Are Mormons Really Christian?

[Jeff K.]

Hughes

One could argue you follow the teachings of Constantine as he (a pagan) directed the different sects of Christianity in Nicea.

Does that make you less Christian? Or do you seek exclusivity as a follower of Constantines teachings?

[mfbukowski]

So you agree with me, that mormons are following a different Christ?

Of course not. There is only one "Christ"- "The Annointed One"- Jesus the Messiah, Yahweh of the Old Testament. We agree about all that- so how is he a "different Christ?" The notion is absurd.

You mean like he had an evil twin or something? LOL!

But if you can explain the Trinity to me without Greek philosophy we might have something to talk about.

Remember you can't use "nature" "essence" or "substance". None of those words can be explained without reference to each other or to themselves, and really cannot be defined.

And certainly none of that "Homoousian" stuff.

What we have is a different understanding of the Godhead- that's all.

Pre-Nicene use of the term

The term ????????? had been used before its adoption by the Nicene theology. The Gnostics were the first theologians to use the word "homoousios", while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.

[Lareliw]

The teachings that I am aware of are biblical. And while they may look to Joseph Smith as a prophet and learn from him about Christ, don't a lot of Christians do the same in other ways like Charles Stanley, Max Lucado, Rick Warren (shudder), C.S. Lewis, Tozer, the list goes on and on. And those are just the more modern ones, you have Augustine, and many others that the RCC considers "saints" that are looked to for guidance and assistance in developing a greater understanding of the words of the Bible. And I am sorry to say, that a lot of modern Churches, while I may not go so far as to call them apostate, have certainly strayed from Biblical Christianity, especially with the entire mega-church, feel good, "Christianity" that is floating around these days. I suppose being called "Christian" isn't really the most important thing, but being Christlike is.

I don't think Mormons follow Christ's teachings from a biblical perspective, what they do is follow the teachings of Joseph Smith as he taught about Christ. Hence, it's a different Christ, and a restored "teaching" is a different teaching and a different Christ, and different gospel.

If it was the same, why the differences? Why would Joseph Smith call the churches apostate if he wanted to be called Christian as they are?

[mfbukowski]

I don't think Mormons follow Christ's teachings from a biblical perspective, what they do is follow the teachings of Joseph Smith as he taught about Christ. Hence, it's a different Christ, and a restored "teaching" is a different teaching and a different Christ, and different gospel.

And who's do you follow?

Augustine?

The Nicene Creed?

Aquinas?

Luther?

Calvin?

Zwingli?

Knox?

Wesley?

Rick Warren?

The Pastor on the corner?

[Hughes]

Hughes

One could argue you follow the teachings of Constantine as he (a pagan) directed the different sects of Christianity in Nicea.

Does that make you less Christian? Or do you seek exclusivity as a follower of Constantines teachings?

Sorry the comparison isn't worth responding to. Unless you can point to Constantine's teachings.

Of course not. There is only one "Christ"- "The Annointed One"- Jesus the Messiah, Yahweh of the Old Testament. We agree about all that- so how is he a "different Christ?" The notion is absurd.

You mean like he had an evil twin or something? LOL!

But if you can explain the Trinity to me without Greek philosophy we might have something to talk about.

Remember you can't use "nature" "essence" or "substance". None of those words can be explained without reference to each other or to themselves, and really cannot be defined.

And certainly none of that "Homoousian" stuff.

What we have is a different understanding of the Godhead- that's all.

You're right. We simply have a difference in doctrine, teaching and understanding of the Godhead. Yup, that's all. And that's the crux of what defines who Christ is, and the rest follows.

The teachings that I am aware of are biblical. And while they may look to Joseph Smith as a prophet and learn from him about Christ, don't a lot of Christians do the same in other ways like Charles Stanley, Max Lucado, Rick Warren (shudder), C.S. Lewis, Tozer, the list goes on and on. And those are just the more modern ones, you have Augustine, and many others that the RCC considers "saints" that are looked to for guidance and assistance in developing a greater understanding of the words of the Bible. And I am sorry to say, that a lot of modern Churches, while I may not go so far as to call them apostate, have certainly strayed from Biblical Christianity, especially with the entire mega-church, feel good, "Christianity" that is floating around these days. I suppose being called "Christian" isn't really the most important thing, but being Christlike is.

So you can find that Lucifer was Jesus' brother, in the bible? That God was once a man?

