Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[soren]

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.

I am fully aware of this (although Mormons do worship Jesus as well, though perhaps "worship" is not intended in a univocal sense).

Te retort that Mormons worship only one God misses the entire point of monotheism. A pertinent question to cinsider at the outset, is this: Is the statement "God is one" a statement about God or a statement about man? In Catohlicism it is both, but it Mormonism it is only about man, that tere is one God for us â?? a subjectivizing deconstruction of what is clearly an objective claim to divine uniqueness made throughout the Bible.

The most important aspect of monotheism that is not understood by Mormonism is that â??God is oneâ? is not fundamentally a statement of how many Godâ??s there are. It is a statement about what God is - he is the unifying principle that pervades and underlies all reality as such. The reason his being pervades all things is because it is infinite, but there cannot be two infinites, since they would limit each other. Hence, God is one. The very notion of two Gods existing, quite apart from how many of them you worship, absolutely destroys monotheism as a concept.

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.

I explained several pages back on this thread why "one on purpose" does not work. My main thesis is expressed in post #419:

God is our purpose; we are not his. The purpose of a thing is by definition greater than the thing itself. God is the purpose of all things and so does not have a purpose of his own; it is his intrinsic goodness, which is objective without refernce to any additional purpose that makes it possible for him to endow other things with purpose and to give meaning to life itself.

If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one in purpose, and that purpose were the happiness of man, then we should not conclude that they are one God. We should conclude that we are one God.

Note: In the sense that "one in purpose" can indicate agreement in will, the phrase does not offend, yet Mormonism goes farther than this by purpose definitional of Godhead on an ontological level.

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.

Many Christians misunderstand the Trinity and think of it in modalist terms. Even the great Catholic theologiam Karl Rahner admitted as much. But I am not an apologist for common beginner's mistakes. I defend orthodox Catholicism, and its exceptionally lucid and intelligible doctrine of the divine nature and persons.

By the way, the Council of Nicaea was none convenes to put down modalism - that had already been done by many of the same Churches whose bishops attended the Council. Modalism did play a role at Nicaea in that the Father chose very precise language in defining the Son's divinity that would defy modalist interpretation such as "God from God, light from light."

[soren]

Read my reference. Then talk.

My browser won't show me more than the first page of this article, so I can't comment on it, but I am at least familiar with this claim as it pertains to Augustine in the form that is was argued by Hugh Nibley in The World and the Prophets. Nibley argued that Augustine believes until late in his twenties that Christians thought God was a man. How, Nibley asks, can this be if he was rasied by a Christian mother unless that is what Christians really thought at the time? Moreover, Augustine never considered belief in incorporeal spirits untill he read Plato.

The fault of this argument is that is presumes Augustine was educated by his mother, which he wasn't. After his early years, his pagan father clearly had more influence, with his mother as a fairly distant character in his childhood. The reason Augustine says he thought Christians believed God was a man is that he read some of the OT without any knowledge of Caatholic interpretation of it and interpretted all of it literally, concluding as a result that it was all absurd.

As for the beliefs of Augustine's mother, who prays for Augustine's conversion throughout his life, she tells him before she dies in the Confessions that the has wished for no greater joy than to see him become a "Catholic Christian" as he has indeed become. Augustine and Monica then share a mystical experience that clearly involves an incorporeal God.

I can't tell of that answers to the article you referenced, but if it follows in the same vein as Nibley, all I can say is "National Enquirer."

[Log]

I can't tell of that answers to the article you referenced, but if it follows in the same vein as Nibley, all I can say is "National Enquirer."

It was precisely to forestall this class of response from Johnny that I directed him to read before talking.

[soren]

It was precisely to forestall this class of response from Johnny that I directed him to read before talking.

Well, I was unable to read it, so I answered what I could according to my knowledge of Nibley, whom I have read, and whose scholarship in Augustine is literally comparable to a tabloid publication in the sense that he misrepresents his sources by selective presentation of evidence to a degree that it blatantly unethical. I did not say "National Enquirer" as a jibe, but as a straight evaluation.

I do not and did not claim to know how this may reflect on the article you linked.

[soren]

It was precisely to forestall this class of response from Johnny that I directed him to read before talking.

One note by way of concession: You don't need to read through the subtext of Augustine and Origin to find evidence of early Christian materialism. Tertullian thought that God was a material body and said so outright. That by itself clears Mormonism of being totally unhistorical in this respect, even though that is a minority report.

