Why Aren't Mormons Christian?

[pogi]

Not at all but I consider many different branches Christian.  

 

Christians but not EV.  Why not?  "You mean there can actually be different branches of Christianity?"  Light bulb moment!

 

Why not?  The same reason that Mormons don't consider these other branches that you mentioned as Mormon.  

 

First, you didn't address the rest of my post.

Second, again this is non sequitur.  We do not consider other sects as Mormons because they lack the authoritative baptism, and that is the only reason.  We still consider them Christian just like you consider other denominations as Christian.  

[Canadaigua]

Christians but not EV.  Why not?  "You mean there can actually be different branches of Christianity?"  Light bulb moment!

 

I was hoping that it was  going to be a lightbulb moment for you but I guess not.  Perhaps we will get there eventually.

 

There are variations of style and some minor doctrinal differences between the branches but all under the umbrella of Christianity and we see each other as such.

 

Now perhaps you can answer my question.  Why do you think that these various branches of Christianity (that we have been speaking about) consider other branches as Christian--yet they do not see Mormonism as Christian?  Light bulb moment.

[MiserereNobis]

The Catholic Church officially sees a difference between Mormonism and other Christian dominations.  St. Pope John Paul II declared that Mormon baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms and that Mormon converts therefore must be rebaptized.  Whether or not that declaration makes Mormons Christian or not is up for interpretation, but it does show an official distinction.

 

As I've said before, I can see the arguments on both sides, but I personally consider Mormons Christian believers, but just not validly baptized.  Of course, Mormons think I'm not validly baptized either, so I hope it doesn't bother you that we think the same of you

 

ETA:

Here's the official commentary on why Mormon baptism is considered invalid:

http://www.doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

 

In a nutshell, it is because of the LDS view of the Godhead (non-Trinitarian), the disbelief in original sin, and the intention of the minister (the person baptizing).  For more details, consult the link above.

Edited January 2, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Canadaigua]

Second, again this is non sequitur.  We do not consider other sects as Mormons because they lack the authoritative baptism, and that is the only reason.  We still consider them Christian just like you consider other denominations as Christian.  

"Authoritative baptism" is only one of hundreds of differences between Mormonism and Christianity--so it is much  more than what you are telling me.  As I have said before multiple times Mormonism and Christianity are completely different and that is why Christians do not consider Mormons as Christian--nor do Mormons consider Christians as Mormons.

[pogi]

I was hoping that it was  going to be a lightbulb moment for you but I guess not.  Perhaps we will get there eventually.

 

There are variations of style and some minor doctrinal differences between the branches but all under the umbrella of Christianity and we see each other as such.

 

Now perhaps you can answer my question.  Why do you think that these various branches of Christianity (that we have been speaking about) consider other branches as Christian--yet they do not see Mormonism as Christian?  Light bulb moment.

 

To answer your question, they don't consider us Christian because they use the same definition of "Christian" that you do...so what are you getting at?

 

I understand that your definition and understanding of Christ does not allow me under your definition of Christianity, and I am fine with that.  There is no right definition for Christianity, It was a made up term in Antioch to categorize a group of people who professed a belief in Jesus and his teachings, before that it did not exist.  Christ did not define it, man did.  By redefining Christ through trinitarianism, they also redefined the original understanding of the word "Christian"

 

 I understand why you perceive that we do not worship the true God, but can you perceive why we believe that you do, even though you perceive him different from us?  Try stepping into our shoes and it might make more sense to you.  You don't need to perceive the Lord correctly to speak to Him correctly or for him to speak to you.  I speak to the same God you do, we are just wearing different filters of perception.  One of us is wrong, yet God still speaks to both of us. 

 

Would you please address this:

 

Would you consider the original Christians of Antioch EV Christians?  Guess what, they were not even trinitarians, so according to your made-up guidelines, the original Christians were not even Christian. 