I do wish you the best on your journey. But, no Christians don't look at teachers like Stanley or Lucado as prophets. Not at all. Christians follow Christ alone. Teachers like Stanley et al are simply that, teachers. IF they stray from biblical teaching, they are in error, just like Joseph Smith was and is.

And who's do you follow?

Augustine?

The Nicene Creed?

Aquinas?

Luther?

Calvin?

Zwingli?

Knox?

Wesley?

Rick Warren?

The Pastor on the corner?

I follow Christ as taught by Paul, Luke, John, James, Matthew, Mark and Jude.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 26 February 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

Hughes

One could argue you follow the teachings of Constantine as he (a pagan) directed the different sects of Christianity in Nicea.

Does that make you less Christian? Or do you seek exclusivity as a follower of Constantines teachings?

Sorry the comparison isn't worth responding to. Unless you can point to Constantine's teachings.

Allow me to translate for the audience.....

"He has no response"

[Jeff K.]

I do wish you the best on your journey. But, no Christians don't look at teachers like Stanley or Lucado as prophets. Not at all. Christians follow Christ alone. Teachers like Stanley et al are simply that, teachers. IF they stray from biblical teaching, they are in error, just like Joseph Smith was and is.

In other words those you follow, and their philosophies have even less authority.

I am always amused by people who think the scriptures and philosophies they recieve were a nice clean package left by Christ just before he left. In fact we know of several different perspectives by Christian leaders (that include things like three distinct persons in the Godhead) and several other points of view. Or how when not Catholic, or Greek Orthodox, they in effect belong to a church that has broken away from the roots of Christianity that Christ placed before us. Based on their stance one could argue they are anti Christian by belonging to a break away sect that has rejected Christ's church for one started by a man.... Martin Luther, Calvin or whomever, that emphasized their philosophy over the established church.

Funny how these people never apply the same standard to themselves, the standard they apply to those they dislike. Not very Christlike, nor surprising.

[coolrok7]

Ed, your entire opening statement which I had saved before you edited it (post # 39):

Creedal, Protestant Christians define orthodox as that which is older and creedal. They define heresy as that which is newer, which contradicts their creeds. I assure you that even if you say Mormonism is not original Christianity, certainly your creeds are not either, because they didn't exist at the time of ancient Christianity. So, from your standpoint, that which is new is a heresy, Protestantism was once a heresy to the Orthodoxy of Catholicism, as was the priesthood of all believers. Heresy is in the subjective eye of him who regards himself as orthodox. A return to the ancient order in a new incarnation of that order would certainly be styled heretical by an orthodoxy which was derailed from its original designs and doctrines and which lost its authority. Yours is as much a heresy to those who look upon it as a heresy, as you do to Mormonism. That is a bit of a double standard, that because your heresy is older that it is not a heresy just the same from a Catholic point of view. You say you want to speak the truth in love. Well, if you grant unto us that we are Christian, then that is nice. But the definition of heresy, I assure you, is a subjective thing from the standpoint of those that wish to point the finger at that which they do not agree, just as much as telling someone they aren't Christian because they aren't in your club. All this reduces to is a difference in semantics. Now you become he who defines that which is heresy and that which is not, and exclude us from the exclusivist club by just merely using a different term now. Yet you are still guilty of the same thing.

Roman Catholicism is not the author of the creeds. A lot of the

[Bikeemikey]

Since when is Christianity decided by a majority vote? It isn't. Christ did not take a poll.

Latter Day Saints are in something of a conundrum. We want to be liked for our works and what we do. More importantly we want to be respected and acknowledged. Such is human nature, to avoid contention and seek harmony. Unfortunately in the world there are many unchristlike elements intertwined with Christianity (as there have been since the days of Judas Iscariot) and so we find ourselves struggling to define it so that the Unchristlike elements are forced to accept us into Christianity.

I sometimes think we worry too much about what the unchristlike elements think, and not enough of what Christ thinks.

I follow Christ, I am a Christian, I follow his commandments, and His example. I also hold the priesthood and am blessed with the knowledge that prophets lead this church. Prophets who expect me to communicate directly with God, even as they do so that I do not abrogate my responsibility to God and allow others to define the doctrine. These things make me a Christian, and they make me a Saint, and a Mormon. Some can hate me because we don't see things exactly equally or in the precise same way, but we Mormons try to to good, and we try mightily to follow Christ. Others can accept me as someone who is trying their best like so many fellow Mormons, to follow Christ. And some will hate us regardless of what we try to do, rather they judge us by what they think we believe.

