Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[coolrok7]

Exegesis vs. Eisegesis. Christians vs. Mormons. It will always be so. Biblical Scripture does not belong to Mormonism as they are falesly using it to justify their false teaching, based on what Joseph taught. Pre-existence is no different.

Twisting Scripture to their own destruction. Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientist's, etc..

This is why they are not considered to be Christian in doctrine.

[stemelbow]

Exegesis vs. Eisegesis. Christians vs. Mormons. It will always be so. Biblical Scripture does not belong to Mormonism as they are falesly using it to justify their false teaching, based on what Joseph taught. Pre-existence is no different.

Twisting Scripture to their own destruction. Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientist's, etc..

This is why they are not considered to be Christian in doctrine.

I hear your frustration. It'd be a tough stop to be to be a traditional Christian believer and be unable to actually use the principles that make up your faith to make a good case for your case.

I might lash out at others too.

[ERayR]

My position rests on the fact that pre-existence isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. This passage certainly doesn't teach it. If one squints and views it through LDS glasses, then maybe verse 5 references it. No instruction though.

 

Sons of God, Morning stars, Hosts of Heaven are all references to different types angelic beings that existed before the Earth was created.

 

As member of the COJCOLDS I am not required to rely solely on the Bible for truth.  I am blessed with prophetic utterances from the Book of Mormon and living prophets.  Even poets understand this concept.

 

http://www.bartleby.com/101/536.html

[ERayR]

 Exegesis vs. Eisegesis. Christians vs. Mormons. It will always be so. Biblical Scripture does not belong to Mormonism as they are falesly using it to justify their false teaching, based on what Joseph taught. Pre-existence is no different.

Twisting Scripture to their own destruction. Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientist's, etc..

This is why they are not considered to be Christian in doctrine.

 

It is all about interpretation and understanding.  Your statement might just as well have been written:  Exegesis vs. Eisegesis. Christians vs. Mormons. It will always be so. Biblical Scripture does not belong to Mormonism "Christians" as they are falesly using it to justify their false teaching, based on what Joseph traditional thought has taught. Pre-existence is no different.

[danielwoods]

As member of the COJCOLDS I am not required to rely solely on the Bible for truth.  I am blessed with prophetic utterances from the Book of Mormon and living prophets.  Even poets understand this concept.

 

http://www.bartleby.com/101/536.html

 

I am cursed with a mind that won't simply accept someone's word that something is true, no matter who they claim to be. 

 

That's why I ask is it taught in the NT? 

[ERayR]

I am cursed with a mind that won't simply accept someone's word that something is true, no matter who they claim to be. 

 

That's why I ask is it taught in the NT? 

 

Lucky for you if you are willing to give up your preconceived ideas and approach God in humble prayer you won't have to accept "someone's" word, you will have God's word.

[Vance]

I am cursed with a mind that won't simply accept someone's word that something is true, no matter who they claim to be.

Now that is funny.

Pre-existence was believed and taught by the Church Father Origen.

This from Wikipedia.

Origen quoted Romans 9:11-14 as evidence for his position:

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Origen argued that God could not love Jacob and hate Esau until Jacob had done something worthy of love and Esau had done something worthy of hatred, therefore, this passage only means that Jacob and Esau had not yet done good or evil in this life and their conduct before this life was the reason why Esau would serve Jacob.[3] He rejected the position that God loves or hates a soul based on its inclination toward good or evil, before the soul actually commits a good or evil act. (God, being the creator of all souls and their inclinations, knows perfectly well each soul's inclination toward good or evil.)

But then Wikipedia adds this.

 

Those who reject pre-existence, which would be every Christian denomination that accepts the conclusions of the Second Council of Constantinople (i.e., all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Protestants) simply see this as another passage about God's foreknowledge.

So, you are swallowing the conclusions of a bunch of uninspired men in the Second Council of Constantinople.

 

That's why I ask is it taught in the NT?

That is what you claim, yet you are only accepting the teachings of a bunch of uninspired men.