[johnny]

Bat-Man

So, so far, Ignatius seems to be in agreement with us (LDS) and our (LDS) concept of God (our Father) and Jesus Christ being two separate persons who can separate from each other at one point and yet return to each other at another point later.

The doctrine of Trinity reveals â??two separate personsâ? like Ignatius.

So, so far, again, Ignatius still seems to be in agreement with us (LDS).

The doctrine of Trinity reveals â??is only one God, our Father, as well as our Lord, Jesus Christ,â? like Ignatius.

So, so far, again, Ignatius still seems to be in agreement with us (LDS).

Ignatius would disagree with Mormons. Ignatius is not saying â??Jesus Christ is (also) Godâ?, Ignatius is not describing TWO separate Gods.

Ignatius would disagree with Mormons. Ignatius is not saying Jesus was a created angel like Satan who was born of heavenly parents. Ignatius is saying Christ is the â??Wordâ?.

Looks to me like Ignatius is still in agreement with us (LDS).

Ignatius would disagree with Mormons. Ignatius is not saying a different God than the Father or a second God existing in flesh. Ignatius is saying â??God existing in flesh.

True, there is one God and Father, but to say there is "not" two or three (who are God) is to deny the truth we (LDS) know concerning Jesus Christ who is also God and the Father of all those who are begotten (again) through Him (Jesus Christ).

Ignatius would disagree with Mormons. You say Christ â??is also Godâ?, Igantius would says Christ â??is Godâ? because Igantius writes there is â??one Godâ?.

... and, personally, I see no good reason to try to agree with Ignatius of Antioch.

There are many good reasons to agree with Ignatius of Antioch, for example

- he was ordained by the apostle Peter

- he was taught by the apostles

- he was a bishop which the Holy Ghost made an overseer of the church of God

[soren]

Bat-Man

The doctrine of Trinity reveals â??two separate personsâ? like Ignatius.

Are you sure you want to say this Johnny? If the persons are separate, then you have conceded plurality of being becasue you cannot divide something that is perfectly one. That is why "distinct" rathern than separate is the appropriate term, since it indicates differentiation but not division.

[William the Conqueror]

The most important aspect of monotheism that is not understood by Mormonism is that â??God is oneâ? is not fundamentally a statement of how many Godâ??s there are. It is a statement about what God is - he is the unifying principle that pervades and underlies all reality as such. The reason his being pervades all things is because it is infinite, but there cannot be two infinites, since they would limit each other. Hence, God is one. The very notion of two Gods existing, quite apart from how many of them you worship, absolutely destroys monotheism as a concept.

But if the Mormons believe (and they do) that God the Father has a body, then He cannot be infinite in space and time, that is He cannot be ubiquitous. He may be all knowing, as is Christ now, and He may be all seeing, as was and is Christ, "...before Phillip called you I saw you under the fig tree...", but He cannot be everywhere at once, not if He is limited by a body.

[Calm]

But if the Mormons believe (and they do) that God the Father has a body, then He cannot be infinite in space and time, that is He cannot be ubiquitous. He may be all knowing, as is Christ now, and He may be all seeing, as was and is Christ, "...before Phillip called you I saw you under the fig tree...", but He cannot be everywhere at once, not if He is limited by a body.

Simply because one aspect of his being may be limited to a certain time and place, does this mean all aspects of him have to be?

And are you saying that God the Son---since he possesses a body now--is not an infinite being?

[Billy]

Well, since EVs have a false, non-Biblical concept of God and salvation, then it appears your own faith is misplaced - and by your own words, you are under condemnation.

EVs believe in a God that doesn't look like man.

EVs believe that baptism isn't necessary for salvation.

EVs believe that we can't become like God, our Father.

EVs believe that God doesn't send prophets anymore.

EVs can't be Christians if they believe such non-Biblical things. They have faith in the wrong things. That puts them far away from God and true worship.

Gee, this is a fun game to play, Billy. I see why you like to play it.

Good, I think you got it. That is exactly what I am trying to point out but others don't seem to understand it. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, rather the beliefs between EV's and LDS are diametrically opposed. They both can't be right. If LDS are right, like you think, then the EV's will not go to the Celestial Kingdom and will be separated from God for eternity if they do not convert. On the other hand, if the EV's are right then the same thing that you think will happen to us will happen to you, separation from God for eternity, we call it hell, you call it Terrestial or Telestial.

[ttribe]

Good, I think you got it. That is exactly what I am trying to point out but others don't seem to understand it.

