Are Mormons' Christians?

Paul McNabb · March 25, 2005

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.

Let me make sure I get this straight.

You are saying that some Mormons might be Christian. Are you also saying that the only Mormons that could possibly be Christian are those that were Christian before becoming Mormon?

Is it possible that my children who were born Mormons can be Christian while remaining active Mormons?

If not, if they renounced Mormonism, became Christians, then reconverted to Mormonism, would they then be "Christians in Mormonism?"

PD1 · March 25, 2005

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?

Yet, if God's existence is contingent upon something, or someone, other than himself, then just how does he possess this ultimate capability of being, or deciding, to be something other than he is? Again, he is not perfect, even as the LDS president suggests that you've quoted. And if he's not perfect, then just what kind of God are you following?

As for my knowledge of the LDS God, what does that have to do with me asking the LDS questions about him? Yet, to answer your second question, yes; I do know what the LDS really believe about God, as they have already confirmed it here more than once. They believe that he was once a man. They believe that he progressed to become God. They believe that all LDS males and females have the potential to do the same. Therefore, given those premises, I not only ask my questions, but give you the biblical view to show the variances. Is there something wrong with that?

And of course I realize that I'm giving an interpretation, just like LDS are. The problem comes about when taking a closer look at those "interpretations," particularly the ones which conclude that God is everything but perfect. Do you not find that to be troubling? To be worshiping a God that expects you to be perfect, yet is not perfect himself? In fact, he may not even exist. Is that not problematic?

PD1 · March 25, 2005

Paul, I'm sorry, but you've completely missed the boat on this one.

Paul McNabb · March 25, 2005

To answer your first question, you got it! For LDS theology will not, nor cannot, lead one to become a Christian.
As for your children, again, if they ever become Christians (or maybe they already are), it will not be because of LDS theology; it will be in spite of it.
Lastly, that is what I was referring to by stating that those who are Christians, and joing the LDS Church, were already Christians beforehand. For it is impossible that anyone could become a genuine, blood-bought, Christian by ascribing to the theological presuppositions of the LDS Church. Proof of my assertion begins with the person of God. For if the LDS concept of God is flawed, or distorted, then so will all other doctrines which follow, including salvation, which is the crux of what it means to be a Christian.
Paul, I sincerely hope that you and your children are Christians. What I'm concerned about, though, is the faulty belief that just because someone claims to be a Christian, and that they belong to thus and such church or organization, that that makes the claim true, especially when very little, if any thought is given to such basic doctrines found in scripture which speak about God and his nature. For if God, in this case, is anything, or anyone, other that he has always, perfectly, and infinitely has been, or will be, then he is something or someone that cannot be trusted to do that which is presupposed of him. The LDS God is just such a character. I hope you will take time to think about it.

I'm getting closer to understanding you now. I also believe that there are "Christians" in every denomination (including Mormon), by which I mean that there are those who truly believe and will be saved. I believe that there are "non-Christians" in every denomination (including Mormon), by which I mean that there are those who will not be saved.

So if I and my children are true believers in Christ and have given ourselves to Him, we might be saved. But if we believe some false doctrines, that will work against us and might nullify our faith and belief. So people in Mormon churches are less likely to be "Christian" than people in more orthodox denominations because Mormon churches have enough false doctrine to make it difficult to have the right amount of "correct belief" to match their "faith in Christ".

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.

Just out of curiosity, if I am a KJV-only guy, believe in modalism, and believe in election only, is that close enough to correct belief so that my faith in Christ counts?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Zakuska · March 25, 2005

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.

Since when did Christians have temple recommend interviews?

Del March · March 25, 2005

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, there is at least one principle that came "before" God: justice. God cannot make the law of justice not be. In order to circumvent justice for our sake, He had to sacrifice His own Son, Jesus had to pay the entire debt. So obviously God is no "bigger" than justice.

I'm curious as to how you explain that God could not get rid of the law of justice in a way less expensive that His own perfect Son paying the entire price, and yet not be bound by anything?

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?

Dependent?? God is not dependent on anything! In fact, it's the very fact that God does NOT depend on anyone or anything else to respect those principles and laws perfectly that makes Him perfect, that makes Him a god.

Jesus could be a god on His own, without the help of mercy, because He was able to perfectly satisfy the law of justice. The existence of the law of justice doesn't make Him less of a God, just the opposite in fact: it's the existence of the law of justice, and the fact that Christ managed to respect it completely, and completely on His own, that earns Him the right to be a God on His own merits.

It's the same with God: it's the fact that He can, entirely on His own, respect all the eternal principles that might exist, that makes Him a god.

