Are Mormons' Christians?

[Beowulf]

PD1 mysteriously stated

In fact, if the LDS have an achilles heel (in reality, they have several) it is in their lack of being able to cogently expound upon the person of God.

I would think it is the LDS strong point, in being able to talk more cogently about God, and the nature of God, than anyone else.

34:10: And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.

My Oxford Study Bible has a note here, saying that early Israelites took this verse literally, that God had a body. Only in later centuries, did the rabbinical teachers begin to allegorize. In other words, LDS doctrine has restored the VERY EARLIEST beliefs of all.

Beowulf

[Tanyan]

I have on my to get list is The Oxford Study Bible. There is alot of material out there on this subject.

[PD1]

All the current LDS are Christians right now, as far as I can see...

Outshined, are they Christians, though, because of a belief in a God who needs something external to himself to exist as God, or are they Christians in spite of such a belief? Frankly, if they are Christians, it is in spite of such, which is the LDS position. And if that is case, then just what kind of Mormons are they?

[Zakuska]

Pd1,

God proceeded from man, Z? Again, what did I say earlier about Mormon theology being totally backwards?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

God was before man... God preeceded man.

Even the man who possibly became a God (In the KFD) had a God... there never was a time where there was not a God.

God and man are the same species? Did you conveniently misquote Acts 17:26ff, especially since Acts 17:24-25 have been quoted several times which show that God is without need, or were you just not paying attention?

What is the greek word "offspring" Pd1? 'Genos' Look it up!

And sorry to disappoint you on the Luke 3:38 quote, but "son" is not in the text. In fact, "son" is missing throughout that whole genealogical record, and was supplied by a translator, who probably saw it in v. 23 and decided to enter it into the text thereafter. Whatever the case, context decides how a phrase is used, and just because someone is a "son of God" does not necessarily mean that that individual shares the same essence as God. And humans, being created beings, and are finite, do not share the same essence with God, who is uncreated, and infinite. So, once again, I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble again.

Yes its a literal list of begettings. (in the carnal biblical sense)

[edited]

Moderator: Stop the name calling!

[Outshined]

Outshined, are they Christians, though, because of a belief in a God who needs something external to himself to exist as God, or are they Christians in spite of such a belief? Frankly, if they are Christians, it is in spite of such, which is the LDS position. And if that is case, then just what kind of Mormons are they?

Actually, they are Christians because they believe in and follow the teachings of Christ.

A Catholic Christian is not the same as a Baptist Christian, nor a Mormon Christian. They are dissimilar in doctrines and worship styles, but all follow their understanding of Christ's teachings and try to live as He would have them to. That is what makes them Christians, not an attempt to define what God does or does not need.

[Tanyan]

PD1, I believe you would have made an Excellent Pharisee. You are one of the individuals being addresed in Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D.Ricks book : Offenders For A Word, How Anti Mormans play word games to attack the Latter Day Saints, Thanks for continuing to fullfill prophecy. Your rhetorical polemics have been addressed numerous times by others LDS who have responded to this type of attack made by others.

T, don't flatter yourself, and those you hold up as models of excellence in addressing the criticisms of LDS theology. You haven't genuinely addressed the subject as you should, and certainly neither have the FARMS people. In fact, if the LDS have an achilles heel (in reality, they have several) it is in their lack of being able to cogently expound upon the person of God. And because of that, many of the current LDS will become Christians one day, perhaps even to the degree of what recently happened with the WCG (Worldwide Church of God). It will be glorious!

Flatter myself ???, Pray tell are you now omnipotent to be able to see into a individuals heart ?, so who is playing GOD now ?. From my lights you are suffering from SDS . Thanks for reminding me why I am not a Evangelical/Fundamentalist. Keep posting to keep reminding me. Thanks.

[Zakuska]

And because of that, many of the current LDS will become Christians one day, perhaps even to the degree of what recently happened with the WCG (Worldwide Church of God). It will be glorious!

[Pahoran]

PD1,

you previously wrote:

God didn't shoot the gun, but he did take his life.

God did not take Joseph's life. Joseph was murdered by evil so-called "Christians" who loved murder and hated Joseph because he was the prophet of the Lord.

Among anti-Semites, the very lowest of the low are those who try to justify the Holocaust. They are few and far between--far more common are those who try to deny it--but they are there.