Just remember this, when you disdain, or hate, or falsely accuse, you reject God and accept Satan. Try to remember that when you call yourself Christian.

Affiliation with Christianity is decided in the same way affiliation with most groups is decided.

There is a central core that tries its best to protect certain boundaries and limit new comers who they feel don't fit.

However, as no one actually owns the term this is a very difficult battle and one impossible to be entirely successful at, whether for LDS trying to be included or orthodox Christians trying to exclude us.

Just look at the how we as the LDS community repsond to break off polygamous churches that still try to claim affiliation with the main LDS faith. (of course this is a slightly different argument as the name of our church is actually registered and trademarked etc to directly using it is illegal. Christianity as a term is broad based and encompassing of many churches.)

The fact remains we don't let people call themselves LDS or Mormon just because they share a belief in the Book of Mormon, the role of Christ, the restoration of the Priesthood, the Prophet Joseph Smith etc.

The term Christianity is being defended against Mormon inclusion by religious organizations and churches that have been around a lot longer than the LDS faith and feel they have a greater right to define it.

Do I agree with them on their right to define the term, absolutely not. If a Mormon wants to consider themselves Christian because they believe in Christ so be it.

However, i object to mormons being called Christian in as far as being Christian in the current conception of the term presupposes of the group of person so labelled a lot more than simply a belief in Christ. The greater inference regarding our religious beliefs once we fully claim to be Christian will no longer accurately reflect the true tenants and core of our Theological position and the restored teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.

I think that we as a faith stand to lose more by being included under the umbrella of christian than we stand to gain by being included.

So perhaps the better question is what do we stand to gain by being considered christian?

[Jeff K.]

Affiliation with Christianity is decided in the same way affiliation with most groups is decided.

There is a central core that tries its best to protect certain boundaries and limit new comers who they feel don't fit.

So the decision of Chrisianity has nothing to do with Christ really, it is an "affiliation" like a frat house and some people simply don't seem to fit. Well phi kappa episolon me with a bag of chips....

The "we have to like you for you to be Chrisian" bothers me somewhat, it is reminescent of the attitude taken by various sects of Jews towards those they felt were not applicable to their version. Many evangelicals and other churches will tell you that Catholics are not Christian either. In other words, if you don't like them, don't call them Christian.

Just look at the how we as the LDS community repsond to break off polygamous churches that still try to claim affiliation with the main LDS faith. (of course this is a slightly different argument as the name of our church is actually registered and trademarked etc to directly using it is illegal. Christianity as a term is broad based and encompassing of many churches.)

The fact remains we don't let people call themselves LDS or Mormon just because they share a belief in the Book of Mormon, the role of Christ, the restoration of the Priesthood, the Prophet Joseph Smith etc.

I suppose one might argue the apple and oranges with the idea that followers of Christ all those who claim to follow Christ being "Christians" is a generalized term (and yes hard to define) whereas within such a generalized group you have subgroups. But I do concede that subgroups do not easily lend their name to other subgroups. One supposes the question has to be asked. Before you exclude someone, you should define what excludes one from the organization. Why aren't Catholics Christians? Specifically what makes a Christian and why is someone else not one?

In this sense I believe we are much more lucid as Mormons in defining what it means to be a Latter-Day Saint, something that clearly defines differences that exist with break away churches.

However, i object to mormons being called Christian in as far as being Christian in the current conception of the term presupposes of the group of person so labelled a lot more than simply a belief in Christ. The greater inference regarding our religious beliefs once we fully claim to be Christian will no longer accurately reflect the true tenants and core of our Theological position and the restored teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.

I am of a different mind regarding that. I believe and embrace other religions that seek to follow Christ even as they and we differ on some theological ground work. It helps keep the mind clear that all we seek to do is to become closer to Christ. Not being a Christian acts as an obstacle to that goal. In my view.

[Vance]

Of course not. There is only one "Christ"- "The Annointed One"- Jesus the Messiah, Yahweh of the Old Testament. We agree about all that- so how is he a "different Christ?" The notion is absurd.

You mean like he had an evil twin or something? LOL!

But if you can explain the Trinity to me without Greek philosophy we might have something to talk about.

Remember you can't use "nature" "essence" or "substance". None of those words can be explained without reference to each other or to themselves, and really cannot be defined.

And certainly none of that "Homoousian" stuff.What we have is a different understanding of the Godhead- that's all.

I would like to see this as well.