Oh, I understand it just fine Billy, but you kept using your method to NOT answer the questions I was actually asking.

I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong,

Yes you are.

...rather the beliefs between EV's and LDS are diametrically opposed. They both can't be right.

But the questions that were being posed to you were about WHAT YOU BELIEVE, not a request for another "lesson" in everything you perceive to be different between LDS doctrine and so-called "mainstream" Christianity.

If LDS are right, like you think, then the EV's will not go to the Celestial Kingdom and will be separated from God for eternity if they do not convert. On the other hand, if the EV's are right then the same thing that you think will happen to us will happen to you, separation from God for eternity, we call it hell, you call it Terrestial or Telestial.

Except that there's a HUGE difference between what we say the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms will be like compared to the brimstone and fire hell you say we Mormons are going to because we disagree on certain points of doctrine (but STILL ACCEPT CHRIST AS OUR SAVIOR).

[Akboy]

So, Akboy, are these people following Christ accurately?

It's hard to tell by just reading that, but my guess would be no. It sounds like they are saying you need to follow a long list of rules to get to heaven. It sounds like a works based salvation.

[ttribe]

It's hard to tell by just reading that, but my guess would be no. It sounds like they are saying you need to follow a long list of rules to get to heaven. It sounds like a works based salvation.

Hmmm...so dissension in the ranks. So assuming your analysis is correct, they are NOT Christian then?

[Pahoran]

Part of the problem is the dictionary definitions are a little too vague. 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).

But Akboy, don't you see that the very question of "who follows Christ's teachings and example accurately, as He taught them" is the key question at issue in all controversies among Christians? Don't you know that as soon as you introduce that tag into the definition, you are introducing subjective, controversial judgements into what ought to be a simple matter of lexicography?

In order for verbal communication to work, words have to have meanings that everyone can agree upon. One participant in the conversation can't hijack the word for their own partisan purposes, and then demand that everyone else assent to such hijacking. In order for words to have universal meaning, they have to be allowed to remain in neutral territory, where they are accessible to everyone. It is arrogance of truly Evangelical proportions to demand that we have to use the word as they say it is to be used; and it is intolerable and unworkable to put the word out of reach until everyone agrees just who is really "accurate" in their doctrine and practice.

So when EV's demand that the word "Christian" and its cognates mean "someone who follows Christ's teachings and example accurately, as He taught them," they are doing two things: (1) they are equivocating a word that is not proprietary to them, and (2) they are trying to privilege their interpretation by smuggling it into the definition. This is an exercise in truly hubristic arrogance.

The only solution, then is for EV's to give up their proprietary claim and accept that the word has broader application than they have hitherto acknowledged.

The claim that "Christian" is equivalent to "EV Protestant" is one that appears to rest on a number of assumptions. Here, in the dialect of the most learned advocates of this claim, are the assumptions.

1) We is thuh onliest Chrisjuns what thar is anywhar.

2) Tharfor, anybody who calls hisself a Chrisjun is tryin' tuh be jest like us'n.

3) Them Marmunz ben't jest like us'n.

4) Tharfor, them Marmunz ben't Chrisjuns.

(I've been studying up on how to talk Redneck.)

Assumption 1 is flagrantly false. That a small splinter group of a recent minority faction of the Western branch of Christianity could claim to be the only Christians--or the only real Christians, which amounts to the same thing--is utter nonsense.

Assumption 2 follows from assumption 1, and it is likewise false. A number of EV's I've discussed this with over the years have taken the view that we are asking to be admitted to their club.

They are quite wrong.

It isn't their club. They are not the gatekeepers. We are not trying to be like them. We are not asking for their approval.

We are claiming our birthright.

Assumption 3 is true.

The conclusion expressed at point 4 is plainly false.

The fact is that EV's are beating a dead horse over this issue. Offenders for a Word, by Peterson and Ricks, has settled this question, once and for all, and in our favour.

We are Christians, and EV's are wrong to deny that fact (as indeed they are wrong in almost everything else as well.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Anijen]

Well, I was unable to read it, so I answered what I could according to my knowledge of Nibley, whom I have read, and whose scholarship in Augustine is literally comparable to a tabloid publication in the sense that he misrepresents his sources by selective presentation of evidence to a degree that it blatantly unethical. I did not say "National Enquirer" as a jibe, but as a straight evaluation.

I do not and did not claim to know how this may reflect on the article you linked.