Those who parallel them for hatefulness seem far more common in anti-Mormon circles. Why do you suppose that might be?

First, it was Joseph claiming to be better than Jesus,

Your statement is false, and coming as it does from a self-styled "Christian," indefensibly so.

Joseph made no such claim.

Accept that fact and move on.

And when someone starts exalting themselves to the level, or beyond, of God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, then it always comes back to haunt them.

Such as arrogantly presuming to pronounce on who is going to Heaven?

Just a thought.

God proceeded from man, Z? Again, what did I say earlier about Mormon theology being totally backwards?

Here you go beyond making a man an offender for a word; you've made him an offender for a spelling mistake.

That "from" is your own invention.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Outshined]

First, it was Joseph claiming to be better than Jesus,

Your statement is false, and coming as it does from a self-styled "Christian," indefensibly so.

Joseph made no such claim.

Accept that fact and move on.

And when someone starts exalting themselves to the level, or beyond, of God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, then it always comes back to haunt them.

Such as arrogantly presuming to pronounce on who is going to Heaven?

Just a thought.

Thanks for clarifying that. In fact, Joseph Smith never made such a claim.

[PD1]

Now, I will tell you,

If you are going to be a snot:

Just pick up your Bible, read what it says, and think about it for a change.

I will pass on further discussions.

Well, let me tell you then, I'll quit being a "snot," if you'll cut out the accusations and simply stick to the discussion.

Other wise I can tell you that I am interested in reasonable discussion and really understanding this better.

Likewise.

I will admit that I am an armature in the philosophic things we are discussing.  And no, not all of this is straight forward and easily imputed from the Bible.

I'm not expecting expertise in the finer points of philosophy, for that is not my interest. And while I agree that some hard thought is required to understand where God is coming from in this, there are equally some things that have been stated that are pretty straight forward.

So, do you want to be arrogant and snotty, or are you interested in really talking about this.

Like I said, put away your Aquinas accusations and stick to the subject, and we'll have a fine time of thinking about God.

My question is this.

If God needs nothing but he has anger, love, emotions about His creation then how can he be impassible. It seems to me that the two are inextricably linked.

Again, just because God is emotional does not mean that that which he is emotional toward can make him anything other than he is. In other words, God may be angry at someone, but that someone cannot change the being of God because of his actions which led to God's expression of anger. The same applies to expressions of love, grace, mercy, etc.

Also, you state:

Sorry, but "express image" has nothing to do with physicality.  And the incarnation of the Son was for the redemption of humanity, and not to express the physical constitution of God the Father.

Why is that? How do you conclude that? The literal read is a better read? Why are you literal in the issue of aseity and not this?

It's called context, T. And I'm not being "snotty." Otherwise, if one takes such comments to their logical end, then Jesus is farm animal with wings, because God had wings and is expressly related to Jesus. And we know that is purely ridiculous. Furthermore, when we approach the subject of God's aseity, physicality cannot be an option when discussing God's image, because that would necessitate defying plain statements from scripture which discuss the non-being of all things until God brought them into being (Jn 1:3). In other words, God could not existent without something external to himself, and yet is not God, existing simultaneously with him. And once again, that is not only non-scriptural, and ultimately, it tells us something about God's potential that is untrue, which apparently Gordon Hinckley thinks is true, and that is the possibility that God cannot exist.

[PD1]

No... You accused God of Murder.

You said...

God didn't shoot the gun, but he did take his life.

[Zakuska]

It's called context, T. And I'm not being "snotty." Otherwise, if one takes such comments to their logical end, then Jesus is farm animal with wings, because God had wings and is expressly related to Jesus. And we know that is purely ridiculous. Furthermore, when we approach the subject of God's aseity, physicality cannot be an option when discussing God's image, because that would necessitate defying plain statements from scripture which discuss the non-being of all things until God brought them into being (Jn 1:3). In other words, God could not existent without something external to himself, and yet is not God, existing simultaneously with him. And once again, that is not only non-scriptural, and ultimately, it tells us something about God's potential that is untrue, which apparently Gordon Hinckley thinks is true, and that is the possibility that God cannot exist.

Again you are starting with a presupposed definition for "non-being".

God is life. A rock is dead. Even God needed the rocks to produce seed unto Abraham.

And he needed the dirt to make Adam.

