lump it.

My solution and the perfect remedy for everyone, and sorry...I know it may still really irk the TC's is to use the title of....ta-duh:

"LDS Christian"

It certainly kills two birds with one stone; LDS still use the title and it distinguishes us from the traditional Christians so there's no confusion as to who is being talked about. Perfect solution....I've been using this solution on other forums and also here as part of my signature. Hope it catches on with more LDS.

Sorry, but your idea just won't work.

If accepted, it allows that we Mormons might just be saved, might not being going to hell, might have personal relationships with God, and just might be right in some of our doctrines.

That cannot be permitted. The whole house of cards that has been set up to justify "witnessing" to Mormons, along with the lucrative anti-Mormon industry would fall.

[captain-jack]

Most definitions basically say a Christian is someone who follows Christ's teachings and example. Mormons have taken this to mean a Christian is someone who sincerely believes they are following Christ's teachings and example. EVs have taken this to mean a Christian is someone who follows Christ's teachings and example accurately, as He taught them (because if they are following teachings Christ didn't teach, they aren't following Christ).

Well if 'Most definitions basically say a Christian is someone who follows Christ's teachings and example', why can't we accept that as the standard?

Besides, from my boat, I AM following Christ accurately as He taught, so the second part of your argument is rather moot seeing as most anyone could claim that. That's the problem with faith, it can't be verified anyone else other than God. So we all get to claim we're doing it right.

[Akboy]

So, what are we suppose to say?

It has to be a case-by-case thing. There isn't one response that will work in every situation. But I think it's pretty clear the many of the responses that have been used don't help the situation.

In some cases, you should just walk away. Some people just want to call the church a satanic cult. They don't want to talk or have any kind of meaningful conversation, so I doubt you could say anything that would help.

If the person seems like they are willing to actually talk, tell them what you mean by Christian. Explain why you think Christian isn't a narrow, exclusive term.

Try to give them the benefit of the doubt. Some people are doing this out of bitterness and some just want to attack the church, but that's not all of them. If they say something that's questionable, ask them about it. If they say something that sounds offensive, give them time to explain themselves, ask them about it. Don't judge them or assume you know what they're talking about based on one or two statements.

[Akboy]

Well if 'Most definitions basically say a Christian is someone who follows Christ's teachings and example', why can't we accept that as the standard?

I'm not rejecting that definition, I'm saying it's too vague. What does it mean to follow Christ's teachings? Mormons say it means "sincerely believing you are following." EVs say it means "following Christ's teaching accurately." So which one is it? Both groups imply their own meaning on the definition. The question is which implication is right?

Besides, from my boat, I AM following Christ accurately as He taught, so the second part of your argument is rather moot seeing as most anyone could claim that. That's the problem with faith, it can't be verified anyone else other than God. So we all get to claim we're doing it right.

If Mormons are doing it right, if they are following Christ accurately as He taught, then that would mean EVs are doing it wrong. EVs would be following a man-made version of Christ's teachings, not Christ's teachings themselves. EVs wouldn't be a Christian.

Yes, both groups can claim they are Christian, but that doesn't mean both are. Let's say two people approach a math problem and disagree about what the answer is. They can both claim their answer is right, but they can't both be right.

[MatthewG]

If Mormons are doing it right, if they are following Christ accurately as He taught, then that would mean EVs are doing it wrong. EVs would be following a man-made version of Christ's teachings, not Christ's teachings themselves.

That's the $64k question.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That's the $64k question.

I view it as even more individual than that.

[captain-jack]

I'm not rejecting that definition, I'm saying it's too vague. What does it mean to follow Christ's teachings? Mormons say it means "sincerely believing you are following." EVs say it means "following Christ's teaching accurately." So which one is it? Both groups imply their own meaning on the definition. The question is which implication is right?

If Mormons are doing it right, if they are following Christ accurately as He taught, then that would mean EVs are doing it wrong. EVs would be following a man-made version of Christ's teachings, not Christ's teachings themselves. EVs wouldn't be a Christian.

Yes, both groups can claim they are Christian, but that doesn't mean both are. Let's say two people approach a math problem and disagree about what the answer is. They can both claim their answer is right, but they can't both be right.

Interesting....

I never posited that both parties are right, I simply asserted that any religion, correct or not, could in fact claim the same claim you have made and you have absolutely no authority to say that with undeniable authority who is correct. Which you seem to be saying, however, 3 days on an island by myself may have made my interpretation skills a little off. That and drinking rum the whole time.

