Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[Hannah Rebekah]

I don't know no how to describe "being." It's to primal a concept. "One in being means that only one act of existence occurs among the person.

The most obvious biblical evidence for this are NT citations or allusions to OT texts that indicate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all Yahweh. Since "I am" is shared by all of them as a proper name, and since a non-unique being cannot be appropriately named as an individual by a mere assertion of being. This by itself is an exponentially stronger w arrant than any evidence Mormons present for "one in purpose." They way they use John 17:21 over and over without explanatory context or other supporting texts is a sign of just how desperate their case is.

The deeper argument for "one in being" is the simple fact that Jesus is fully God, although one has to understand monotheism to see the force of this argument. As long as Mormons think that only worshipping one God is some kind of answer to the charge of polytheism, it cannot persuade them.

Yes.

Soren,

Maybe you can't persuade us because it's true that we only worship one God....God the Father. We pray to him through Jesus Christ. Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and Mediator to our Father. Christ himself taught us the true order of worship and prayer when he taught us to pray to our Father. We use the term 'Godhead' and that is a real term that is used in the KJV 1811 version which I understand is not a term in the modern scriptures that traditional Christians now use like the NIV. You say "one in unity" we say "one in purpose." Same thing to us but not to you as you mean it by how they are fused together in their persons or being, we use it in how they conduct themselves and function together to bring about eternal life of man. From what I understand from the way traditional Christian describe God as three in one they have become modern day Modalist and don't even know it. And probably don't even care nor know what it means. That is "one being with three different faces or modes." That is a heresy and the Nicene Creed was developed to put down this very heresy in it's day. So in essence traditional Christians have perverted their own scriptures to take on new words that have brought about old heresies. Can't blame the LDS because you have lost "plain and precious" truths.

HR

[Tanyan]

Believing in absolute, universal truth and morals. Sticking with God's truth rather than conforming to new trends.

Teaches from the Bible means the messages they teach are based on Bible passages. This means avoiding sermons that are basically anecdote filled, self-help messages.

Well-developed messages use a wide range interpretation tools and methods. Literary context, historical context, original language meaning, greek/hebrew sentence structure, the context of the book, other passages on the same topic and more. If people will use these tools correctly, they usually come up with the same interpretation of the major topics.

I have been to multiple Mormon services and multiple churches. I've talked with missionaries and taken the challenge of reading passages in the Book of Mormon and praying about it. The promptings of the Holy Spirit rejected the accuracy the LDS church.

No, your not going to hell because you go to a Mormon Church. EVs believe salvation is based on belief, not the church you go to. You could be going to the Mormon Church and be saved if your beliefs about salvation are following God. But EVs believe you would be headed for hell if you're following LDS doctrine.

It's a precaution. Most Baptist and Southern Baptist pastors follow the doctrine of their denomination, but you should still check them out and make sure they are.

First of all, EVs don't think grace or the atonement has anything to do with "mankind" being raised. Yes, those who are following Christ's teachings will be raise because of grace. But EVs believe the rest of mankind has rejected Christ's grace and won't be resurrected. They will probably be aware of what's happening when they're being judged before going to hell, but that wouldn't be salvation.

Secondly, EVs don't think grace is an enabling power. They don't think grace requires total effort on the part of the person.

EVs believe grace means Christ does 100% of the work and effort. They believe trying to add our own works or effort to grace is rejecting the grace. So they believe saying 'grace saves us after all we can do' and 'grace is not enough without our total effort' is rejecting Christ's grace.

Before you say it, yes, EVs do read and follow James 2. They believe James 2 isn't teaching faith + works, but rather a faith that produces works. Faith is what saves us, but that faith must be genuine. It must be the kind of faith that changes how a person behaves. We do works out of a love and devotion to God, not an obligation to do all we can do.

We both believe Christ's atonement is 100% necessary for salvation, but our beliefs are still very different.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm

[Tanyan]

http://www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/eb10b.htm

[johnny]

Hannah Rebekah

Soren,

I will let â??sorenâ? answer for himself, but below are my thoughts on what you wrote.