I noticed that Hughes has AVOIDED this challenge. I wonder why he would avoid such an opportunity.

[Vance]

duplicate.

[Hughes]

I would like to see this as well.

I noticed that Hughes has AVOIDED this challenge. I wonder why he would avoid such an opprotunity.

So you're ignoring me?

His challenge is a different topic for a different thread.

[Bikeemikey]

So the decision of Chrisianity has nothing to do with Christ really, it is an "affiliation" like a frat house and some people simply don't seem to fit. Well phi kappa episolon me with a bag of chips....

The "we have to like you for you to be Chrisian" bothers me somewhat, it is reminescent of the attitude taken by various sects of Jews towards those they felt were not applicable to their version. Many evangelicals and other churches will tell you that Catholics are not Christian either. In other words, if you don't like them, don't call them Christian.

The whole thing feels a look to the cool group in high school. I agree that this belittles the idea of Christianity, but really most objections to us being Christian really do come down to "we don't like your faith".

[Vance]

So you're ignoring me?

His challenge is a different topic for a different thread.

I ignore you, unless I am really bored.

In a pinch, ANY excuse will do.

I suppose that you can't be the one to start the thread, ay?

[Hughes]

In essence, the reason the LDS aren't considered Christian is because of their teachings. Main/core teachings are at variance with the rest of christian churches.

Christ isn't the brother of Lucifer for example. God wasn't once a man, another example. The vary basis of Mormonism, that the gospel had to be restored. These are examples of huge doctrinal differences. In essence, Mormon's are following a different Christ.

The difference is doctrinal.

[Lareliw]

Where in the scriptures does it point to God once being a man? I still do not and cannot believe that. Many other of the LDS scriptures that I have been reading (admittedly I still have a LOT left to study and learn and read) actually make a lot of sense to me, but I get nothing but a negative feeling from this idea.

The difference is doctrinal.

[TAO]

Where in the scriptures does it point to God once being a man? I still do not and cannot believe that. Many other of the LDS scriptures that I have been reading (admittedly I still have a LOT left to study and learn and read) actually make a lot of sense to me, but I get nothing but a negative feeling from this idea.

Lariel... was not Christ a man... and is he not a God now?

In terms of Father... that is not mentioned in the scriptures... it is just a conclusion that can come from understanding exaltation. I don't think Father wants us to really worry about that too much anyways.

[Lareliw]

Jesus Christ was a man, but he was also perfect and sinless. He was God and man in the same moment. However, I think he was unique in that he was sent by our Father to take our sins upon himself. The reason that I "worry" about it is because I have been seriously contemplating attending an LDS church, and my husband is VERY VERY against it. Before I decide anything, I need to make ABSOLUTELY certain that I am in agreement because it will cause dissention in my house.

Lariel... was not Christ a man... and is he not a God now?

In terms of Father... that is not mentioned in the scriptures... it is just a conclusion that can come from understanding exaltation. I don't think Father wants us to really worry about that too much anyways.

[TAO]

Jesus Christ was a man, but he was also perfect and sinless. He was God and man in the same moment. However, I think he was unique in that he was sent by our Father to take our sins upon himself. The reason that I "worry" about it is because I have been seriously contemplating attending an LDS church, and my husband is VERY VERY against it. Before I decide anything, I need to make ABSOLUTELY certain that I am in agreement because it will cause dissention in my house.

I understand... and I don't want to pressure you or anything =).

Hmmm... ok... where to begin... I think with this one:

1 John 3:2

Beloved, now are we the ^asons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall ^bappear, we shall be ^clike him; for we shall ^dsee him as he is.

We are to be like Christ... perfect, and sinless, and happy as he is. We sinned... and yet because of Christ's sacrifice, we can grow up to be like him. We are children of our Heavenly Father... and by accepting Christ's sacrifice, we become his children as well. And as we grow, and learn - eventually, we will grow to be like them... for we will see them as they are.

So what is the purpose God had in sending us down to Earth? It's stated in Moses 1:39

For behold, this is my ^awork and my ^bglory

[Vance]

Jesus Christ was a man, but he was also perfect and sinless. He was God and man in the same moment.

This is not a problem for Mormons, BUT it is for Creedal Christians.

IF (as Creedal Christians say) God is TOTALLY different from man (creator vs creature), then it is IMPOSSIBLE for Christ two have both natures. You just can't logically get there.

However, I think he was unique in that he was sent by our Father to take our sins upon himself.