While LDS make claims to authority, I do not expect everyone in the world to bow to those claims. But I get the impression that I am being expected to bend to another religion's idea of authority.

[Akboy]

Interesting....

I never posited that both parties are right, I simply asserted that any religion, correct or not, could in fact claim the same claim you have made and you have absolutely no authority to say that with undeniable authority who is correct. Which you seem to be saying, however, 3 days on an island by myself may have made my interpretation skills a little off. That and drinking rum the whole time.

While LDS make claims to authority, I do not expect everyone in the world to bow to those claims. But I get the impression that I am being expected to bend to another religion's idea of authority.

That's what faith is. Even without tangible or undeniable proof, we believe God exists and we belief our view of Him is accurate. I don't see how you could have strong faith if you couldn't say you were certain your view is right.

So if only one party can be right, and if we have absolute faith our own side is right, then we also believe groups that contradict us have it wrong.

That's the $64k question.

So if Mormons are right and EVs are following a man-made version of Christ's teachings, then they aren't following Christ's teachings and thus aren't Christian.

[urroner]

So if Mormons are right and EVs are following a man-made version of Christ's teachings, then they aren't following Christ's teachings and thus aren't Christian.

This is according to your narrow, self-defined definition of "Christian." Even the early Christian called others Christians even if some of the things they believed was very different, but then again, what did this early Christians know? They weren't as sophisticated and wise or even as close to God as some of today's mainstreamer Christians are.

[johnny]

urroner,

This is according to your narrow, self-defined definition of "Christian." Even the early Christian called others Christians even if some of the things they believed was very different, but then again, what did this early Christians know? They weren't as sophisticated and wise or even as close to God as some of today's mainstreamer Christians are.

A Christian is a disciple (Acts 11:26), a disciple continues in the word of Jesus (John 8:31). Disciples of Jesus believed in â??one Godâ? (Mark 12:32), disciples of Jesus did not believe in â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith taught because â??one Godâ? is contrary to â??three Godsâ?. The apostles, who were disciples of Jesus, taught â??one Godâ? (1Cor 8:4-6), they didnâ??t teach â??three Godsâ? like todayâ??s Mormon Church.

Disciples were first called â??Christianâ? at Antioch, we know from the writings of the early church that they must have believed in â??one Godâ? because this is what the Bishop of Antioch taught, he did not believe in the â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith. The bishop Ignatius of Anitioch was closer to the true teachings of Jesus than todayâ??s Mormons because he was ordained by the apostle Peter himself.

The ordained bishop Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. Ignatius learned from the apostles. His writings date from the time of Johnâ??s Revelation and a little beyond. Ignatius wrote that "there is one God" and that "God existing in flesh".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

urroner,A Christian is a disciple (Acts 11:26), a disciple continues in the word of Jesus (John 8:31). Disciples of Jesus believed in â??one Godâ? (Mark 12:32), disciples of Jesus did not believe in â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith taught because â??one Godâ? is contrary to â??three Godsâ?. The apostles, who were disciples of Jesus, taught â??one Godâ? (1Cor 8:4-6), they didnâ??t teach â??three Godsâ? like todayâ??s Mormon Church.Disciples were first called â??Christianâ? at Antioch, we know from the writings of the early church that they must have believed in â??one Godâ? because this is what the Bishop of Antioch taught, he did not believe in the â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith. The bishop Ignatius of Anitioch was closer to the true teachings of Jesus than todayâ??s Mormons because he was ordained by the apostle Peter himself. The ordained bishop Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. Ignatius learned from the apostles. His writings date from the time of Johnâ??s Revelation and a little beyond. Ignatius wrote that "there is one God" and that "God existing in flesh".

You mean as in on god as outlined in John, were Jesus tells is apostles that they can become one like God and Jesus are one. So are they all suposed to be some big globulating mass Johnny? Sorry but the nicean heresy is not supported by scripture and you are preaching another gospel. Try again.

If Mormons are doing it right, if they are following Christ accurately as He taught, then that would mean EVs are doing it wrong. EVs would be following a man-made version of Christ's teachings, not Christ's teachings themselves. EVs wouldn't be a Christian.

Which wh are, then by your own definition you are not Christian.

