Are Mormons' Christians?

[Del March]

Conversely, one can be sure that no one will ever become a Christian if they accept what Mormonism has to teach, theologically.  For LDS theology cannot lead one to become a Christian.  Not only is it humanly impossible, but it is theologically impossible as well.

LDS theology WILL lead someone to believe in Christ as their Savior and Redeemer, if properly understood. That's what being a Christian is to me. So, you're wrong

Del

[Zakuska]

PD1,

God is that he is.

[emaughan]

Actually, you're twisting not only my words, but God's words as well. For the reasons you cite for being a member of the LDS Church are not reasons for one being a Christian. Furthermore, as already stated before, if the basic doctrines in Mormonism are flawed

[randyc]

Using, "the bible says" does not work so well when one considers that using the bible alone a multitude of beliefs have sprung up about the nature of Christianity

So does the same thing apply when one considers the vast array of Mormon sects?

I would like to know what you believe God was doing for an infinate amount of time (that's a long time) before He created the Earth?

There was not an infinite amount of time before God created the Earth. God created time as well. Some thing can not have existed for an infinite amount of time, because then it would have never made it to this point in time (that's the short version).

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (not christian in your view) we believe that God is bound by laws and principles

I hope Del March doesn't see your post! She doesn't agree with you about LDS belief on this subject, but I think probably you are right (about what the church teaches).

Think of it this way. You're in the same camp as the jews who would not accept Christ because they allready had their ways set - they relied on the interpretation of scripture written by dead prophets (can't have a living prophet - he'll ruin everything!

Your attitude toward the LDS faith, and stanch reliance on your interpretation of scriptures writen by dead prophets, leads me to which side you would stand on had you lived in Israel 2000 years ago.

Hopefully with the "noble-minded" Bereans (if you don't understand this, read Acts 17). Seems like maybe I've found a little hole in your argument, huh?

[PD1]

Conversely, one can be sure that no one will ever become a Christian if they accept what Mormonism has to teach, theologically.

[PD1]

PD1,

God is that he is.

Not in LDS theology, though. Instead, God is that he became, meaning that there was a time when God was not. And if there was a time when God was not, there is the potential that God will not be. And if God possesses such potential that he will not be, then he is imperfect, meaning that he is not God at all. And why would anyone want to worship such a non-being?

[Guest johnny_cat]

Not in LDS theology, though. Instead, God is that he became, meaning that there was a time when God was not. And if there was a time when God was not, there is the potential that God will not be. And if God possesses such potential that he will not be, then he is imperfect, meaning that he is not God at all. And why would anyone want to worship such a non-being?

There is no time when God was not. As LDS scripture tells us, time is related to mortal men only. All is present to God.

[emaughan]

QUOTE

[PD1]

Actually, you're twisting not only my words, but God's words as well. For the reasons you cite for being a member of the LDS Church are not reasons for one being a Christian. Furthermore, as already stated before, if the basic doctrines in Mormonism are flawed

[PD1]

Not in LDS theology, though. Instead, God is that he became, meaning that there was a time when God was not. And if there was a time when God was not, there is the potential that God will not be. And if God possesses such potential that he will not be, then he is imperfect, meaning that he is not God at all. And why would anyone want to worship such a non-being?

There is no time when God was not. As LDS scripture tells us, time is related to mortal men only. All is present to God.

Yet, in LDS theology, God was at one time a mortal man, who eventually evolved into becoming God. Therefore, there was a time when God was not, meaning that given such potential, there could be a time when God will not be. And if that is the case, and it is if one simply thinks through what the LDS have said about God, then they worship an imperfect God, which is really not God at all. For God is perfect, in need of nothing, as scripture tells us.

Matthew 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[PD1]

QUOTE

[Guest johnny_cat]

Yet, in LDS theology, God was at one time a mortal man, who eventually evolved into becoming God. Therefore, there was a time when God was not, meaning that given such potential, there could be a time when God will not be. And if that is the case, and it is if one simply thinks through what the LDS have said about God, then they worship an imperfect God, which is really not God at all. For God is perfect, in need of nothing, as scripture tells us.