Maybe you can't persuade us because it's true that we only worship one God....God the Father. We pray to him through Jesus Christ. Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and Mediator to our Father. Christ himself taught us the true order of worship and prayer when he taught us to pray to our Father.

Mormon's might worship one God but they believe and teach â??three Godsâ?. Joseph Smith taught â??three Godsâ?. â??three Godsâ? is contrary to â??one Godâ?. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveals â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith revealed.

We use the term 'Godhead' and that is a real term that is used in the KJV 1811 version which I understand is not a term in the modern scriptures that traditional Christians now use like the NIV.

For Mormonâ??s the Mormon Church teaches that the â??Godheadâ? consist of â??three Gods.

You say "one in unity" we say "one in purpose."

Christians who believe in the Nicene creed say â??one in beingâ? just like scripture reveals. John 1:1,14 reveals that â??the Word was God â?¦ the Word was made fleshâ?

Same thing to us but not to you as you mean it by how they are fused together in their persons or being, we use it in how they conduct themselves and function together to bring about eternal life of man.

The Father, the Son, and the HG are NOT â??fused togetherâ?. Scripture reveals that â??God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself: (2Cor 5:19).

From what I understand from the way traditional Christian describe God as three in one they have become modern day Modalist and don't even know it.

Your understanding is incorrect â?¦ traditional Christians described it as â??one God in three Personsâ?, this is consistent with scriptures like 2Cor 5:19 and John 1:1,14.

And probably don't even care nor know what it means.

Christians care that is why the Nicene Creed teaches â??one in beingâ? and the Athanasian creed reveals â??they are not Three Gods, but One Godâ? to clarify what the inspired word of God reveals.

That is "one being with three different faces or modes."

The doctrine of the Trinity is not described as "one being with three different faces or modes."

So in essence traditional Christians have perverted their own scriptures to take on new words that have brought about old heresies.

You have perverted the doctrine of the Trinity with your lack of understandind this doctrine and your understanding of what scripture reveals. Scripture does not reveal â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith taught. Scripture reveals â??one Godâ? like Jesus taught.

Can't blame the LDS because you have lost "plain and precious" truths.

The Mormonâ??s "plain and precious" truth is that Joseph Smith taught â??three Godsâ? which is contrary to what Jesus and his apostles taught, see link below.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

• Joseph Smith Teachings â??I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Godsâ?
  

[Billy]

Billy asks,

I didn't know that the Gentiles were under the law.

Soren replies,

The Gentiles were not, but in Galatians, Paul is writing to Gentile converts who had been persuaded by others that they needed to follow the law. For this reason, Paul's arguments agaisnt the necessity of the law are directed towards Gentiles just as well as Jews.

I was asking a Rhetorical question, to point out the obvious that Gentiles were not under the law, but nobody got it.

The argument then that Paul is making is that the Law has served its purpose becasue the Jews themselves are made members of God's covenant family by the new sign of faith, and so the Gentiles have no reason to resort to the Mosaic law for their own justification.

I agree that the purpose of the law is to show people that they are sinners and need to come to Christ. The law still does this today for non believers, in that it shows people that they can't keep the law and that they need a savior.

But Ephesians 2:8-9 is good also

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The boasting that Paul is warning against is not works-righteousness (since Judaism was not a legalistic religion anyway) but the assumption that one could be saved by being a descendant of Abraham. This geneaological boasting tended to the exclusion of Gentiles from the covenant.

I disagree with you on the Justification by faith issue. I believe in it and you do not. This was one of the major reasons for the reformation. I have a link to a Catholic site which highlights some of the differences, and I agree with some of what is included in the article. Salvation in my is by faith, then after one is saved he shows more and more fruit in his or her life a process most would call sanctification. [ () are added by me. a Salvation by faith, b Sanctification.]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ics/ap0027.html

"The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk rediscovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. The monk, of course, was Luther; the doctrine was justification by faith. . .

. . .It certainly doesnâ??t look like a misunderstanding. It looks like a flat-out contradiction: the Catholic Church taught that we are saved by faith and good works, while Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). But appearances may be deceiving.