[Zakuska]

Just because God takes a life does not necessitate that he murdered that person. So, no, I accused God of no such thing. You did by drawing a false conclusion.

Define Murder...

or did God sit on him by mistake?

[PD1]

Why would a Baptist minister have murder in his heart to take a life ?. I thought THE LORD OF LIFE said "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU". Remember, murders do not inherit Eternal Life [Christian or not].

Is That Baptist Minister that led the mob with his face painted black with murder in his heart to murder Joseph Smith going [or is in] Heaven ?, Answer the question, quit avoiding it . Tell us pray tell.

The subject is God's aseity. You're welcome to join in anytime, if you think you're able.

[PD1]

PD1 mysteriously stated

In fact, if the LDS have an achilles heel (in reality, they have several) it is in their lack of being able to cogently expound upon the person of God.

I would think it is the LDS strong point, in being able to talk more cogently about God, and the nature of God, than anyone else.

Honestly, B, that ought to be the case, given all the statements about how the LDS have supposedly restored all the long-lost truth due to some apostasy. But, so far, that has not been the case. In fact, and I appreciate Paul McNabb for being candid enough to comment on this, the LDS have no systematic way of thinking about God. And from what I've seen thus far, even when a LDS leader does share what he supposedly thinks about God, it is often at odds with what the average LDS believes, especially when challenged in discussions like the taking place here. So, while on the surface what you're saying ought to be true, in reality, such is not the case. The LDS seriously labor on the very thing they should know the most about, and that is the person of God.

[Outshined]

I thought the subject was whether Mormons are Christians and vice versa; of course I'm just going by the thread title and initial post...

[Zakuska]

So, while on the surface what you're saying ought to be true, in reality, such is not the case. The LDS seriously labor on the very thing they should know the most about, and that is the person of God.

Hmm... it took christians over 300 years of Labor to come up with the trinity.

[PD1]

Outshined, are they Christians, though, because of a belief in a God who needs something external to himself to exist as God, or are they Christians in spite of such a belief?  Frankly, if they are Christians, it is in spite of such, which is the LDS position.  And if that is case, then just what kind of Mormons are they?

Actually, they are Christians because they believe in and follow the teachings of Christ.

But, O, if the Christ that the LDS are following is related in the same manner that the LDS God is related to everything else, then just what kind of Christians can they be, given the imperfection of the Christ they're following?

A Catholic Christian is not the same as a Baptist Christian, nor a Mormon Christian. They are dissimilar in doctrines and worship styles, but all follow their understanding of Christ's teachings and try to live as He would have them to. That is what makes them Christians, not an attempt to define what God does or does not need.

Yet, if one has a flawed view of God, then just what kind of Christian can anyone be?

[Tanyan]

And the Early Prophets,Israelites/Apostles,1st Century Christians were well versed in the "Person" of GOD ?.

[Zakuska]

What kind of Christian could the ethiopian eunuch be who had 15 minutes of instruction on Isaiah before he was born into the Kigdom by water?

[Outshined]

But, O, if the Christ that the LDS are following is related in the same manner that the LDS God is related to everything else, then just what kind of Christians can they be, given the imperfection of the Christ they're following?

Who says the Mormons are following Christ "imperfectly"? Perhaps it is your understanding that is flawed...

Yet, if one has a flawed view of God, then just what kind of Christian can anyone be?

For one, who can say another's view of God is "flawed"? You follow Him to the best of your understanding. As C.S. Lewis said,

It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense . . . When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian. -Mere Christianity

[Dunamis]

The next person who calls the other guy a name is going on the queue.

[Sousuke]

So, while on the surface what you're saying ought to be true, in reality, such is not the case. The LDS seriously labor on the very thing they should know the most about, and that is the person of God.

Hmm... it took christians over 300 years of Labor to come up with the trinity.

No, it took 300 years to solemnly define as doctrine. There is rather a difference.

[Tanyan]

The next person who calls the other guy a name is going on the queue.

Dunamis, Thank you.

[Tanyan]

The next person who calls the other guy a name is going on the queue. 

Dunamis, Thank you.

Yes there is a difference, one was revealed from Heaven Directly, the other born out of Philosophy/ War/Bloodshed/ and other circumstances according to history. I say this not in a condeming way just as an observation. Peace/Grace.