Oh, the irony.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Vance

[Ringil]

I am no evangelical- thank God,

 

But, this is a fascinating question to me as a Catholic.  I am going to look and see if the Catholic Church views Mormons as Christian.  Off the top of my head- I believe they do.  

[Ringil]

I do know that your baptisms are not valid so that is an important designation.  I think that a few types of Pentecostals aslo have invalid Baptisms.  It's not common for a church identifying itself as Christian to have invalid baptisms.  

[JLHPROF]

I do know that your baptisms are not valid so that is an important designation.  I think that a few types of Pentecostals aslo have invalid Baptisms.  It's not common for a church identifying itself as Christian to have invalid baptisms.  

 

And how do you define a valid baptism?  Since the Catholic church version doesn't even meet the definition of the word.

[Ringil]

OK so I looked into it just a bit and one way to see it is that through Baptism we become Christians- so it could be that LDS would not be considered Christian.  

 

I am not that I would see this as definitive.  It would be objectively true that LDS Baptism is invalid- but I don't know if it is a jump to say that LDS are not Christian.  I guess in a way- how important- spiritually is answering that single man-made question. . . . 

[Ringil]

And how do you define a valid baptism?  Since the Catholic church version doesn't even meet the definition of the word.

 

Correct form, matter, and intention determine the validity of Baptism.  

 

And as a Catholic I would see doctrine of the Church as to the yardstick of how such questions are answered.  The Catholic Church is the only body with the authority to answer such a question.  

 

It's a matter of faith.  It is my faith.  It appears that it is not your faith.  

[3DOP]

And how do you define a valid baptism?  Since the Catholic church version doesn't even meet the definition of the word.

 

JLHProf...Ringil is new and I think of good will towards you guys. He isn't trying to get you to admit that your baptisms are wrong. He is just wondering aloud if it is permissible for a Catholic to consider LDS Christian, in light of the problem presented by what he thinks he must view, as an invalid baptism. Of course, I have concluded that it is folly to exclude Mormons from the ranks of other Christians who reject the Catholic faith.

 

Ringil...Do you think we should consider Oneness Pentecostalism as a "non-Christian heresy"? Let me suggest that you also recall that Catholics can go to Hell. We have to avoid the Protestant interpretation of "Christian". Protestants think Christians go to heaven. That cannot be our criteria. When I say that Mormons are Christian, I cannot be accused of assuring them of Heaven, when according to the Catholic faith as I understand it, nobody has assurance of Heaven, until they have safely died in a state of grace.      

Edited November 12, 2014 by 3DOP

[JLHPROF]

Correct form, matter, and intention determine the validity of Baptism.  

 

And as a Catholic I would see doctrine of the Church as to the yardstick of how such questions are answered.  The Catholic Church is the only body with the authority to answer such a question.  

 

It's a matter of faith.  It is my faith.  It appears that it is not your faith.  

 

Well, with an open mind like that any discussion with you would be pretty pointless.  I know WHY the Mormon interpretation of Baptism in form, matter  and intention works.  I have faith that we have the only authority to answer or perform such an ordinance.

[Calm]

"Well, with an open mind like that any discussion with you would be pretty pointless"

Discussions to share ideas don't have to have a goal of convincing others; a goal of understanding is significantly worthy IMO.

If Ringil is interested in learning how LDS choose to measure our doctrine and allow us to demonstrate how it works for us without a need of either we insisting on denying her beliefs are truth or her insisting our beliefs are wrong, it seems to me the discussion still has a point.

Edited November 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

"Well, with an open mind like that any discussion with you would be pretty pointless"

Discussions to share ideas don't have to have a goal of convincing others; a goal of understanding is significantly worthy IMO.

If Ringil is interested in learning how LDS choose to measure our doctrine and allow us to demonstrate how it works for us without a need of either we insisting on denying her beliefs are truth or her insisting our beliefs are wrong, it seems to me the discussion still has a point.

 

My apologies to Ringil.  It just seemed that the POV was that the Catholic way was the only possible way because the Catholic Church said so.  But I am always open to discussing doctrine.

[Flyonthewall]

My position rests on the fact that pre-existence isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. This passage certainly doesn't teach it. If one squints and views it through LDS glasses, then maybe verse 5 references it. No instruction though.