For one thing, even if the two sides did disagree about the relationship between faith and works, they both agreed (1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and (2) that we are absolutely commanded by God to do good works. Both these two points are unmistakably clear in Scripture. . .

When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God (a). But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love (b )."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are assuming that gate=baptism, but it does not say baptism. The verse is from Matthew 7. It is interesting that it does not mention baptism in any proximal verse, but in the verse below it speaks about false prophets.

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

If you are brought up with the belief that in order to go to heaven you HAVE to get baptized, then a believer would most likely get baptized. If you were brought up with the belief that baptism is not essential for salvation, then I can see how a person may not be baptized, but I agree with you, I would think that they would want to be baptized. On the other hand there are many people who HAVE been baptized who are NOT believers. So if a believer does not get baptized, and a non believer does get baptized, is God going to let the non believer into heaven because he was baptized and not let the believer into heaven because he is not?

I don't believe works get you into heaven

Yes (If by equal they both had the opportunity to receive Christ)

Billy,

I was expecting a little more form you.

If works are a product of salvation as many EVies claim, then reason stands that if you are a believer then you would be baptised becuase you believe Christs example and would follow him. If you didnt get baptised then you are not following what Christ showed us. In other words you have no works to show for the supposed salvation.

Billy, why was Christ baptised?

Why did Peter claim that Baptism does now save us?

Its funny that sometimes the LDS are called not Christian because we believe we must follow Christs example, by being baptised. I dont know how some one could be saved if they didnt breing forth fruit meet for repentance. IOW works.

[Billy]

Its funny that sometimes the LDS are called not Christian because we believe we must follow Christs example, by being baptised. I dont know how some one could be saved if they didnt breing forth fruit meet for repentance. IOW works.

It is the exact opposite. LDS are called non Christian, not because they follow Christ or the Bible, but because they don't follow Christ and the Bible.

Multiple Gods

God has a wife

Salvation by works

Temple marriage and marriage in heaven

Ability to become a God

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is the exact opposite. LDS are called non Christian, not because they follow Christ or the Bible, but because they don't follow Christ and the Bible.

Multiple Gods

God has a wife

Salvation by works

Temple marriage and marriage in heaven

Ability to become a God

Spare me.

Billy,

you missed the main thrust of my speach. Lol.

Forutantley for me I can open the Bible and see that all of that is biblical, so know you are the one following a diffrent gospel and Jesus.

I wish just for a sencond that you would engage me questions, in all seriousness.

I allready know why most EVies dont think the LDS are mormon. One of them being becuase we stress the importance of works.

So no more side stepping and dodging, ok??

I asked,

If works are a product of salvation as many EVies claim, then reason stands that if you are a believer then you would be baptised becuase you believe Christs example and would follow him. If you didnt get baptised then you are not following what Christ showed us. In other words you have no works to show for the supposed salvation.

Billy, why was Christ baptised?

Why did Peter claim that Baptism does now save us?

[Flyonthewall]

This is so boring, just shut the topic down. No one is going to "win" this.

Shall we play a game?

How about a nice game of chess?

[consiglieri]

This is so boring, just shut the topic down. No one is going to "win" this.

You are right that nobody is going to "win" this in terms of convincing the other side.

On the other hand, the point of this thread was not to have another debate about whether Mormons should be called Christian, but why some evangelical Christians (and Catholic Christians) refuse to acknowledge Mormons' claim to be Christian.

In this regard, I feel I have already "won" in that I have come to some new understandings regarding this issue.

Also, please do not suggest that this thread be "shut down" before I get the chance to post number 666.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm

So, Akboy, are these people following Christ accurately?

[kryoung1983]

Most Christians won't allow mormons the title because they are dense, close minded, and most of the time completely ignorant of what the Bible teaches and of early christianity. Most, if not all doctrines of the church have some similarity to early christian belief even if it isn't exactly identical. Like John Chyrstom or however you say his name believing in different degrees of gloy in the 5th century and origen believing in three degrees of glory in the third century. That is all just dismissed though. I think its quite the head ache since most debates around this topic end up being so juvenile because of the lack of intellectual exchange on the EV side.

[Billy]

I'm trying to get straight answers from EVs (which seems to be difficult) about what they believe constitutes following Christ accurately ,exclusive of LDS beliefs.