 

"Trinitarians sometimes refer to Christian belief about God before the traditional statements on the Trinity as unsophisticated, 'naive',[5] or 'incipient Trinitarianism'" (M. Turner and G. McFarlane, 'Trinity' in I. H. Marshall (ed.), et al., New Bible Dictionary (3rd edn), electronic edition)

 

Edited January 2, 2015 by pogi

[Canadaigua]

To answer your question, they don't consider us Christian because they use the same definition of "Christian" that you do...so what are you getting at?

I will try and briefly sum it up from a Christian point of view--since that is the main thrust of this thread.  You said "they use the same definition of "Christian" that you do" which is really another way of saying that Christians of various branches have common beliefs--especially with respect to who God is and what is the basis for salvation (gospel).  For example we share the belief that there is one God and that we are sinners and that our salvation is based on the finished work of Christ and there is nothing that we can do to contribute to our salvation.  Christ set up one gospel--not different gospels (which I am sure that you also believe).  Therefore when someone comes and says that they are Christian yet rejects the major tenets of Christianity we would say that they are not Christian.

 

The same exact thing applies to Mormonism.  The LDS gods and gospel are separate and distinct from what Christianity teaches.  So if a Christian were to ask you if he or she were Mormon you would obviously say no.  For some reason this makes perfect sense to LDS but they don't seem to understand that is exactly the way we see it from our perspective when LDS claim that they are Christian.

 

Hope that helps make you understand it from our perspective.

[Jim Stiles]

Psalms 82:6-

 

I have said, "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

John 10: 33-36-

 

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

In ancient Israel, the leaders had the power of life and death over the citizens. These leaders were called lords or gods because they represented God in their communities. This was also true in Roman Israel, except that the Jewish leaders had to get permission from Rome in order to carry out a death sentence.

Indeed, no one claims that Early Modern nobility in Europe were teaching polytheism because they called themselves lords.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Jim Stiles

[pogi]

I will try and briefly sum it up from a Christian point of view--since that is the main thrust of this thread. 

 

"Christian" means different things to different people.  I can't say it any more plain than that.  I see your perspective.  I acknowledge it.  I understand that it means what it means to you.  I am fine with that.   Will you please give me the same courtesy and acknowledge that I am a Christian under my definition.

 

Third time is the charm?

 

If only trinitarians can be Christian, would you please address the fact that the original Christians of Antioch (who coined the term Christian) were not trinitarians.  Therefore your definition is a deviation from the original definition.   This is the third time I have asked.

 

...so according to your made-up guidelines, the original Christians were not even Christian. 

 

"Trinitarians sometimes refer to Christian belief about God before the traditional statements on the Trinity as unsophisticated, 'naive',[5] or 'incipient Trinitarianism'" (M. Turner and G. McFarlane, 'Trinity' in I. H. Marshall (ed.), et al., New Bible Dictionary (3rd edn), electronic edition)

 

Edited January 3, 2015 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

 children of the most High."

 

 John 10: 33-36-

 

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?  If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"[/i

In ancient Israel, the leaders had the power of life and death over the citizens. These leaders were called lords or gods because they represented God in their communities. This was also true in Roman Israel, except that the Jewish leaders had to get permission from Rome in order to carry out a death sentence.

Indeed, no one claims that Early Modern nobility in Europe were teaching polytheism because they called themselves lords.

Why in the world would the Lord Jesus Christ cite tyrannical, ungodly rulers of the past as justification that he be called the Son of God? This is tanamount to him saying "evil kings of the past ruled and reigned as false gods, so why should you think it strange that I be called the Som of God?" Ludicrous...

[Jim Stiles]

But that was within that world. Take a look at the galaxies, would there be room for another capital G God?

Isaiah 44:24 and Psalm 96:5 say that God created the heavens (plural). This included the air, sky, clouds, planets, stars, galaxies, and God's throne.

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Psalm 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.

[Jim Stiles]

Why in the world would the Lord Jesus Christ cite tyrannical, ungodly rulers of the past as justification that he be called the Son of God? This is tanamount to him saying "evil kings of the past ruled and reigned as false gods, so why should you think it strange that I be called the Som of God?" Ludicrous...