Your statement that foreknowledge of people "can't be done" is not what scripture teaches. And further the idea that foreknowledge equals determinism is also a false statement. I can know any number of things that will happen, none of which I have any control over.

Scripture does not teach it in the way you put forth. Something that does not exist cannot be known, unless it is created to that purpose - which is determinism.

God's foreknowledge is based on knowing us during our pre-mortal life. Just as God declares to Jeremiah.

You say you can know any number of things can happen, but that is based on experience with and observation of things that exist.

You can predict things based on past events.

God knowing someone before they exist falls into the same category as creating a rock so big He cannot lift it.

Sons of God, Morning stars, Hosts of Heaven are all references to different types angelic beings that existed before the Earth was created.

They are us. Angels are nothing more than pre-mortal or post-mortal men sent on an errand of the Lord. Why do you think they are different from us? Where does it say that angels are anything other than men?

[Flyonthewall]

OK so I looked into it just a bit and one way to see it is that through Baptism we become Christians- so it could be that LDS would not be considered Christian.  

 

I am not that I would see this as definitive.  It would be objectively true that LDS Baptism is invalid- but I don't know if it is a jump to say that LDS are not Christian.  I guess in a way- how important- spiritually is answering that single man-made question. . . .

I would expect Catholics would not to accept LDS baptisms. In order for a baptism to be valid, one has to perform it with the correct authority. I would expect Catholics believe they have the proper authority and would only accept baptisms performed by Catholics that hold that authority.

As an LDS, we believe we have the proper authority exclusively, so for us, no other baptism is acceptable - all would need to be baptized into the LDS church.

That being said, we do not maintain that only those baptized into the LDS church are Christian. We believe being a Christian is based on one's belief in Christ, which does not necessarily have to agree with our own.

[Calm]

With Catholics, my understanding is anyone can perform a baptism, even an unbeliever, but it needs to be the correct form and understanding. I remember a story about a young boy baptizing his sister and whether or not it was valid depended on if he understood what he was saying.

We pretty much say the same words, but our understanding of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead is significantly different enough that our baptism was ruled invalid.

If I understand correctly, and Rory can correct me if I am wrong, a LDS could perform a valid baptism at the request of someone if they intended the meaning of the words to mean the nature of God as it is believed by Catholics.

However I may be wrong and it may be that the one who baptises must also hold that belief...

[Calm]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

Depending on how one chooses to read the Catechism, I think it is ambiguous that according to Catholic doctrine, only the baptized are Christian.

"1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5"

It seems to me this means a Christian will choose baptism when they come to an understanding of it because they seek to be reborn, but those who lack the knowledge may still be seeking to be reborn and thus would be Christian in their intent.

Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

With Catholics, my understanding is anyone can perform a baptism, even an unbeliever, but it needs to be the correct form and understanding. I remember a story about a young boy baptizing his sister and whether or not it was valid depended on if he understood what he was saying.

We pretty much say the same words, but our understanding of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead is significantly different enough that our baptism was ruled invalid.

If I understand correctly, and Rory can correct me if I am wrong, a LDS could perform a valid baptism at the request of someone if they intended the meaning of the words to mean the nature of God as it is believed by Catholics.

However I may be wrong and it may be that the one who baptises must also hold that belief...

 

Yup! I have catechized you well, cal!

[Calm]

You and the Big Green Book.

Thank goodness you were there for trying to figure out the nuances.

Ringil, way back 12 years or so a friend lent me the Catechism for about a year and it was my bedtime reading along with input from Rory for questions it brought up. I experienced some holy envy quite a bit during that year, it was so helpful. Our Gospel Principles manual, which is the closest thing we have, can be read in a few hours.

On the other hand, I really like that LDS doctrine is very limited in our fundamental beliefs.

Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

With Catholics, my understanding is anyone can perform a baptism, even an unbeliever, but it needs to be the correct form and understanding. I remember a story about a young boy baptizing his sister and whether or not it was valid depended on if he understood what he was saying.