And if he is not perfect, then just what kind of "God" is he?

God IS perfect: He thinks and acts perfectly. That's why He's perfect, and that's why He's God.

May I ask you what "being perfect" means to you? What is perfection in your idea? How does one obtain it (if it's possible)? What does the expression "perfect God" mean?

Del

YH8 · March 25, 2005

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?
Yet, if God's existence is contingent upon something, or someone, other than himself, then just how does he possess this ultimate capability of being, or deciding, to be something other than he is? Again, he is not perfect, even as the LDS president suggests that you've quoted. And if he's not perfect, then just what kind of God are you following?
As for my knowledge of the LDS God, what does that have to do with me asking the LDS questions about him? Yet, to answer your second question, yes; I do know what the LDS really believe about God, as they have already confirmed it here more than once. They believe that he was once a man. They believe that he progressed to become God. They believe that all LDS males and females have the potential to do the same. Therefore, given those premises, I not only ask my questions, but give you the biblical view to show the variances. Is there something wrong with that?
And of course I realize that I'm giving an interpretation, just like LDS are. The problem comes about when taking a closer look at those "interpretations," particularly the ones which conclude that God is everything but perfect. Do you not find that to be troubling? To be worshiping a God that expects you to be perfect, yet is not perfect himself? In fact, he may not even exist. Is that not problematic?

If you want to argue that LDS believe God is not perfect, then you do not understand what LDS believe.

If you continue to insist on your views of what LDS believe over what LDS views of what they believe, then you display your agenda in full force.

LDS (and I am one of those dastardly uniborws) don't like to be told what they really believe by people who 1) don't understand what they believe, 2) don't seem interested in understanding what they believe, 3) aren't willing to accept the LDS view of what LDS believe, 4) etc.

You "sound" like you are overly rigid, irrationally dogmatic, and deigning to be here because you love us and only want to help. We are poor lost fools who aren't able to understand the modern version of popular Protestant Evangelical Christianity and thus are not Christian and not saved and never will be, unless we deny things LDS and accept things Popular Protestest, right? Nevermind the untold multimillions who thought they were Christians before your reformed-again-version came on the scene in the last what, 150-200 years.

March 25, 2005

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.

So, you're telling me that we aren't saved by grace, after all. We're saved by believing properly in Sola Scriptura, the Trinity, and Sola Fide. Interesting.

PD1 · March 25, 2005

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.
Just out of curiosity, if I am a KJV-only guy, believe in modalism, and believe in election only, is that close enough to correct belief so that my faith in Christ counts?
Inquiring minds want to know.

You were doing so well, then you took a lefthand turn on me.

Paul, the issue is God. Do you believe that God needs something to exist as God?

Zakuska · March 25, 2005

To be or not to be. That is the question.

It sounds like you are asking... what makes God God?

Del March · March 25, 2005

Paul, the issue is God. Do you believe that God needs something to exist as God?

PD1,

can you tell us what you think the LDS God needs in order to be God?

Del

YH8 · March 25, 2005

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.
Just out of curiosity, if I am a KJV-only guy, believe in modalism, and believe in election only, is that close enough to correct belief so that my faith in Christ counts?
Inquiring minds want to know.
You were doing so well, then you took a lefthand turn on me.
Paul, the issue is God. Do you believe that God needs something to exist as God?

Would God be God if all there was was God?

Paul McNabb · March 25, 2005

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.
Just out of curiosity, if I am a KJV-only guy, believe in modalism, and believe in election only, is that close enough to correct belief so that my faith in Christ counts?
Inquiring minds want to know.
You were doing so well, then you took a lefthand turn on me.
Paul, the issue is God. Do you believe that God needs something to exist as God?

Whoops. PD1, you seemed to have crossed threads here. The *other* thread didn't have this question on it, but you suddenly just asked it there and I answered.

My answer is that I don't know. I've never thought much about it. It might be a fun intellectual exercise to consider what God "needs" to be God. Off hand, I can't think of anything that He needs to be God.

But actually, this *wasn't* the question. The question was what we needed to be, do, or believe to be Christian. I think this question is your preparation to try to spring a new line of reasoning on me. Instead of playing games, just tell me and make your point.

PD1 · March 25, 2005

If God is "bound," as you put it, by these laws and principles that you suggest, which came first?