[johnny]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

You mean as in on god as outlined in John, were Jesus tells is apostles that they can become one like God and Jesus are one. So are they all suposed to be some big globulating mass Johnny? Sorry but the nicean heresy is not supported by scripture and you are preaching another gospel. Try again.

I mean as one God as outlined by apostle John. Jesus and his apostles will NOT be â??be some big globulating massâ?, how silly to think that.

Sorry but the nicean heresy is not supported by scripture and you are preaching another gospel. Try again.

The Nicean is consistent with what scripture reveals.

The Mormon teaching of â??three Godsâ? is not supported by scripture.

[soren]

You mean as in on god as outlined in John, were Jesus tells is apostles that they can become one like God and Jesus are one. So are they all suposed to be some big globulating mass Johnny? Sorry but the nicean heresy is not supported by scripture and you are preaching another gospel. Try again.Which wh are, then by your own definition you are not Christian.

This is what I meant when I said that Mormon repsonses on this thread have often been prejudical against Johnny. Some big globulating mass? Neither I nor Johnny have ever worshipped such a being, which is offensive even in the context of a rhetorical question. Do you honestly not see that this is an insult not an argument and that it is based on a pure charicature of Catholic theology. In fact, it is not even a charicature, since charicatures exagerate truth rather than fabricate pure fantasies. Mola Ram Suda Ram, if you do not apologize explicitly to johnny and retract these words, I will bring it to the attention of the moderators.

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

I mean as one God as outlined by apostle John. Jesus and his apostles will NOT be “be some big globulating mass”, how silly to think that.

Johnny, have you ever read Scott Hahn's "First Come Love: Finding Your Family in hte church and in the Trinity"? Without ealing with Mormonism at all, the theological contents of that book overall constitute a very clear answer to the "One as we are" argument, by showing how deeply this idea is in fact engrafted in the Catholic view of therelationship between the Trintiy and the Church. (It also proves that only Trintarian faith can adequately appreciate the sanctity of the family, which ought to be even more disturbing to Mormons.)

[consiglieri]

So if Mormons are right and EVs are following a man-made version of Christ's teachings, then they aren't following Christ's teachings and thus aren't Christian.

Actually, I think Mormons can avail themselves of a better argument than that.

The scriptures teach that Christians are those who take upon themselves the name of Christ.

The scriptures further teach that the name of Christ is taken upon one in the waters of baptism.

Inasmuch as Mormons claim to have the restored priesthood and therefore constitute the only Church that can effectively perform a baptism such as to confer the name of Christ on the recipient, Mormons could very well argue that all who have not been baptized into the Mormon Church are not Christian.

I think it is to the Mormons' credit that they do not make such an argument.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Glenn101]

Johnny, have you ever read Scott Hahn's "First Come Love: Finding Your Family in the church and in the Trinity"? Without ealing with Mormonism at all, the theological contents of that book overall constitute a very clear answer to the "One as we are" argument, by showing how deeply this idea is in fact engrafted in the Catholic view of the relationship between the Trintiy and the Church. (It also proves that only Trintarian faith can adequately appreciate the sanctity of the family, which ought to be even more disturbing to Mormons.)

You can "prove" almost anything from the Bible, especilay when starting from an erroneous assumption. Any church is in trouble when it's recourse is to learned men woth Phd's rather than revelation from God. The trinity is a concept that evolved over a long period of time and is not explicit or implicit in the Bible.

I don't think that any LDS will be disturbed by a pronouncement from a Phd. when there are prophets on the earth to lead via the more sure word of prophecy.

Glenn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...I mean as one God as outlined by apostle John. Jesus and his apostles will NOT be â??be some big globulating massâ?, how silly to think that.The Nicean is consistent with what scripture reveals. The Mormon teaching of â??three Godsâ? is not supported by scripture.

Then what does it mean that his apostles and him will be one as He and His Father our one??????????????

This is what I meant when I said that Mormon repsonses on this thread have often been prejudical against Johnny. Some big globulating mass? Neither I nor Johnny have ever worshipped such a being, which is offensive even in the context of a rhetorical question. Do you honestly not see that this is an insult not an argument and that it is based on a pure charicature of Catholic theology. In fact, it is not even a charicature, since charicatures exagerate truth rather than fabricate pure fantasies. Mola Ram Suda Ram, if you do not apologize explicitly to johnny and retract these words, I will bring it to the attention of the moderators.Johnny, have you ever read Scott Hahn's "First Come Love: Finding Your Family in hte church and in the Trinity"? Without ealing with Mormonism at all, the theological contents of that book overall constitute a very clear answer to the "One as we are" argument, by showing how deeply this idea is in fact engrafted in the Catholic view of therelationship between the Trintiy and the Church. (It also proves that only Trintarian faith can adequately appreciate the sanctity of the family, which ought to be even more disturbing to Mormons.)