We pretty much say the same words, but our understanding of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead is significantly different enough that our baptism was ruled invalid.

If I understand correctly, and Rory can correct me if I am wrong, a LDS could perform a valid baptism at the request of someone if they intended the meaning of the words to mean the nature of God as it is believed by Catholics.

However I may be wrong and it may be that the one who baptises must also hold that belief...

 

I am uncomfortable with the rule of invalidity.

 

I think the Holy See has failed to appreciate the wide variation in doctrine that is permissible to the ministers of LDS baptisms and have instead focused on norms. I would be willing to conclude that most LDS baptisms are invalid, but not all. Here is the deal...this decree from over a decade ago now does not have any effect. It cannot stop a baptism from taking place by an LDS who has a sufficiently adequate view of the Trinity as I think at least some have, based on my own admittedly subjective experience on the internet, from our perspective.

 

Not all LDS hold that Heavenly Mother is part of the Godhead. It seems to me like the Vatican decree mistakenly accepted the idea that there is an "official LDS teaching on the Trinity" and made its judgment based on that. I agree that based on what Rome considered to be "official", LDS baptisms would be invalid. However, If but one LDS baptism is administered by an LDS who rejects the more common LDS view for something closer to the Council of Nicea, the baptism becomes merely doubtful, and not certainly invalid. For that reason, as a Catholic, I believe converts from Mormonism should be baptized conditionally, as they had been previous to the decree which stated that all LDS converts were invalidly baptized...that is of course unless they were properly baptized first by some well-meaning and cooperative Jew or atheist. Heh.    

[JLHPROF]

Not all LDS hold that Heavenly Mother is part of the Godhead. It seems to me like the Vatican decree mistakenly accepted the idea that there is an "official LDS teaching on the Trinity" and made its judgment based on that. I agree that based on what Rome considered to be "official", LDS baptisms would be invalid. However, If but one LDS baptism is administered by an LDS who rejects the more common LDS view for something closer to the Council of Nicea, the baptism becomes merely doubtful, and not certainly invalid. .    

 

Well, I definitely don't hold the traditional LDS view of the Godhead, but I doubt my views would get me any closer to the Nicene view necessary for Catholic Baptism...

Edited November 13, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Ringil]

JLHProf...Ringil is new and I think of good will towards you guys. He isn't trying to get you to admit that your baptisms are wrong. He is just wondering aloud if it is permissible for a Catholic to consider LDS Christian, in light of the problem presented by what he thinks he must view, as an invalid baptism. Of course, I have concluded that it is folly to exclude Mormons from the ranks of other Christians who reject the Catholic faith.

 

Ringil...Do you think we should consider Oneness Pentecostalism as a "non-Christian heresy"? Let me suggest that you also recall that Catholics can go to Hell. We have to avoid the Protestant interpretation of "Christian". Protestants think Christians go to heaven. That cannot be our criteria. When I say that Mormons are Christian, I cannot be accused of assuring them of Heaven, when according to the Catholic faith as I understand it, nobody has assurance of Heaven, until they have safely died in a state of grace.      

 

Of course we don't know who is condemned.  THe CCC tells us that those outside of the Church and even non-christians may attain the Beatific Vision.  In fact I believe that practicing Catholics are held responsible to a higher degree than other Christians.  Since I know something about the Church and the nature of sin, I am held more accountable than those who aren't aware of such things.  

 

I look at this question simply as a theoretical question from my framework as a Catholic.  Like I say, I don't know exactly how important this question is for we humans to answer.  I believe that Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity and Orthodox as possessing much of true Christianity- other christian ecclesial bodies hold portions of truth- and even non--christians find objective truth in elements of their faith.  THe Muslims, for example, worship the one true God- though their understanding is imperfect.  

 

Who is "good" and who is not "good" is as some say- beyond my pay scale.  I know that I am often "not good" but I place my faith in Christ and His Church.  

 

By the way- theoretical questions of faith are interesting to me.  Pope Francis would likely have something to say to me about this. It is a fault of mine to get so "thinly" about matters of faith.  It allows me to step back and away from dong the "real work" of living a Christian life.