Are Mormons Really Christian?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Because there is no answer to the truth.

The Trinity came from Greek philosophy. That is a fact. There is no possible refutation of it. It is nowhere in the bible; those who preach it and insist on biblical doctrine are in contradiction.

There is no possible answer to it.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Then don't do it.

You will both eventually learn the truth anyway, and you won't be any worse off for saving your marriage now.

[Lareliw]

Our marriage is in no danger from it. He has just made his opinions quite clearly known. If God told you something, and your husband said the opposite, which would you follow?

Then don't do it.

You will both eventually learn the truth anyway, and you won't be any worse off for saving your marriage now.

[Lareliw]

Haha, well I have always found the complex things the most insightful! The difference between us and our Heavenly Father, as I can see it right now, would be that we are resurrected into eternal glory, whereas since I believe He has always been, He IS eternal glory. Eternal glory is made such by His presence. I think. I just woke up Forgive me for my disjointedness!

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

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.

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.

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.

[Hughes]

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"

Is the trinity central to this thread? I don't think so. It's a huge topic, it would take over the thread.

Because there is no answer to the truth.

The Trinity came from Greek philosophy. That is a fact. There is no possible refutation of it. It is nowhere in the bible; those who preach it and insist on biblical doctrine are in contradiction.

There is no possible answer to it.

Let's put it this way. The LDS faith isn't mainstream, nor is it orthodox Christianity, on a doctrinal level (or any other for that matter).

The trinity is an orthodox christian doctrine.

The LDS disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity (among others)

The LDS faith isn't orthodox christianity.

[Jeff K.]

In other words, the club chooses Constantines choice in Nicene and we aren't the popular kids so the club rejects us. So do you followers of Constantine by popular vote decide orthodoxy or does God?

Oh wait, by your own admission there is no one in authority to turn to, so really, it remains a speculative fraternity, not a doctrinal establishment.

[blueadept]

In other words, the club chooses Constantines choice in Nicene and we aren't the popular kids so the club rejects us. So do you followers of Constantine by popular vote decide orthodoxy or does God?

Oh wait, by your own admission there is no one in authority to turn to, so really, it remains a speculative fraternity, not a doctrinal establishment.

I'm confused which isn't surprising... The disagreement at the Council of Nicea was between Arianism vs the establishment of the Nicene Creed, I'm not under the opinion that LDS relate to either one of those from my experience. So losing the popular vote or not, did it matter from the LDS POV?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Don't feel overly inclined to answer the OP. It was a pathetic attempt at a shock tactic to draw readership.

My own thoughts were spurred by a discussion somewhere else on the definition of the term "atheist". IMO there is a lot of shift in ground on that term over the years... but I imagine the same could be said for other terms... back in the day, a pirates "booty" had a different connotation and being "gay" was a good thing in everyone's perception.

I think if we take the most basic definition for Christian.

The first definition that popped up on Google

Most of us might agree on the unbolded part. However many would take issue on exactly what the bolded part meant.

To tell you the truth, I dunno who actually comes up with "definitions". I don't know what common criteria are required to formulate them.

Most people don't argue about what is or isn't "red", "7" or "heartburn". However, there is a bit of a stir over "Christian".

Rather than have LDS defend their position, in that they believe they are Christians. I would ask of LDS and anyone else who want's to participate in this rather difficult question.

Who isn't a Christian?

I spoke in Church Sunday

[mfbukowski]

Before I decide anything, I need to make ABSOLUTELY certain that I am in agreement because it will cause dissention in my house.

Our marriage is in no danger from it. He has just made his opinions quite clearly known. If God told you something, and your husband said the opposite, which would you follow?

You are obviously conflicted on this matter- and only you can make the decision. You have a lot of praying to do!!

[mfbukowski]

Is the trinity central to this thread? I don't think so. It's a huge topic, it would take over the thread.

Let's put it this way. The LDS faith isn't mainstream, nor is it orthodox Christianity, on a doctrinal level (or any other for that matter).

The trinity is an orthodox christian doctrine.

The LDS disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity (among others)

The LDS faith isn't orthodox christianity.

The trinity is Greek philosophy and you aren't facing the facts.

It is non-biblical

In fact, our understanding of the council of gods IS biblical and ultimately that is the biblical basis for our doctrine of the Godhead. (the ultimate basis being latter-day revelation- but our view squares perfectly with the VERY biblical notion of the council of the gods)

I mean if all you want to do is say "Mormons don't believe orthodox Christianity" all day- just keep repeating it, because that is all you are doing.

It is a very unimpressive way to argue, let me tell you.

[Hughes]

I spoke in Church Sunday

[Mudcat]

Because there is no answer to the truth.

The Trinity came from Greek philosophy. That is a fact. There is no possible refutation of it. It is nowhere in the bible; those who preach it and insist on biblical doctrine are in contradiction.

There is no possible answer to it.

Though this seems more of a hash out between Hughes vs. Bukowski & Vance. Thought I would comment.

I do think that the concept of the Trinity seems to me to be the clearest interpretation of the nature of God.. at least in what part of His nature is revealed in the Bible.