PD1 · March 25, 2005

If you want to argue that LDS believe God is not perfect, then you do not understand what LDS believe.
If you continue to insist on your views of what LDS believe over what LDS views of what they believe, then you display your agenda in full force.
LDS (and I am one of those dastardly uniborws) don't like to be told what they really believe by people who 1) don't understand what they believe, 2) don't seem interested in understanding what they believe, 3) aren't willing to accept the LDS view of what LDS believe, 4) etc.
You "sound" like you are overly rigid, irrationally dogmatic, and deigning to be here because you love us and only want to help. We are poor lost fools who aren't able to understand the modern version of popular Protestant Evangelical Christianity and thus are not Christian and not saved and never will be, unless we deny things LDS and accept things Popular Protestest, right? Nevermind the untold multimillions who thought they were Christians before your reformed-again-version came on the scene in the last what, 150-200 years.

Is it that I don't understand what the LDS believe (they're obviously telling me here in black and white), or is it that some of the LDS do not understand what they're believing, much less the questions that I'm asking in respect to those beliefs? Frankly, I think it is more the latter than the former.

PD1 · March 25, 2005

To be or not to be. That is the question.
It sounds like you are asking... what makes God God?

Actually, Z, I'm asking the LDS what they think "makes God God." What does God need to make him God? So far I've read that at least "justice" and a Father. Is that all?

PD1 · March 25, 2005

Paul, the issue is God.

PD1 · March 25, 2005

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.
Just out of curiosity, if I am a KJV-only guy, believe in modalism, and believe in election only, is that close enough to correct belief so that my faith in Christ counts?
Inquiring minds want to know.
You were doing so well, then you took a lefthand turn on me.
Paul, the issue is God. Do you believe that God needs something to exist as God?
Would God be God if all there was was God?

Good question. What's the LDS answer?

Paul McNabb · March 25, 2005

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.
Just out of curiosity, if I am a KJV-only guy, believe in modalism, and believe in election only, is that close enough to correct belief so that my faith in Christ counts?
Inquiring minds want to know.
You were doing so well, then you took a lefthand turn on me.
Paul, the issue is God. Do you believe that God needs something to exist as God?

Here is the issue we were discussing:

You said that there might be some Christians that belong to a Mormon church, but it would be in spite of Mormonism, not because of it. You said that I and my children may or may not be Christian, but you hoped we were. You said or implied that our Mormon beliefs may be too wrong to quality us for salvation.

I asked about what will happen when I die. When I stand before my Lord Jesus, bow my knee, proclaim Him my Lord and Savior, when I do all these things is He going to check up to see if I believed correctly about the nature of God, the importance of the scriptures, or whether we are saved by faith, grace, works, election, or some combination?

For example, can a Christ-loving, KJV-only, salvation-by-election-only, modalist be saved? Are those beliefs close enough to being correct so that his/her faith counts? Or are those beliefs enough wrong so that his/her belief in and submission to Christ aren't enough to save?

Since you seem to believe that faith in Christ isn't enough, that you have to believe properly too, I'd like to know how your theology deals with people who apparently have given their life to Christ but sincerely believe false doctrine. Is Christ loving and powerful enough to save those that have sincerely and completely accepted Him as their savior, but for whatever reason (intelligence, upbringing, culture, chance, etc.) have some false beliefs?

PD1 · March 25, 2005

Whoops. PD1, you seemed to have crossed threads here. The *other* thread didn't have this question on it, but you suddenly just asked it there and I answered.
My answer is that I don't know. I've never thought much about it. It might be a fun intellectual exercise to consider what God "needs" to be God. Off hand, I can't think of anything that He needs to be God.
But actually, this *wasn't* the question. The question was what we needed to be, do, or believe to be Christian. I think this question is your preparation to try to spring a new line of reasoning on me. Instead of playing games, just tell me and make your point.

Well, as I've said before, Paul, depending on one's view of God will certainly affect what kind of "Christian" they are. Would you not agree? Therefore, if one holds to a view of God which assumes that he is in need of something to exist as God, then just what should that say about their testimony, assurance, or future as a Christian? Furthermore, what should that say about what they know about what God has revealed about himself?

emaughan · March 25, 2005

To your insistance that I did not respond to your question:

QUOTE
As for your conclusion, let me ask you: Does the Mormon believe that God needs anything to exist as God? The Christian, according to biblical revelation, says no. What say ye?

Here is my response:

I don't understand your question since you have placed me in two seperate groups: Mormon and Christian - I am both. I assume your implying that I am Mormon but not Christian - this is false. Since I do not believe in your interpretations of scripture - you wish to "kick me out of the club".

I noted in the above that your starting out bad by dividing Mormon and Christian - bad form. Then I followed with:

I'll answer the question to the best of my ability but 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?

Your asking me - I believe what are the limits of God - is this correct? I was curious to see if you have thought about what limits God may have. I should have asked some of the simplier standbys like, "can God create an object too big for Him to move", or "can God write a book faster than He can read it". More seriously, can God be evil? I think many folks of your flavor tend to make sweeping statements about the nature of God without thinking about the implications.

