The Catholic Herald....Mormons Are Not Christian

[spartacus]

I believe that catholic is also a trademark as is Lutheran etc. There needs to be some clarification of what is officially mormon or lds. Or else, there would be a lot of confusion. What was your point?

THAT - "or else there would be a lot of confusion" - is EXACTLY my (overall) point (see "my response" post). Thanks for agreeing with me.

[spartacus]

Why Me,

I'm glad you aren't accusing me of saying that LDS are not Christian anymore in your posts. But the "what does this have to do with the OP" is getting a bit tired. Discussion boards are conversations, they start with a topic, they go into details, veer a bit, BUT hopefully come back to the original topic with a new perspective and depth of understanding.

I would appreciate it if you would read my comments with more charity and semblance of wanting to do anything CONVERSATIONAL besides just "you calling us not christian" or "what does that have to do with the periodical" accusations.

Note to mods: I mean this as a request on behavior, not a "telling" how to behave per board guidelines (let me know if I'm splitting hairs).

[spartacus]

This has nothing to do with it at all. It has to do with the 21st century and how some groups still make claims that the lds are not christian. What did catholic leaders say about luther at the time of luther? No very pleasant, for sure. But all has been forgotten.

Since the 20th century was only a little over 12 years ago, I think it is a valid source for recognizing influences on anyone over the age of 20 making criticisms of the LDS church based on what they heard the LDS church say about their people.

[spartacus]

I can actually be a christian and still be an atheist. If I claim to be a follower of Christ's message of love without claiming that he was divine, I would still be a christian as a follower of Christ's message. We need to remember that the word christian came from being a follower of a man who lived on this earth centuries ago.

Who can claim that I am not a christian if I follow Christ?

See, this might be a nice little alcove to explore in this thread. Because the term "christian" was originally applied to people who did not JUST follow Christ's message of love, but worshipped Him ~"as to a god"~. So, by the original definition/application of the term, atheists could not be considered Christian - nor would they want to be.

And this is a second good point, which reinforces my "my response" post #45- atheists know that "christians" are not just followers of the way of love; they are theists. So atheists would not want to equate themselves in any way with an example of their opposite - theists. At least, I have never heard an atheist say anything implying this possibility at all. At best they say "Jesus was a good man/teacher (but didn't teach anything not taught by someone else before him)" or, less than best, "Jesus was crazy."

[Storm Rider]

See, this might be a nice little alcove to explore in this thread. Because the term "christian" was originally applied to people who did not JUST follow Christ's message of love, but worshipped Him ~"as to a god"~. So, by the original definition/application of the term, atheists could not be considered Christian - nor would they want to be.

And this is a second good point, which reinforces my "my response" post #45- atheists know that "christians" are not just followers of the way of love; they are theists. So atheists would not want to equate themselves in any way with an example of their opposite - theists. At least, I have never heard an atheist say anything implying this possibility at all. At best they say "Jesus was a good man/teacher (but didn't teach anything not taught by someone else before him)" or, less than best, "Jesus was crazy."

Alas, I don't think you are correct. The divinity of Jesus was a debated issue up until the 4th century. Followers of Jesus were followers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

[why me]

Since the 20th century was only a little over 12 years ago, I think it is a valid source for recognizing influences on anyone over the age of 20 making criticisms of the LDS church based on what they heard the LDS church say about their people.

And yet the 21st century has seen much change in people's thought patterns on how they view religion and science. Here is what I know: Certain catholic apologists to protect their flock will make a statement that mormons are not christian. It is natural for them to do so regardless if this has been refuted. It still works. However, the majority of catholics could care less and have no time to debate such useless statements. However, I can assure that if mormon apologists or mormon owned newspapers would publish on article entitled that Catholics are not Christian the reaction would be harsh and fierce toward the lds church. Fortunately, this does not happen in the lds church. Now people can have opinions...but officially, the mormon chruch does not nitpick who is christian and who is not or what christian church is christian and what christian churc isn't.

Edited April 15, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Why Me,

I'm glad you aren't accusing me of saying that LDS are not Christian anymore in your posts. But the "what does this have to do with the OP" is getting a bit tired. Discussion boards are conversations, they start with a topic, they go into details, veer a bit, BUT hopefully come back to the original topic with a new perspective and depth of understanding.

Note to mods: I mean this as a request on behavior, not a "telling" how to behave per board guidelines (let me know if I'm splitting hairs).

I never accused you of saying that mormons are not christian unless you wrote the article linked. However, a discussion thread needs to stay on topic. People chose this thread to read because of its title. Mods are at times tellling posters to stay on topic or start another thread.