Your right, but I guess that you have a rather hard time seeing sarchasim in the written form.I know you guys dont believe that. Oh well.I guess I have hung around the EV crowd too much, dont take it personal, I dont.

[johnny]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

Then what does it mean that his apostles and him will be one as He and His Father our one??????????????

It is about unity, this is what the Catholic Church teaches about it:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/820.htm

"Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me." The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.

[johnny]

soren

Johnny, have you ever read Scott Hahn's "First Come Love: Finding Your Family in hte church and in the Trinity"?

I have not read Scott Hahnâ??s book. Thanks for the mentioning it, it sounds good.

[soren]

Then what does it mean that his apostles and him will be one as He and His Father our one??????????????

I answer this question in post #244 on page 13 of this thread.

[soren]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

It is about unity, this is what the Catholic Church teaches about it:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/820.htm

"Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me." The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think this answer can be adequate, because the context of the verse points to a simlarity in the kind of unity, not just an apeal to unity generally as the words immediately following show: "As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." Although the points you make about unity in the Church are true and do indeed flow from John 17:21, they are not what is specifically indicated by the phrase "one as we are."

I think another viable interpretation, besides or in addition to the one in my other post, is that the unity in question is unity in charity. God's love is itself God's being (1 John 4: and the unity on being of the Father and Son is unity in the Holy Spirit, who is the person of love. The disciples and the Church, who are not one in being are, because they love, one as the Father and Son are, namely "one in the Holy Spirit." No problems for trinitarianism ensue from this, and its fits with the overall teaching of John, particularly in his first epistle. This interpration is based on questionable warrant inasmuch as the text gives no explicit indication of this meaning, but it is stronger than "one in purpose," which has no warrant at all. Certainly John 17:23 lends itself easily to this reading:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That Jesus acknowledges and worships the Father as his Gods follows as a logical consequence if the Trinity and Incarnantion. If Jesus became fully man, and it is human nature to woorship God, then Jesus, as man would worship God. The human worship of Christ is necessarily directed to the Father, as it would make no sense for him to worship himself.

This argument assumes that a likeness of man to God implies a likeness of God to man, but it need not work that way. In Catholic theology, the basic pattern for all human life and existence is the inner life of God in the Trinity. God's glory resides in the fact that his nature and happiness are shared in a loving communion of persons. God created the world and human beings so that more persons could share in that joy. For this reason, all human associations, families, political bodies, and the Church itself, are signs and expressions of that Trinitarian life and have their sanctity by virtue of the ways in which they reflect the Trinity. Because the Trinity is the archetype of all parsonal associations, it is appropriate for Jesus to want men to be one "as" he and the Father are. The key here is that "as" is express the relation of an individual to its archetype rather than a relation of two equivalents.

Still what you have postulated is not supported by the Bible. Jesus is saying that the Apostles will be one like He is one with the Father. I am sorry but there is ono other interpretation taht can be weened from these verses. It is very plain.

IOW, the only way you can come to your conclusion is by reading things into the text taht arent there.

You claimed,

"This argument assumes that a likeness of man to God implies a likeness of God to man, but it need not work that way."

No LDS assumes anything of the like. It only talkes about being one, not being like.

One thing is for sure, in order for your interpretation to carry out one must look at it they way you do. Because after all it need not work that way.

I appreciate your and Johnny's efforts here, the scriptures just dont back it up.

[johnny]

soren

I don't think this answer can be adequate, because the context of the verse points to a simlarity in the kind of unity, not just an apeal to unity generally as the words immediately following show: "As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."

It can also appeal to the idea that a disciple who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

• John.1 ([9] Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.)
  
• -
  
• John.14 ([23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him..)
  
• -
  
• John.17 ([21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. )
  

[johnny]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

I appreciate your and Johnny's efforts here, the scriptures just dont back it up.

Would you agree that the Son and the Father are one because â??Father, art in me, and I in theeâ? (John 17:21)?

• John.17 ([21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. )