OK take the list of 10 items and cross out the beliefs that you believe in and that would be a great start from the EV point of view.This has been said before, EV's do not believe that God sanctions ONE church exclusively. The body of Christ is an invisible body of believers that attend many different Christian churches (I think that there are some LDS who would be included in this body despite its teachings). I have also mentioned this before, but again the 2 key areas to get right are: The correct concept of who God is, does he have a body or is he spirit, was he once a man or has he always been God etc. Secondly, what are his requirement to get into heaven. The reason for the list that I gave in a previous post was to show you that two opposite things can't both be right, like salvation by works verses salvation by faith, one is right and the other is wrong, one is a EV position and the other is a LDS position. The other numbered items were meant to show the same thing two opposite positions, which obviously both can't be right.

I allready know why most EVies dont think the LDS are mormon.

I believe that LDS are mormon.

[emeliza]

Most Christians won't allow mormons the title because they are dense, close minded, and most of the time completely ignorant of what the Bible teaches and of early christianity.

Wow, this makes you seem really dense, close minded and ignorant.

I believe Consig already figured out why they won't allow us the title. For most non-LDS Christians, the term is for those who are 'saved' and will gain salvation. To them, our denomination does not warrant this because we do not believe some things they believe must accepted.

For LDS we believe all will gain salvation for the most part, but exaltation is for the more elect. Therefore we would allow anyone who believes in Christ as the Savior to be a Christian, but even those who don't believe in Christ will be saved so it isn't such a big deal. And we don't believe most "Christian's" will gain exaltation so really we are just as bad as they are in some terms.

[ttribe]

OK take the list of 10 items and cross out the beliefs that you believe in and that would be a great start from the EV point of view.This has been said before, EV's do not believe that God sanctions ONE church exclusively. The body of Christ is an invisible body of believers that attend many different Christian churches (I think that there are some LDS who would be included in this body despite its teachings). I have also mentioned this before, but again the 2 key areas to get right are: The correct concept of who God is, does he have a body or is he spirit, was he once a man or has he always been God etc. Secondly, what are his requirement to get into heaven. The reason for the list that I gave in a previous post was to show you that two opposite things can't both be right, like salvation by works verses salvation by faith, one is right and the other is wrong, one is a EV position and the other is a LDS position. The other numbered items were meant to show the same thing two opposite positions, which obviously both can't be right.I believe that LDS are mormon.

And yet we could go round and round using only the Bible and find scriptures which appear to support both our positions relative to your list and never get anywhere. You love to act like your point of view is so definitive, and yet it isn't...at least not just based on an "appeal to the Bible".

Regarding the requirements for salvation - you mention understanding the true nature of God. You are, again, attacking LDS issues here and I'm curious where I find the REQUIREMENT outlined in the Bible that says such a thing. All I want is the list of the things that a person must do, in your opinion, in order to receive salvation; not the list of things you believe I must not do. I already know my own beliefs, and I think I have a pretty good handle on what you think of my beliefs. So, let's just skip all that. Tell me what your beliefs are about salvation, exclusive of your opinions on LDS doctrine.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Johnny,

This article will help you to understand the LDS Doctrine better:

"Of Simplicity, Oversimplification, and Monotheism"

Here is one part to that article:

The Anglican historian Richard P. C. Hansen observes: "Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology." And he was not talking just about "functional" subordination. I have already noted subordinationist language in several early Jewish Christian texts and the writings of Justin Martyr, but everywhere we look (aside from modalism ) in pre-Nicene Christianity, we find subordinationist Christologies of various sorts.