This separates Christ distinctly from the Father. One sends, the other is sent.

The reason that I "worry" about it is because I have been seriously contemplating attending an LDS church, and my husband is VERY VERY against it.

Do you really mean "attend" or do you mean "join"?

[Lareliw]

No, I really mean attend, and that would lead to joining eventually would be my understanding. And not everything is logical within human understanding, faith is the evidence of things not seen after all

You'd have to understand my home situation with my husband to understand why I mean attend. He is very against it, he knows that I am seeking and investigating and studying, but he does not want me involved. He actually sent missionaries away from our door and told them not to return. It has been difficult on that front

This is not a problem for Mormons, BUT it is for Creedal Christians.

IF (as Creedal Christians say) God is TOTALLY different from man (creator vs creature), then it is IMPOSSIBLE for Christ two have both natures. You just can't logically get there.

This separates Christ distinctly from the Father. One sends, the other is sent.

Do you really mean "attend" or do you mean "join"?

[Lareliw]

Still have problem with Heavenly Parents. I just do not see anything in scripture and have not received any kind of confirmation through prayer regarding a heavenly mother of any kind, nor sort of our existence being brought about through some type of procreation. And I agree that we are to be like Christ, and I believe that we will be once we are resurrected into eternal glory

I understand... and I don't want to pressure you or anything =).

Hmmm... ok... where to begin... I think with this one:

We are to be like Christ... perfect, and sinless, and happy as he is. We sinned... and yet because of Christ's sacrifice, we can grow up to be like him. We are children of our Heavenly Father... and by accepting Christ's sacrifice, we become his children as well. And as we grow, and learn - eventually, we will grow to be like them... for we will see them as they are.

So what is the purpose God had in sending us down to Earth? It's stated in Moses 1:39

So we were sent here, to become like God... immortal... and having eternal life. Not to become partially like him - but to become as he is. Again, the children analogy - we are his children, growing up to be like him.

Now I ask... did our parents have parents? Surely they did. So the question then becomes, did our Heavenly Parents have parents? And are we destined to become righteous parents as they are right now?

That is the very question to think on... God is our Father, but why did he send us here; not just to have an end, but for an eternal purpose. If it ends at heaven or hell, what was the point of coming here anyways, but if it ends in us doing what God is so that happiness may come to others - now that is a worthwhile purpose. A purpose to live for, and to seek after. To help others... to take them into your family, and help them, that's what it's always been about =).

Truly - that is know how my God loves me - he has sent me through these great trials, so I can have the joy he has, and then, give it to other people, making life complete, and peace, happy.

-----

As the song says - to serve is a pleasure, a joy beyond measure, a blessing of duty, and love =).

[TAO]

Still have problem with Heavenly Parents. I just do not see anything in scripture and have not received any kind of

ok... but you should probably wait for this:

confirmation through prayer regarding a heavenly mother of any kind

BTW... you won't find her in scriptures... she's rather... sacred. If she was voiced around too much, there'd be some bad jokes going around... and if I were God, I wouldn't be rather patient with them if ya' know what I mean =). As of such, I wouldn't expect Heavenly Fater to give much of an answer on her... the most I have is that she is very meek and graceful. It will be something you will have to be patient with.

nor sort of our existence being brought about through some type of procreation.

To tell you the truth, I don't know if there will be procreation or not. I can show scriptures in the D&C that support procreation, but it may not be that way. It has not been stated directly.

And I agree that we are to be like Christ, and I believe that we will be once we are resurrected into eternal glory

Yah, but I am asking how is this any different than being like Father, if ya know what I mean? Actually... hehe... I'm not using all these rhetorics to make you answer, I'm using them to help you think.

Don't stress if it is a bit too much right now... you were right, you are going after the complex stuff very quickly... and it can be ovewhelming. Give yourself some time, and keep on praying, stay close to God and things will be all right =D.

[mfbukowski]

I follow Christ as taught by Paul, Luke, John, James, Matthew, Mark and Jude.

Uh huh.

I really want to see a quote from any one of the above even mentioning the word "Trinity" or anything like it.

These people were Christians not Greek philosophers.

Another thread for this topic?

You are just avoiding the issue. This topic is about "another Christ"- which is a ludicrous notion on its face- essentially because we don't believe in a pagan "Trinity" added 300 years or more after those you quote above even lived.

The central topic of this thread is in fact what you call the "trinity"- that is the only way we could even be imagined to worship "another Christ"