The NT and OT alike both point to God as being unfathomable and mysterious to a degree.. yet the Bible seems to be clear that there is one God. The Trinity, seems the best of harmonizing the divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirt while equally maintaining the these three are one God.

If the Trinity is doctrinal, I would say it is so because that seems to be best understanding of it. Other concepts like the LDS Godhead or Modalism are less clear understandings given the context of the Bible in and of itself.

I don't disagree that Greek philosophy likely has some attachment to how many Christians understand things. Christianity was born at the height of the Roman Empire. This makes sense to me.

Is the trinity central to this thread? I don't think so. It's a huge topic, it would take over the thread.

I agree it's off topic, but the general impetus of the thread seems to have lost steam. If you guys wanna do a Trinity thread, that is fine.... I'll try to play ball to.

If not, feel free to continue the topic here.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Rivers]

I think the indication for whether one is a Christian or not is how he/she treats people. Under this definition, people of all beliefs could be considered Christian.

[ChristKnight]

Is the trinity central to this thread? I don't think so. It's a huge topic, it would take over the thread.

The problem is that many traditional Christians use the Trinity as the standard for whether a church/individual can be considered Christian. It is the LDS rejection of the Trinity doctrine that causes many critics to label the LDS faith as non-Christian.

[coolrok7]

I

[Vance]

This is the first of 6 videos of Blake Ostlers 2005 FAIR conference presentation.

In this series he exposes the fallacy of the fundamental assumptions of the doctrine of the trinity of the council of Nicea.

It is NOT based on the Bible.

[Vance]

The issue was decided by the attendees themselves.

Yes, and not based on the Bible.

It wasn

[mfbukowski]

I'm confused which isn't surprising... The disagreement at the Council of Nicea was between Arianism vs the establishment of the Nicene Creed, I'm not under the opinion that LDS relate to either one of those from my experience. So losing the popular vote or not, did it matter from the LDS POV?

That great bastion of theological wisdom, Wikipedia, says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

(Underlining added)

Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250

[mfbukowski]

I was attempting to focus the discussion on the bigger issue. The issue of the Trinity and it's origins aren't the bigger issue.

Baloney.

It is the only issue.

You think we are NOT "Christian" precisely because of the doctrine of the Trinity. THAT is the difference. It is abundantly clear that you are avoiding the issue now for several posts.

Why don't you just refute my position then quickly and get on to other things? Because you cannot and you know it.

[mfbukowski]

Though this seems more of a hash out between Hughes vs. Bukowski & Vance. Thought I would comment.

I do think that the concept of the Trinity seems to me to be the clearest interpretation of the nature of God.. at least in what part of His nature is revealed in the Bible.

The NT and OT alike both point to God as being unfathomable and mysterious to a degree.. yet the Bible seems to be clear that there is one God. The Trinity, seems the best of harmonizing the divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirt while equally maintaining the these three are one God.

If the Trinity is doctrinal, I would say it is so because that seems to be best understanding of it. Other concepts like the LDS Godhead or Modalism are less clear understandings given the context of the Bible in and of itself.

I don't disagree that Greek philosophy likely has some attachment to how many Christians understand things. Christianity was born at the height of the Roman Empire. This makes sense to me.

I agree it's off topic, but the general impetus of the thread seems to have lost steam. If you guys wanna do a Trinity thread, that is fine.... I'll try to play ball to.

If not, feel free to continue the topic here.

Regards,

Mudcat

I agree that the trinity makes the most sense that can be made of the attempt to make three persons one person, but of course I would say that the attempt itself makes no sense.

It seems my good buddy Mudcat also believes that this is a tangent so I will drop it. It is not going anywhere anyway, and there is no need for another of the numerous numerous threads we have had on the trinity.

But if we want to , I will persist- I can go either way and will yield to the OP and my buddy the Mudster!- whatever you want, Sir!!

[Hughes]

The problem is that many traditional Christians use the Trinity as the standard for whether a church/individual can be considered Christian. It is the LDS rejection of the Trinity doctrine that causes many critics to label the LDS faith as non-Christian.

And that may be, but it's not the only doctrinal issue that causes the LDS faith to be unorthodox.

Baloney.

It is the only issue.

You think we are NOT "Christian" precisely because of the doctrine of the Trinity. THAT is the difference. It is abundantly clear that you are avoiding the issue now for several posts.

Why don't you just refute my position then quickly and get on to other things? Because you cannot and you know it.

It obviously isn't the *only* issue, as I raised the issue of Jesus' supposed brother Lucifer, which you haven't responded to.

Further, it's always annoying when people think they know what I think. Have I said the LDS are not Christian precisely because of their rejection of the Trinity? no. I've said it's based on Doctrine as a whole.

LDS reject orthodox doctrine, therefore they aren't orthodox Christians. You disagree?

[mfbukowski]

And that may be, but it's not the only doctrinal issue that causes the LDS faith to be unorthodox.

It obviously isn't the *only* issue, as I raised the issue of Jesus' supposed brother Lucifer, which you haven't responded to.

Further, it's always annoying when people think they know what I think. Have I said the LDS are not Christian precisely because of their rejection of the Trinity? no. I've said it's based on Doctrine as a whole.