After all, Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and he asserted that only the Father knows the hour of Christ's second coming (Matthew 24:36). Paul wrote that the Father is "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 15:6 New English Bible) and that after the resurrection Jesus will "be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28; see 15:24â??27). Hippolytus of Rome wrote that the Father is "the Lord and God and Ruler of all, and even of Christ Himself." Irenaeus referred to John 14:28 and insisted that the Father really does surpass the Son in knowledge. He also wrote that "the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all." Clement of Alexandria taught that while the Father cannot be known, the Son is the object of knowledge. Athenagoras spoke of the "diversity in rank" within the Godhead. Tertullian claimed that there was a time when the Son did not exist with God and that "the Father is the entire [divine] substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole." Origen labeled Jesus as a "second God." Novatian taught that the Holy Spirit is "less than Christ." Eusebius of Caesarea called Jesus a "secondary Being." By the time of the Council of Nicea (AD 325), subordinationism was still the conservative stance. J. N. D. Kelly describes the most numerous group at the council as "the great conservative 'middle party,'" whose doctrine was that there were three divine persons, "separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will."

If the original Christian doctrine really was that there are three truly divine persons "separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will," this is a stunning vindication of the Latter-day Saint definition of the divine unity. Certainly, many of the writings referred to above express philosophical definitions of God that are foreign to Mormonism, but we can point to "anthropomorphite" Jewish Christians in the early centuries as evidence that the original doctrine of deity was both anthropomorphic and subordinationist. Can mainstream Trinitarians do the same? Where is the evidence that anyone in the first three centuries believed in three coequal persons in one being? Perhaps this concept was unknowingly embedded in scripture by the first Christians, only to be extracted by later generations. However, assuming that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with revealing the new interpretation, it seems difficult to fathom how this would not constitute a new revelation, such as the New Testament reinterpretation of the Old.

[John Williams]

The simple answer is that some EVs say Mormons aren't Christian because they need Mormons to be "the Other," and "not us."

[kryoung1983]

Wow, this makes you seem really dense, close minded and ignorant.

I believe Consig already figured out why they won't allow us the title. For most non-LDS Christians, the term is for those who are 'saved' and will gain salvation. To them, our denomination does not warrant this because we do not believe some things they believe must accepted.

For LDS we believe all will gain salvation for the most part, but exaltation is for the more elect. Therefore we would allow anyone who believes in Christ as the Savior to be a Christian, but even those who don't believe in Christ will be saved so it isn't such a big deal. And we don't believe most "Christian's" will gain exaltation so really we are just as bad as they are in some terms.

I understand all of that, I know why they say we are not Christian, and I may come across as dense and ignorant but maybe I am sick of the same arguments that I have heard for years and still most of the EV's I have talked to still don't get it...its a generalization, but I stick to it, based off the vast majority of people I have had discussions with.

[Billy]

And yet we could go round and round using only the Bible and find scriptures which appear to support both our positions relative to your list and never get anywhere. You love to act like your point of view is so definitive, and yet it isn't...at least not just based on an "appeal to the Bible".

Regarding the requirements for salvation - you mention understanding the true nature of God.

Salvation is by faith alone.

But this faith has to be placed in the one true and living God. If I believe that God is a Golden Calf and place faith in that God, then my faith is misplaced. If I place faith in a false God then my faith will do nothing. The big question is how far off can a persons concept of God be to qualify as still worshipping the true and living God, I do not know the answer to this question. If God was never a man and you believe that your God was a man is this OK? I don't know the answer to that question. If God does not have a wife, is it OK to say that he does, I don't know. But the further away of ones beliefs are from the true character of God, then the more likelihood that one will be to worshipping a false God.

[ttribe]

Salvation is by faith alone.

I'm assuming you mean faith in Jesus Christ since we are talking about being Christian, but you left it unsaid in your statement here.

But this faith has to be placed in the one true and living God. If I believe that God is a Golden Calf and place faith in that God, then my faith is misplaced. If I place faith in a false God then my faith will do nothing. The big question is how far off can a persons concept of God be to qualify as still worshipping the true and living God, I do not know the answer to this question. If God was never a man and you believe that your God was a man is this OK? I don't know the answer to that question. If God does not have a wife, is it OK to say that he does, I don't know. But the further away of ones beliefs are from the true character of God, then the more likelihood that one will be to worshipping a false God.

Boy, you just can't get away from trying to bash on Mormon beliefs can you? That's very revealing Billy.