Here was the main response to your question.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (not christian in your view) we believe that God is bound by laws and principles. This is different from most trinitarians who believe God can do whatever He pleases. Indeed the Calvinist even believe God can be completely unjust, cruel, and unmerciful predestining many to Hell. Other christians seem to have no grasp as to exactly what God is. 3 in 1, 1 in 3, fills the whole universe yet fits in your heart. We believe that God is a divine man in whose image we are created. We believe that we will through the atonement of Christ have the opportunity to become like God. Though it is not official or cannonized doctrine, many LDS - myself included - believe that the Father went through mortality before the creation of this universe. The problem with going that far back is that it goes beyond what has been revealed.

If this did not answer your question sufficiently, then I can not answer well enough to meet your "standard".

Paul McNabb · March 25, 2005

Well, as I've said before, Paul, depending on one's view of God will certainly affect what kind of "Christian" they are. Would you not agree? Therefore, if one holds to a view of God which assumes that he is in need of something to exist as God, then just what should that say about their testimony, assurance, or future as a Christian? Furthermore, what should that say about what they know about what God has revealed about himself?

Actually, I think what a person believes about this sort of philosophical question is almost meaningless in terms of what kind of Christian he is.

I believe that a person can probably have a wonderfully strong "testimony and assurance" with a variety of beliefs about the origin and ontological nature of God. After all, God spent precious little time in the scriptures talking about these kinds of philosophical issues. What He *did* reveal was that he was a loving, powerful, holy, just, merciful, eternal Being that is the source of our life and our only hope for eternal happiness.

I think there is an incredible number of unknowns when it comes to God. I believe people don't have to be astute philosophers to be saved. They can be children, mentally disabled, uneducated people and believe some wrong or unsophisticated things, and God still loves them and can and will save them if they are willing to submit to Him and acknowledge Him.

PD1 · March 25, 2005

You said that there might be some Christians that belong to a Mormon church, but it would be in spite of Mormonism, not because of it. You said that I and my children may or may not be Christian, but you hoped we were. You said or implied that our Mormon beliefs may be too wrong to quality us for salvation.
I asked about what will happen when I die. When I stand before my Lord Jesus, bow my knee, proclaim Him my Lord and Savior, when I do all these things is He going to check up to see if I believed correctly about the nature of God, the importance of the scriptures, or whether we are saved by faith, grace, works, election, or some combination?
For example, can a Christ-loving, KJV-only, salvation-by-election-only, modalist be saved? Are those beliefs close enough to being correct so that his/her faith counts? Or are those beliefs enough wrong so that his/her belief in and submission to Christ aren't enough to save?
Since you seem to believe that faith in Christ isn't enough, that you have to believe properly too, I'd like to know how your theology deals with people who apparently have given their life to Christ but sincerely believe false doctrine. Is Christ loving and powerful enough to save those that have sincerely and completely accepted Him as their savior, but for whatever reason (intelligence, upbringing, culture, chance, etc.) have some false beliefs?

1) Indeed, there may be some in the LDS Church that are Christians, yet not because of LDS theology. And yes, I hope that you and yours are Christians, but from what I've learned from the LDS, here and elsewhere, their theological beliefs will preclude them from eternally abiding with God.

2) As for what will ultimately happen to you when you die, only God knows for sure. But, we do know that "sound doctrine" is important, starting with the person of God, especially if one claims to be a Christian. For errant beliefs about God lead to errant beliefs about everything else Christian. And if one ascribes to errant beliefs, as it pertains to the things of God, you may rest assure that it was not the God of heaven who led you to accept or place faith in them. And if that be the case, it would be in your best interest to start making amends before time runs out.

3) I've said elsewhere that just because a person believes in a Jesus, does not necessarily mean that that Jesus is able to redeem. So, all the things you've set forth as criteria are really irrelevant. What matters is which Jesus you've decided to place your faith in. The LDS Jesus cannot redeem, given his relationship to the LDS God, which is imperfect, as already implied by some of the LDS here.

4) As for the question of faith, it is not that faith in Christ is not enough. It is the Christ that one places their faith in that is the problem. For believing in false doctrine naturally follows believing in a false Christ. And for those Christians that may be in the LDS Church, God may have redeemed them, but because of varying circumstances ranging from neglect to deception, they may very well accept such beliefs willingly or unwillingly. Nevertheless, the point is, faith in Christ is what redeems the person, but only when one gets ahold of the Christ is genuinely capable of doing the redeeming. All else is vain, regardless of how much faith is exhibited.