You're introducing time into an area in which it has no meaning. As Alma teaches, time is a mortal phenomenon, and all is present with God. So, either your understanding of LDS theology is off, or your concept of eternity is limited to linear time. Either way, your assertion of an imperfect God is simply not accurate.

[emaughan]

Theology, or the Doctrine of God, being the most basic. For a flawed view of God will logically lead to a flawed view of all relating doctrines, major or minor.

I agree 100% that a flawed view of God leads to problems throughout the doctrines practiced by that faith. Even though you have a flawed view of God - and many other doctrines, I do not believe that you are not Christian as long as you accept the divinity of Christ.

The apostacy lead to many false teachings, but this does not mean that these people are not Christian in heart.

You seem to have blinders on - you can not comprehend that your interpretation of scripture, which has been greatly tainted by over a 1000 years of apostacy from the truth, has no authority to declare who is or is not in the club of Christianity. There are many threads that debate such issues as the trinity and the nature of God so I will not get to deep into it here. I will say that I STRONGLY disagree with the trinitarian view based on what I have read in the bible. Christ and God the Father are one in purpose and authority commisioned, but they are not the same being! I know you disagree with that - but I have far more scriptual support then you do. Also - you belong to a church with no authority from God - it was simply organized by a group of like-minded people just as all protestant churches are formed. There is no divine revelation, angelic visitation, restored authority - it is just a church of men formed by men (or women) based on their mutual philosophies mingled with scriptures from the bible and man made traditions.

[emaughan]

Does the Mormon God need anything to exist as God?

Did you read my post???

Did you answer my questions???

[Paul McNabb]

LDS beliefs about God, Jesus, Sin, Salvation, the Church, etc., are all contrary to what the Bible has to say about each of them. Therefore, if a LDS is a Christian, it is not because of what they have accepted as true according to Mormonism, but in spite of it. Which is why I stated earlier, one cannot really know how many Christians there might actually be in the LDS Church, given that the LDS target "Christians" in their proselytizing efforts. In other words, a person is already Christian before entering the LDS Church. Conversely, one can be sure that no one will ever become a Christian if they accept what Mormonism has to teach, theologically. For LDS theology cannot lead one to become a Christian. Not only is it humanly impossible, but it is theologically impossible as well.

I find the concept of Sola Theologia to be fascinating.

I'm curious to know how long after Pentacost (Acts 2) it took the people who "converted" to become Christian? Or for that matter, what about the jailor (Acts 16) who accepted Jesus? When did he get taught what he needed to know so that he could be classified as a Christian?

It seems to me that when Christian missionaries go to some remote corner of the earth and preach to people, those people become "Christian" as soon as they accept Jesus:

even if they don't have a Bible, one doesn't exist in their language, they can't read, and don't even understand the concept of a book

even if they still "misunderstand" the nature of God and think of him as a physical being

even if they think Jesus died just a few years ago

even if they think that if they must be good to go to heaven...

In fact, we'd call them Christian pretty much no matter what the believed or misbelieved as long as they accepted Christ and thought they were now Christian.

The same is true with children. Most Christians would believe that a nine year old can be "saved" and be a Christian even though the nine year old may have completely mixed up ideas about the nature of God, the nature of the atonement, and just about any other doctrine.

But when it comes to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists, these people, though sincere, fall outside the scope of "Christian" despite their belief in Christ and their desire to be called Christian.

I find it fascinating (and a bit amusing, I'm sorry to say) to watch the contortions of those who are trying to include just the right set of people in the Christian club.

I have no problem with someone thinking I'm an heretical Christian, or even that I'm unsaved, but to have them think I can't be called a Christian while at the same time proclaiming both Sola Fide and Sola Theologia is a hoot.

[Del March]

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (not christian in your view) we believe that God is bound by laws and principles

I hope Del March doesn't see your post! She doesn't agree with you about LDS belief on this subject, but I think probably you are right (about what the church teaches).

??

I don't have any problem with God being bound by eternal laws and principles, since He Himself said so. What I have a problem with is with God being bound by laws that some men drew out of thin air, like for example that God wouldn't speak to men anymore after the Apostolic era.