[why me]

THAT - "or else there would be a lot of confusion" - is EXACTLY my (overall) point (see "my response" post). Thanks for agreeing with me.

There was a discussion over on a different board about whether their name should be protected. I said yes their name should be protected because anyone can use their name for a picnic, protest, or meeting. And that would not be good for the owners of the board or for the members. A name needs protection from abuse.

[why me]

Why Me,

I would appreciate it if you would read my comments with more charity and semblance of wanting to do anything CONVERSATIONAL besides just "you calling us not christian" or "what does that have to do with the periodical" accusations.

I have read your comments and responded accordingly. Here is what is missing about the article linked: A catholic supported organization has the nerve to determine who or what is a christian based on their own definitions. However, what is overlooked is that mormons consider themselves to be christian. No church or church sponsored organization has the right to claim that they are not christian. Many churches have doctrinal disagreements and yet are considered christian. Go back in time, we have the same name calling and abuse going on between the catholic and protestant churches over such issues as what or who is a christian and many were tortured and killed because of it. The catholics need to look into their own history and how such stances do not create love within the christian community.

[why me]

I just think that it is strange that a catholic newspaper would make such an antimormon statement by claiming that the lds church is not christian. I do not think that it promotes christian love. Fortunately, most catholics do not seem to support such an extreme position.

Edited April 15, 2012 by why me

[Deborah]

What an offensive piece of lies. It is one thing to say Mormons believe in a different Christ but quite another to say we don't believe in him at all or his divinity. The article claims that the beliefs of the church are

"demonstrably false" but he can't go into that in this article and just states that there is no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, which of course is not true depending on what you are looking for.

This author also states "I fully recognise that Mormons themselves live exemplary lives. I have no quarrel with the practice of the Mormonism..." My question is how does such an false relgion as he presents have such good fruits as people who live exemplary lives. I suppose we will see much more of this tripe as the political process continues. How sad that they can't at least publish an article that doesn't state as fact that which is nothing but the author's misguided opinion.

[ChristKnight]

Have you checked out the Catholic boards where some of the Catholics were former LDS? It may not be a anti-Mormon ministry but it comes close IMO.

I agree. I still browse the main one at times, and it's really sad. When certain ex-Mormons post there, it reminds me of CARM, and they don't even see that. Sadly I thought this even when I was still an active and believing Catholic posting there. I couldn't imagine posting there now.

[blueadept]

I agree. I still browse the main one at times, and it's really sad. When certain ex-Mormons post there, it reminds me of CARM, and they don't even see that. Sadly I thought this even when I was still an active and believing Catholic posting there. I couldn't imagine posting there now.

I recognized that hostility as well when I started asking questions about my wife's LDS faith and knew I couldn't find better answers there. Thus I found this board. I only visit there when my thick-skin gets worn out here

[Bikeemikey]

Mormons define all sorts of things in a way other groups disagree with. This is generally based on the belief god has told us that's the way it should be.

We often try to have our definition promoted and protected, even at a state and federal level from time to time.

Current debate on the definition of marriage springs to mind.

At least the Catholics aren't tryin to take out a constitutional amendment I redefine this permanently.

(null)

Edited April 15, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

I prefer the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary.

[why me]

I agree. I still browse the main one at times, and it's really sad. When certain ex-Mormons post there, it reminds me of CARM, and they don't even see that.

it is not just the exmormons but also the catholics who they have roped into their belief system and their hostility. That being said, the article in the catholic newspaper plays right into their hands. But as you know, most catholics are well balanced and have let mormons be mormons and catholics be catholics and let us meet somewhere in the middle to make this world a better place.

[why me]

ISadly I thought this even when I was still an active and believing Catholic posting there.

I remember you. You began to have a questioning and searching attitude. I think that you were also banned. Good to have you here. Hopefully, you will post more often.

[Stargazer]

I'd like to know how anyone who has honestly studied Mormonism can actually claim, as this article does, that Mormons deny the divinity of Christ. Blows my mind.

Their concept for the divinity of Christ is bound up with their concept of the Trinity, i.e. the Nicean Creed. We do not hold to their concept of the Trinity, therefore we cannot, by definition, hold Christ to be Divine. It's perfectly logical, really.

The flaw in logic however is this: the assumption that the Nicean Creed actually describes God accurately. It doesn't. It's an extrabiblical formulation designed to gloss over the fact that Jesus is a separate personage from the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. Since this sounds polytheistic, it had to be explained away. The Nicean Creed does this quite nicely.