CFR on that he misrepresents his sources by selective presentation of evidence to a degree that it blatantly unethical. or is this your opinion? You state it as a fact so I would like to know your references sources of how you came to this conclusion.

[Billy]

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.

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

I have not tried to bash your belief but to point out that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. As I noted in a post above, my post were meant to show you that both positions can't both be true. I am right, or you are right, or a third possibility, we are both wrong.

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.

But we don't even agree on this single point.

Gospel Principles chapter 12

"We accept Christâ??s atonement by placing our faith in him. Through this faith, we repent of our sins, are baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and obey his commandments. We become faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. We are forgiven and cleansed from sin and prepared to return and live forever with our Heavenly Father."

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.

I am not trying to avoid your questions but I have had similar discussions like this before which go something like this. I (LDS) believe in Christ and have faith in him just like you (EV) say that I must, I (LDS) just do more than that because I want to, thus I am covered both ways, by your requirements and by mine.

But let me turn it around and try the same thing on you and see if it works that way as well. If I believe as an EV, that there is only one God, God is single, He did not have children, we will not become Gods, etc. Then I join the LDS church and maintain these EV beliefs and do not change to the beliefs of the traditional LDS church, am I covered both ways like I mentioned above for the LDS person who is covered both ways?

[Pahoran]

CFR on that he misrepresents his sources by selective presentation of evidence to a degree that it blatantly unethical. or is this your opinion? You state it as a fact so I would like to know your references sources of how you came to this conclusion.

Hey, Tweedy told Martha Beck that, didn't he? Isn't that sufficient evidence to condemn a better scholar than Soren can ever hope to be, especially since he's no longer around to defend his good name?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Anijen]

Bat-Man

The doctrine of Trinity reveals â??two separate personsâ? like Ignatius.

The doctrine of Trinity reveals â??is only one God, our Father, as well as our Lord, Jesus Christ,â? like Ignatius.

Ignatius would disagree with Mormons. Ignatius is not saying â??Jesus Christ is (also) Godâ?, Ignatius is not describing TWO separate Gods.

Ignatius would disagree with Mormons. Ignatius is not saying Jesus was a created angel like Satan who was born of heavenly parents. Ignatius is saying Christ is the â??Wordâ?.

Ignatius would disagree with Mormons. Ignatius is not saying a different God than the Father or a second God existing in flesh. Ignatius is saying â??God existing in flesh.

Ignatius would disagree with Mormons. You say Christ â??is also Godâ?, Igantius would says Christ â??is Godâ? because Igantius writes there is â??one Godâ?.

There are many good reasons to agree with Ignatius of Antioch, for example

- he was ordained by the apostle Peter

- he was taught by the apostles

- he was a bishop which the Holy Ghost made an overseer of the church of God

johnny for all your "Ignatius would disagree with Mormons." You are placing yourself into the mind of him, which is impossible. You or no one else can say what he would or would not disagree with on early Christianity viewed from modern perspective. We can only go by what he wrote and taking all not bits and pieces we can then gather somewhat of an idea of his view but no one can say with a fact what he would disagree with or what he would agree with. From his writings all of them not the bits and pieces you seem to select from, but from the whole his writings would support LDS theology and at the very least not diminish it.

[ttribe]

I have not tried to bash your belief but to point out that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. As I noted in a post above, my post were meant to show you that both positions can't both be true. I am right, or you are right, or a third possibility, we are both wrong.

But we don't even agree on this single point.

Gospel Principles chapter 12

"We accept Christ’s atonement by placing our faith in him. Through this faith, we repent of our sins, are baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and obey his commandments. We become faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. We are forgiven and cleansed from sin and prepared to return and live forever with our Heavenly Father."

What you just quoted from the Gospel Principles manual simply highlights the natural steps that follow faith in Christ. Nothing I have said is inconsistent; you simply continue to fail to acknowledge that we do believe faith in Christ is FOUNDATIONAL to everything and that without it everything else fails by glibly referring to us as a works-based theology. This labeling on your part is a gross oversimplification and is inherently dishonest.

I am not trying to avoid your questions but I have had similar discussions like this before which go something like this. I (LDS) believe in Christ and have faith in him just like you (EV) say that I must, I (LDS) just do more than that because I want to, thus I am covered both ways, by your requirements and by mine.

Frankly, I'm not interested in trying to cover my bases; I'm interested in getting "it" right. Furthemore, I believe God would see through such a vain effort to "cover bases".