LDS reject orthodox doctrine, therefore they aren't orthodox Christians. You disagree?

If I define the moon as "made of green cheese" then the moon is "by definition" made of green cheese (based on my definition). You disagree?

What is being disputed is the definition of "orthodox". I am certainly not Greek Orthodox either, and if you want to carry this out to it's silly extreme playing with definitions, you are not "orthodox" either in that sense, I would suspect. That is the caliber of argument you are making. You define orthodox your way and then say we are not orthodox. Who cares?

So what's your point?

And as far as Jesus and Lucifer being brothers, it's a silly non-point that all anti-Mormons make.

Since we are all SPIRIT sons and daughters of our Father, we are ALL brothers and sisters. By making the point that they are brothers, all you are saying is that they both have spirits.

Congratulations for the great insight.

[Pahoran]

The question of who is a Christian must wait until the question of what is a Christian is settled.

And the first point about this is that it is not a question of theology, but of linguistics.

Those who want to make it a question of theology are quite deliberately, and dishonestly, trying to privilege their own theology, and make it the yardstick for determining Christianity. By this bit of manipulation, everyone else is more or less "Christian" to the extent that their theology resembles that of the self-appointed gatekeeper.

The dishonesty of this ploy cannot be overstated, but I have no interest in canvassing it here. I simply point out that the question has been examined, and settled, in Offenders for a Word by our very own Dan Peterson.

That is the crux of the question. Is Mormonism based on the bible (as christians base their beliefs on, or is Mormonism based on something else entirely?

This is nonsense. Peter and James never laid eyes on a bound Bible such as Hughes and his fellow-Protestants mine their facile little prooftexts from. They never saw most of the books that make up our New Testament. Were they Christians?

If the Christ of mormonism has a brother called Lucifer, and the Christ of the Bible does not, then how could the Mormon Christ be the same as the Biblical Christ?

Hughes probably thought he was being tremendously clever by trotting out this tired old chestnut. The fact is that to have two different ideas about who belongs in a given person's family is not to talk about two different people. Hughes' ploy is a typically dishonest word game with no legitimacy as an argument.

For example, if you think that Mormons are Christians, yet still want to hold to an unorthodox view of doctrine, then Mormons aren't Christians in the sense that everyone has used the term in the past.

He said, in complete definance of the facts.

Unfortunately, Hughes, practically nobody has, in the past, used the term "Christian" to be a synonym for "small-minded, exclusivist North American Protestant." I suggest you read the book linked above. It will be an education for you.

I only hope you survive the shock.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that Mormons are Christians because they are giving up their unorthodox views, then there's no argument there.

We continue to reject the false notion that the Bible-a-bible-a-bible is all there is, and all "true Christians"[TM] should genuflect before it.

We continue to affirm that God speaks through prophets in our day.

We continue to reject the false notion, which arose out of a view of scripture that was thoroughly corrupted by hellenistic philosophy, of the ontological trinity.

We continue to hold our thoroughly scriptural belief in Exaltation.

We continue to reject the false belief that God, acting in full and perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of His actions, knowingly and freely chose to create Satan; which false belief makes God personally and actually responsible for evil in the world.

We continue to hold our belief in the premortal existence of all spirit beings, including those currently living on earth as mortal humans.

But don't worry, Hughes. Even though you are wrong about all these beliefs, we won't object when you call yourself a Christian.

But if you think we are giving up these beliefs, you are living in Fantasyland.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mudcat]

I agree that the trinity makes the most sense that can be made of the attempt to make three persons one person, but of course I would say that the attempt itself makes no sense.

It seems my good buddy Mudcat also believes that this is a tangent so I will drop it. It is not going anywhere anyway, and there is no need for another of the numerous numerous threads we have had on the trinity.

But if we want to , I will persist- I can go either way and will yield to the OP and my buddy the Mudster!- whatever you want, Sir!!

No need to yield on my account.

You have the conn Mr. Bukowski!

I suppose it's discussion worthy on this thread and I would agree their are numerous existing Trinity threads that have taken place on the forum, no use getting another started up.

I don't have much time this afternoon. But I will try to come back this evening and at least explain why I don't think trying to understand One God in three persons as utterly nonsensical.

[Hughes]

If I define the moon as "made of green cheese" then the moon is "by definition" made of green cheese (based on my definition). You disagree?

What is being disputed is the definition of "orthodox". I am certainly not Greek Orthodox either, and if you want to carry this out to it's silly extreme playing with definitions, you are not "orthodox" either in that sense, I would suspect. That is the caliber of argument you are making. You define orthodox your way and then say we are not orthodox. Who cares?

So what's your point?

And as far as Jesus and Lucifer being brothers, it's a silly non-point that all anti-Mormons make.

Since we are all SPIRIT sons and daughters of our Father, we are ALL brothers and sisters. By making the point that they are brothers, all you are saying is that they both have spirits.

Congratulations for the great insight.

You go down the line of what is Orthodox or not, and the LDS faith is not. You disagree?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Creeds

Jesus Christ

Death and resurrection of Jesus

Salvation

Trinity

Scriptures