But is turnabout fair play? Ultimately, since the Nicean Creed is heresy, does believing in it make one not a Christian, or does it mean that a Creedal church denies the divinity of Christ? I mean, if Christ is not who they say He is, then that in effects denies His divinity, doesn't it?

I choose: Not. Regardless of the Creed, I consider them to be fully Christian, and say that their churches affirm Christ's divinity.

[altersteve]

Their concept for the divinity of Christ is bound up with their concept of the Trinity, i.e. the Nicean Creed. We do not hold to their concept of the Trinity, therefore we cannot, by definition, hold Christ to be Divine. It's perfectly logical, really.

The flaw in logic however is this: the assumption that the Nicean Creed actually describes God accurately. It doesn't. It's an extrabiblical formulation designed to gloss over the fact that Jesus is a separate personage from the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. Since this sounds polytheistic, it had to be explained away. The Nicean Creed does this quite nicely.

But is turnabout fair play? Ultimately, since the Nicean Creed is heresy, does believing in it make one not a Christian, or does it mean that a Creedal church denies the divinity of Christ? I mean, if Christ is not who they say He is, then that in effects denies His divinity, doesn't it?

I choose: Not. Regardless of the Creed, I consider them to be fully Christian, and say that their churches affirm Christ's divinity.

I agree, but what they said still makes me shake my head in wonder. They say that we deny the divinity of Christ as if we simply don't believe it. This is completely and utterly false. What they choose to believe about our understanding of His divinity is irrelevant -- what matters is what we believe, and we believe that He is the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind. Their claim that Mormons deny the divinity of Christ is an outright lie.

Hope what I'm saying makes sense.

[cdowis]

The article cites as its ultimate source the Catholic church statement. No matter our refutation on the Nicene Creed, etc, it does not matter since this has become a doctrine of this church, outside any argument to the contrary.

The CC said it, so it is fact.

[thesometimesaint]

If this is what it means to be a " true Christian" then I'm happy to remain an infidel.

[Stargazer]

I sent him an email complaining that the quality of his research vis-a-vis the American public's blithe acceptance of Mormonism, and I got this in response:

Mail Delivery Subsystem postmaster@mail89.extendcp.co.uk

1:03 PM (28 minutes ago)

to me

Your message to <catchall@catholicherald.co.uk> was automatically rejected:

Quota exceeded (mailbox for user is full)

In other words, his mailbox got Slashotted: so many people approved of his post, so the congratulations keep pouring in.

[Stargazer]

I agree, but what they said still makes me shake my head in wonder. They say that we deny the divinity of Christ as if we simply don't believe it. This is completely and utterly false. What they choose to believe about our understanding of His divinity is irrelevant -- what matters is what we believe, and we believe that He is the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind. Their claim that Mormons deny the divinity of Christ is an outright lie.

Hope what I'm saying makes sense.

It certainly does.

I hadn't actually read this priest's article when I posted above. Afterwards, I was almost speechless. I say, almost.

[pcarthew]

It certainly does.

I hadn't actually read this priest's article when I posted above. Afterwards, I was almost speechless. I say, almost.

That was the main reason I posted the article here. I was almost speechless, it is not common for a member of the Catholic clergy to be so aggressive toward the Church. I wonder if they questioned or denied our Christianity when President Hinckley gave the Catholic church more than a million dollars for the restoration of the Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City?

[Flyonthewall]

I, too, disagree with the notion of Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, calling us "non-Christian". However, I think I do have a glimmer of understanding of where they are coming from.

We claim loudly and repeatedly that we are the "only" true church. In their mind, that means we are saying their church is not a "true" church.

I can envision/understand them thinking that us saying they are not the "true" church, is effectively meaning the same thing as LDS are not Christian.

They believe they are the "true" church, we claim they are not(by claiming we are the only true church), we claim we are Christian, and they claim we are not.

LDS see a very distinct difference in the two statements, but they may not.

I first started thinking about this after reading an article in the Liahona Titled "It's a two-way street"

http://www.lds.org/l...-two-way-street

"I wasn’t prepared, as I ought to have been, for that kind of comment, and with hurt feelings I asked him why it was that other religions didn’t seem willing to place the Latter-day Saints in the same fellowship with themselves. He turned on me almost in anger and said, “Because I want you to know it is a two-way street.” Then I understood. We do not fellowship them. We do not recognize them as the true church of Jesus Christ, and therefore we offend them in some things we teach. I don’t think it should be otherwise, but he had reason for the feelings that he had. I wasn’t in a position, being unprepared, to smooth his feelings."

Now this is my perception for their position so I could be way off, and I welcome any correction from Catholics.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Flyonthewall