The rulers of ancient Israel were not supposed to be either tyrannical or ungodly.

The Jewish leaders in Roman Israel did not believe that the Messiah was supposed to be divine. They were wrong.

[ERayR]

My post that you are quoting (post #122) was addressed to Flyonthewall--not you.  Perhaps it was just an oversight on your part.

 

Okay.  The question still stand.  How so you know what Flyonthewall believes?

Edited January 3, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Not at all but I consider many different branches Christian.  Yet I do not consider Mormons as Christian.  Why not?  The same reason that Mormons don't consider these other branches that you mentioned as Mormon.  

 

You don't do well on logic problems do you?

[Jim Stiles]

... 

If only trinitarians can be Christian, would you please address the fact that the original Christians of Antioch (who coined the term Christian) were not trinitarians.  Therefore your definition is a deviation from the original definition.   This is the third time I have asked.

I believe that the Followers of the Way (i.e. the first Christians) were Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity was not codified, but they were Trinitarian nonetheless. The Ante-Nicene Fathers were Trinitarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

[ERayR]

I was hoping that it was  going to be a lightbulb moment for you but I guess not.  Perhaps we will get there eventually.

 

There are variations of style and some minor doctrinal differences between the branches but all under the umbrella of Christianity and we see each other as such.

 

Now perhaps you can answer my question.  Why do you think that these various branches of Christianity (that we have been speaking about) consider other branches as Christian--yet they do not see Mormonism as Christian?  Light bulb moment.

 

Again, You do have trouble with logic problems don't you

[bluebell]

In ancient Israel, the leaders had the power of life and death over the citizens. These leaders were called lords or gods because they represented God in their communities. This was also true in Roman Israel, except that the Jewish leaders had to get permission from Rome in order to carry out a death sentence.

Indeed, no one claims that Early Modern nobility in Europe were teaching polytheism because they called themselves lords.

 

Psalms explains why they were called gods-it was because they were children of the most High.

 

According to this scripture them being called gods had absolutely nothing to do with being a king (and can i see a reference for any king of Israel being called a god by other israelites). 

[Bobbieaware]

The rulers of ancient Israel were not supposed to be either tyrannical or ungodly.The Jewish leaders in Roman Israel did not believe that the Messiah was supposed to be divine. They were wrong.

The Saviour quoted Psalms 82:6 to his enemies in order to get them to remember and come to understand that human beings were called gods in the scriptures -- in a positive spiritual sense, not in a worldly "false god" sense -- so that they should not think it outlandish nor blasphemous that he himself be called the Son of God. The Lord's enemies were bristling over the fact that he was being called the Son of God, so if the Lord thought that particular scripture was referring to humans as gods in an imperious, worldly-power sense it would have completely destroyed the power of the logic behind the reason why he quoted that verse of scripture in the first place. That's why he said "and the scripture cannot be moved," saying, in other words, this is what your very scriptures say and, like it or not, you have to acknowledge and deal with what they say. While it's true the humans referred to in Psalm 82 were living far below their spiritual opportunities and divine potential as sons of God, nevertheless, they are there called gods and children of the most high in the glorious and holy senses of those words... and the scripture cannot be moved.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[ERayR]

I believe that the Followers of the Way (i.e. the first Christians) were Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity was not codified, but they were Trinitarian nonetheless. The Ante-Nicene Fathers were Trinitarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

 

Pardon me if I don't accept your "I believe".  A reference would be nice.  Yes it is a CFR

[Flyonthewall]

My post that you are quoting (post #122) was addressed to Flyonthewall--not you.  Perhaps it was just an oversight on your part.

Still awaiting a response to post 123...