But let me turn it around and try the same thing on you and see if it works that way as well. If I believe as an EV, that there is only one God, God is single, He did not have children, we will not become Gods, etc. Then I join the LDS church and maintain these EV beliefs and do not change to the beliefs of the traditional LDS church, am I covered both ways like I mentioned above for the LDS person who is covered both ways?

Since I've already rejected the counter to this, what do you want me to say? Besides, I'm not interested in converting, or to convert you...you do realize that don't you? I'm trying to get you to simply state your beliefs salvation exclusive of LDS doctrine. That's it; that's all. Then we can talk about why I believe I have the right to claim the title of "Christian" - which has nothing to do with whether I'm a Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Catholic or Mormon.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good, I think you got it. That is exactly what I am trying to point out but others don't seem to understand it. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, rather the beliefs between EV's and LDS are diametrically opposed. They both can't be right. If LDS are right, like you think, then the EV's will not go to the Celestial Kingdom and will be separated from God for eternity if they do not convert. On the other hand, if the EV's are right then the same thing that you think will happen to us will happen to you, separation from God for eternity, we call it hell, you call it Terrestial or Telestial.

Accept that Billy, If you are not baptised then no CK for you. It is not a requirement of salvation to believe that God the Father has a physical body, nor that Jesus is a separte person form the Father. So really teh LDS are in a very good position.

[Billy]

I'm trying to get you to simply state your beliefs salvation exclusive of LDS doctrine. That's it; that's all.

I answered that question, but I will repost it for you, plus I will give you a snippet from a website.

Salvation is by faith alone.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-doct...-salvation.html

How do we receive salvation? We are saved by faith. First, we must hear the gospelâ??the good news of Jesusâ?? death and resurrection (Ephesians 1:13). Then, we must believeâ??fully trust the Lord Jesus (Romans 1:16). This involves repentance, a changing of mind about sin and Christ (Acts 3:19), and calling on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:9-10, 13).

A definition of the Christian doctrine of salvation would be â??The spiritual, eternal deliverance which God immediately grants to those who accept His conditions of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus.â? Salvation is available in Jesus alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), and is dependant on God alone for provision, assurance, and security.

[Billy]

Accept that Billy, If you are not baptised then no CK for you. It is not a requirement of salvation to believe that God the Father has a physical body, nor that Jesus is a separte person form the Father. So really teh LDS are in a very good position.

Would I be allowed to be baptized if I did not answer all the question below in the prescribed manner? Would I be accepted into the church if I accepted only a portion of the list below?

Baptism Questions Preach My Gospel

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of

God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?

2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the

Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God?

What does this mean to you?

3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past

transgressions?

4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have

you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?

5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are

you willing to obey them?

a. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal

marriage between a man and a woman.

b. The law of tithing.

c. The Word of Wisdom.

d. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to

fellow members.

[jwhitlock]

Good, I think you got it. That is exactly what I am trying to point out but others don't seem to understand it. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, rather the beliefs between EV's and LDS are diametrically opposed. They both can't be right. If LDS are right, like you think, then the EV's will not go to the Celestial Kingdom and will be separated from God for eternity if they do not convert. On the other hand, if the EV's are right then the same thing that you think will happen to us will happen to you, separation from God for eternity, we call it hell, you call it Terrestial or Telestial.

Except, of course, for that distressing little problem of making a generalization about a group without regard to the state of the individuals involved - and, of course, without regard to what God thinks of those individuals.

EVs tend to come to those generalizations because of the little game we've played. Perhaps that's why LDS don't play that game, but prefer instead to approach each individual as a unique person, with unique experiences and relationships.

Generalizations based on rationalization games are sooo problematic.

[Billy]

Generalizations based on rationalization games are sooo problematic.

Well, since EVs have a false, non-Biblical concept of God and salvation, then it appears your own faith is misplaced - and by your own words, you are under condemnation.

EVs believe in a God that doesn't look like man.

EVs believe that baptism isn't necessary for salvation.

EVs believe that we can't become like God, our Father.

EVs believe that God doesn't send prophets anymore.

EVs can't be Christians if they believe such non-Biblical things. They have faith in the wrong things. That puts them far away from God and true worship.

So you don't believe what you wrote above then?

[johnny]

soren,

Are you sure you want to say this Johnny? If the persons are separate, then you have conceded plurality of being becasue you cannot divide something that is perfectly one. That is why "distinct" rathern than separate is the appropriate term, since it indicates differentiation but not division.

Thanks â?¦ good catch, I was in a hurry â?¦ it should have been â??distinctâ?.