Del

[Del March]

Matthew 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

If gods and men are two entirely different species, isn't Jesus comparing apples and oranges in that scripture? If God was never a man, and we can never be gods, then how can Jesus ask us to be perfect as God is?

Del

[PD1]

Yet, in LDS theology, God was at one time a mortal man, who eventually evolved into becoming God. Therefore, there was a time when God was not, meaning that given such potential, there could be a time when God will not be. And if that is the case, and it is if one simply thinks through what the LDS have said about God, then they worship an imperfect God, which is really not God at all. For God is perfect, in need of nothing, as scripture tells us.

You're introducing time into an area in which it has no meaning. As Alma teaches, time is a mortal phenomenon, and all is present with God. So, either your understanding of LDS theology is off, or your concept of eternity is limited to linear time. Either way, your assertion of an imperfect God is simply not accurate.

No, I'm not introducing time into anything where the LDS have not already introduced it themselves. Besides, time only has relevance to what I'm saying about the LDS God in respect to what they've said about him being a man. On the hand, my supposition that God is not perfect has to do with his aseity. For if God needs something to be God, and does not, nor has not, perfectly existed as God, always and infinitely, then God cannot be God. He is imperfect, and has the potential not to exist. Therefore, I pose the question to you once again, do the LDS believe that God needs anything to exist as God?

[PD1]

Theology, or the Doctrine of God, being the most basic. For a flawed view of God will logically lead to a flawed view of all relating doctrines, major or minor.

I agree 100% that a flawed view of God leads to problems throughout the doctrines practiced by that faith. Even though you have a flawed view of God - and many other doctrines, I do not believe that you are not Christian as long as you accept the divinity of Christ.

The apostacy lead to many false teachings, but this does not mean that these people are not Christian in heart.

You seem to have blinders on - you can not comprehend that your interpretation of scripture, which has been greatly tainted by over a 1000 years of apostacy from the truth, has no authority to declare who is or is not in the club of Christianity. There are many threads that debate such issues as the trinity and the nature of God so I will not get to deep into it here. I will say that I STRONGLY disagree with the trinitarian view based on what I have read in the bible. Christ and God the Father are one in purpose and authority commisioned, but they are not the same being! I know you disagree with that - but I have far more scriptual support then you do. Also - you belong to a church with no authority from God - it was simply organized by a group of like-minded people just as all protestant churches are formed. There is no divine revelation, angelic visitation, restored authority - it is just a church of men formed by men (or women) based on their mutual philosophies mingled with scriptures from the bible and man made traditions.

I see that you still have not answered my question. Why is that?

Does the LDS God need anything to exist as God?

[PD1]

Does the Mormon God need anything to exist as God?

Did you read my post???

Did you answer my questions???

I've not only read your post(s), but have responded to it/them, when relevant. Where the questions are not relevant, then there are simply being put on the back burner until you answer my question, which I happened to ask first. Now, one more time, Does the LDS God need anything for him to exist as God?

[Del March]

Does the LDS God need anything to exist as God?

No, God does not need anything to exist as God.

Now, whether God did need anything to become God is another question entirely, and one to which we have no answer.

But even if God did need something to become God, that wouldn't change the fact that now He is God, and He will remain God forever.

Del

[YH8]

PD1,

God is that he is.

Not in LDS theology, though. Instead, God is that he became, meaning that there was a time when God was not. And if there was a time when God was not, there is the potential that God will not be. And if God possesses such potential that he will not be, then he is imperfect, meaning that he is not God at all. And why would anyone want to worship such a non-being?

While we don't know all of the details about what the popular phrase about the nature of God and the potential of man means (see Pres. Hinckley's much derided comments), I do believe that God can stop being God, He has free agency, but won't stop being God because He is perfect. THis serves to strengthen my faith in Him, because He wants to do what He does. He is not compelled to do it. The idea that He may have progessed to where He is does not mean that he will change.

PD1, do you know more about what LDS believe than LDS do? Do you know what LDS really believe? Do you know the real version of LDS history?