[Jim Stiles]

Pardon me if I don't accept your "I believe".  A reference would be nice.  Yes it is a CFR

Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History iii.36

Theophilus, Apologia ad Autolycum, Book II, Chapter 15

Tertullian Against Praxeas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html

http://www.oodegr.co/english/dogmatiki1/C2a.htm#pano

[Jim Stiles]

The Saviour quoted Psalms 82:6 to his enemies in order to get them to remember and come to understand that human beings were called gods in the scriptures -- in a positive spiritual sense, not in a worldly "false god" sense -- so that they should not think it outlandish nor blasphemous that he himself be called the Son of God. The Lord's enemies were bristling over the fact that he was being called the Son of God, so if the Lord thought that particular scripture was referring to humans as gods in an imperious, worldly-power sense it would have completely destroyed the power of the logic behind the reason why he quoted that verse of scripture in the first place. That's why he said "and the scripture cannot be moved," saying, in other words, this is what your very scriptures say and, like it or not, you have to acknowledge and deal with what they say. While it's true the humans referred to in Psalm 82 were living far below their spiritual opportunities and divine potential as sons of God, nevertheless, they are there called gods and children of the most high in the glorious and holy senses of those words... and the scripture cannot be moved.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

[Jim Stiles]

Psalms explains why they were called gods-it was because they were children of the most High.

 

According to this scripture them being called gods had absolutely nothing to do with being a king (and can i see a reference for any king of Israel being called a god by other israelites). 

So much for polytheism:

Psalm 82 New King James Version (NKJV)

A Plea for Justice

A Psalm of Asaph.

1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty;

He judges among the gods.[a]

2 How long will you judge unjustly,

And show partiality to the wicked? Selah

3 Defend the poor and fatherless;

Do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy;

Free them from the hand of the wicked.

5 They do not know, nor do they understand;

They walk about in darkness;

All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

6 I said, “You are gods,

And all of you are children of the Most High.

7 But you shall die like men,

And fall like one of the princes.”

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;

For You shall inherit all nations.

Footnotes:

a. Psalm 82:1 Hebrew elohim, mighty ones; that is, the judges

b. Psalm 82:6 Hebrew elohim, mighty ones; that is, the judges

Edited January 3, 2015 by Jim Stiles

[bluebell]

So much for polytheism:

Psalm 82 New King James Version (NKJV)

A Plea for Justice

A Psalm of Asaph.

1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty;

He judges among the gods.[a]

2 How long will you judge unjustly,

And show partiality to the wicked? Selah

3 Defend the poor and fatherless;

Do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy;

Free them from the hand of the wicked.

5 They do not know, nor do they understand;

They walk about in darkness;

All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

6 I said, “You are gods,

And all of you are children of the Most High.

7 But you shall die like men,

And fall like one of the princes.”

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;

For You shall inherit all nations.

Footnotes:

a. Psalm 82:1 Hebrew elohim, mighty ones; that is, the judges

b. Psalm 82:6 Hebrew elohim, mighty ones; that is, the judges

This doesn't address my post to you, not answer my call for references.

Being LDS, I accept these verses you have quoted as scripture and they don't contradict my beliefs.

[Calm]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/reconsidering-psalms-826

 

Translating elohim as judges is questionable at best. As Peterson put it:

Moreover, those who insist that the elohim of Psalm 82 are simply mortal humans typically point to Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, where the term has frequently (e.g., in the King James Bible) been translated as “judges.” But there seems no particular reason, other than theological squeamishness, to prefer such a translation. What these verses seem to describe is a divinatory practice where a case is brought before “God” or “the gods” for decision.33

Additionally, there are a couple of elements that lend to an interpretation of the beings in Psalm 82 as true divinities. First, their punishment for failing to judge is to “die like Adam.” This is hardly a punishment if in fact these are merely human judges who were already going to die. Smick notes just this (as do others): “if they are going to die like mortals, they are not mortals.”34 The second argument is that these elohim are defined also as being “sons of the Most High (bene elyon)”. That these could be judges who are called the sons of God simply because of their position as judges (and unrighteous judges at that) is not supported by the text.

 

[Spammer]

Not one ante-Nicene church father believed the Father is a glorified, exalted man with a body of flesh and bones.