Regarding this "nature of God" issue - let's just assume for a moment that all of the characteristics of Jesus are not as important as what He did. Namely, let's assume for a moment that what matters most is that one has to believe that His atonement is the ONLY source of salvation. If we then agree that this is the case, and that we both have accepted that fact, why does the issue that we may disagree one some of His personal characteristics (the majority of which could be at least supported from passages in the Bible) suddenly result in me being thrust down to hell? Aside from your own personal opinion and judgment of me, where's the support for that? Now, don't try to bring up the "other God" issue - we both believe in the same Jesus and that his Atonement is paramount; we simply disagree on what he is like.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe that LDS are mormon.

HAHAHAHHAAHHA

Oh boy.

Billy,

perhaps another day. Take care.

[ttribe]

Secondly, EVs don't think grace is an enabling power. They don't think grace requires total effort on the part of the person.

EVs believe grace means Christ does 100% of the work and effort. They believe trying to add our own works or effort to grace is rejecting the grace. So they believe saying 'grace saves us after all we can do' and 'grace is not enough without our total effort' is rejecting Christ's grace.

Before you say it, yes, EVs do read and follow James 2. They believe James 2 isn't teaching faith + works, but rather a faith that produces works. Faith is what saves us, but that faith must be genuine. It must be the kind of faith that changes how a person behaves. We do works out of a love and devotion to God, not an obligation to do all we can do.

We both believe Christ's atonement is 100% necessary for salvation, but our beliefs are still very different.

This notion of us "rejecting" grace is an absurd appeal to extremes Akboy; can't you see that? We disagree on the degree to which God Himself chooses to apply grace to our lives based on our circumstances, not on how much grace we are willing to accept. Furthermore, we don't disagree on its necessity. Everyone who has ever lived, except for Christ Himself, will need grace applied to their lives in order to receive salvation. Yet I am thrust down to hell (in your theological interpretation) for believing that God expects me to give it my best effort to follow his commandments and to do so out of love for Him? That's a nonsensical and narrow interpretation of scripture you've thrown out there.

[jwhitlock]

The simple answer is that some EVs say Mormons aren't Christian because they need Mormons to be "the Other," and "not us."

Absolutely.

[johnny]

Hannah Rebekah

This article will help you to understand the LDS Doctrine better:

Mormon doctrine is "three Gods", the article did not talk about "three Gods".

The Anglican historian Richard P. C. Hansen observes: "Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology." And he was not talking just about "functional" subordination. I have already noted subordinationist language in several early Jewish Christian texts and the writings of Justin Martyr, but everywhere we look (aside from modalism ) in pre-Nicene Christianity, we find subordinationist Christologies of various sorts.

I would suggest you go back and try to understand the words of Justin Marty and try to understand "the Mystery" he is referring to. Justin is talking about â??second placeâ? (see below). Justin is NOT talking about the Mormon doctrine of â??three Godsâ?.

• Justin Martyr "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5-6 [A.D. 148]).
  

If the original Christian doctrine really was that there are three truly divine persons "separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will," this is a stunning vindication of the Latter-day Saint definition of the divine unity.

The â??original Christian doctrineâ? was NOT â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith taught. It was similar to the doctrine that Ignatius of Antioch, he was the bishop of Antioch who was ordained by the apostle Peter. Ignatius taught â??one Godâ? and â??God existing in fleshâ? (see below), Ignatius did not teach â??three Godsâ? like the Mormon Church. Ignatius taught the doctrine of the Trinity.

• Ignatius of Antioch "Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6â??8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added)
  
• -
  
• Ignatius of Antioch "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ephesians,7(A.D.110),in ANF,I:52)
  

Can mainstream Trinitarians do the same? Where is the evidence that anyone in the first three centuries believed in three coequal persons in one being?

Trinitarians have evidence that the doctrine of Trinity was taught in the first three centuries. If you would like more evidence that the early Christians taught the doctrine of the Trinity please let me know and I will be glad to provide them.

There is no evidence in the first three centuries that â??three Godsâ? was taught like todayâ??s Mormon Church teaches.

[johnny]

kryoung1983

Most Christians won't allow mormons the title because they are dense, close minded, and most of the time completely ignorant of what the Bible teaches and of early christianity.

It appears you are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and of early Christianity.

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".