PD1, does it ever occur to you that you are offering interpretations of scripture when you tell LDS what the Bible says?

[PD1]

LDS beliefs about God, Jesus, Sin, Salvation, the Church, etc., are all contrary to what the Bible has to say about each of them.  Therefore, if a LDS is a Christian, it is not because of what they have accepted as true according to Mormonism, but in spite of it.  Which is why I stated earlier, one cannot really know how many Christians there might actually be in the LDS Church, given that the LDS target "Christians" in their proselytizing efforts.  In other words, a person is already Christian before entering the LDS Church.  Conversely, one can be sure that no one will ever become a Christian if they accept what Mormonism has to teach, theologically.  For LDS theology cannot lead one to become a Christian.  Not only is it humanly impossible, but it is theologically impossible as well.

I find the concept of Sola Theologia to be fascinating.

I'm curious to know how long after Pentacost (Acts 2) it took the people who "converted" to become Christian? Or for that matter, what about the jailor (Acts 16) who accepted Jesus? When did he get taught what he needed to know so that he could be classified as a Christian?

It seems to me that when Christian missionaries go to some remote corner of the earth and preach to people, those people become "Christian" as soon as they accept Jesus:

even if they don't have a Bible, one doesn't exist in their language, they can't read, and don't even understand the concept of a book

even if they still "misunderstand" the nature of God and think of him as a physical being

even if they think Jesus died just a few years ago

even if they think that if they must be good to go to heaven...

In fact, we'd call them Christian pretty much no matter what the believed or misbelieved as long as they accepted Christ and thought they were now Christian.

The same is true with children. Most Christians would believe that a nine year old can be "saved" and be a Christian even though the nine year old may have completely mixed up ideas about the nature of God, the nature of the atonement, and just about any other doctrine.

But when it comes to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists, these people, though sincere, fall outside the scope of "Christian" despite their belief in Christ and their desire to be called Christian.

I find it fascinating (and a bit amusing, I'm sorry to say) to watch the contortions of those who are trying to include just the right set of people in the Christian club.

I have no problem with someone thinking I'm an heretical Christian, or even that I'm unsaved, but to have them think I can't be called a Christian while at the same time proclaiming both Sola Fide and Sola Theologia is a hoot.

Paul, I'm sorry, but you've completely missed the boat on this one. For no one has said anything about your made up term (?) Sola Theologia. Instead, in the post you responded to, the assertion was merely being made that no one is discounting that there may be Christians in the LDS Church. In fact, there probably are. Nevertheless, the Christians which are in the LDS Church are not there because of what the LDS have taught theologically (covering several interrelated doctrines). They are there through the recruiting efforts of the LDS Church to proselytize those who are already Christians; and may I add, Christians who have been deceived for any number of reasons, including a lack of a sound theologically undergirding. So, once again, I'm sorry that you went astray on this one. Such is the nature of bulletin boards sometimes.

[PD1]

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (not christian in your view) we believe that God is bound by laws and principles

I hope Del March doesn't see your post! She doesn't agree with you about LDS belief on this subject, but I think probably you are right (about what the church teaches).

??

I don't have any problem with God being bound by eternal laws and principles, since He Himself said so. What I have a problem with is with God being bound by laws that some men drew out of thin air, like for example that God wouldn't speak to men anymore after the Apostolic era.

Del

If God is "bound," as you put it, by these laws and principles that you suggest, which came first? God or the laws and principles? Obviously, with the LDS believing that God became, would not the laws and principles precede God? And if that be the case, then is God perfect, given his dependence upon something other than himself, for his existence? And if he is not perfect, then just what kind of "God" is he?

[Guest johnny_cat]

If God is "bound," as you put it, by these laws and principles that you suggest, which came first? God or the laws and principles? Obviously, with the LDS believing that God became, would not the laws and principles precede God? And if that be the case, then is God perfect, given his dependence upon something other than himself, for his existence? And if he is not perfect, then just what kind of "God" is he?

Again, why are you imposing measurement of time when LDS theology explicitly excludes it?