Are Mormons Christian? A Atheist speaks out!!!!

[Exmo-Robertson]

A good atheist friend who calls himself "Deconstructor" sent me the following:

Are Mormons Christians?

I simply asked if Mormons REALLY believed that “Jesus is THE Christ.” If that statement is true, then Mormon practice, not just talk, would bear that out. But it doesn’t.

I wasn't referring to the definition of Christianity, I was asking if Mormons really believed "Jesus is THE Christ." There's nothing arbitrary about that question. Either Mormons really believe in practice that Jesus is the one-and-only Christ (salvation) or they don't.

There are many definitions of Christians, but I particularly liked your(this is in response to something I wroote him) original definition that it was someone who believes Jesus is THE Christ.

In Mormon scripture, Christ Himself makes it very clear what it takes to be saved by Him. Jesus spells out that his saving doctrine is LIMITED to: 1. Faith in Jesus Christ, 2. Repentance, 3. Baptism, 4. The Gift of the Holy Ghost - nothing more, nothing less.

I emphasized "limited," because the Mormon Jesus said "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them." (3 Nephi 11:40

This is in harmony with bona-fide Christian churches that teach Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation, not just PART of the way. Unfortunately, Mormonism in practice rejects this notion and requires many other faiths, beliefs and (which no other Christian church recognizes) ceremonies for exaltation.

You ask "Will Catholics baptize someone who rejects the Pope and cardinals as any kind of religious authority?" Actually, Catholics accept baptism from other denominations as valid (but not Mormon baptism). And you may recall that many evangelical churches don't require you to have a testimony in the preacher or church founder in order to be saved.

I'm not trying to tack on some arbitrary definition to what is means to be a Christian. I am asking, however, what the statement "Jesus is the Christ" has to do with Christianity and how Mormonism treats that statement.

I certainly don’t claim ultimate authority on who or what a Christian is. I can tell you what other people have said who claim some authority. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young consistently condemned Christians and Christianity declaring them to be an abomination, and insisted that they (the Mormons) were not Christians and that their church was not a Christian one. Most Christian churches today would agree with them too!

I thought the whole point of the "Restoration" and Joseph Smith was to supercede Christianity, not to become a part of it. In their lifetimes, neither the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith or Brigham Young had anything good to say about Christians or Christianity.

But let's pretend we don't know anything about Mormon History or past doctrine. Let's focus on the warm and Christian-looking Mormon Church of today.

1. What other Christian church requires the participation in masononic temple rites for exaltation?
2. What other Christian church insists on a testimony of the Book of Mormon?
3. What other Christian church teaches its members that wearing church-made underwear is “an outward sign of an inward commitment to Jesus Christ?”
4. What other Christian church claims the writings of Joseph Smith in the D&C are actually the words of Jesus Christ?
5. What other Christian church has temples closed to the public, where adults are “washed and anointed” while naked, to be cleaned from “the blood and sins of this generation?”
6. What other Christian church gives you a secret new name, signs and handshakes that are required in order to “pass the sentinels and guardians” in order to return to the presence of God?
7. What other Christian church has as part of its scripture, actual revelations demanding the practice of “The Law of Abraham” which is described as polygamy, and is the only way to achieve exaltation? (See D&C 132)
8. What other Christian church practices proxy baptisms of dead relatives and recognizes such baptism for dead people as valid?

The clear answer is that IF the Mormon Church is Christian, it is unlike ANY OTHER Christian church. It is so far from what all other Christian churches practice and teach, that it is in a class by itself.

So if Mormons are Christians they are a very weird type of Christian that most other Christians have a hard time swallowing. Point this out to any true-believing Mormon and they'll smile because they “know” that Mormonism is a “restoration” of the “true” Christian faith.

But that line of thinking takes you back to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said at the beginning of Mormonism - IT ISN’T CHRISTIAN, IT’S BETTER THAN CHRISTIAN!

This is the dilemma facing modern Mormon leaders. On one hand they want to be seen as Christian, on the other, they want to keep building funky temples and teach and practice things that no other Christian church accepts as having anything to do with the real Christian Jesus Christ.

What's really going on is that for the Mormon church to grow, they need to be able to convert as many Christians as possible to their new faith. What better way to convert Christians to Mormonism than to first sell them on the idea that Mormons are Christians?

So far, the ones believing the lie the most are the Mormons themselves... Let's say for a moment that to be a Christian, all you have to believe is that Jesus is the Christ.

Sounds simple and broad, but I’m afraid Mormons would still not qualify as Christians under this definition.

Do Mormons believe Jesus is the Christ, i.e. the one-and-only savior, the one-and-only way to heaven?

Sure, the Book of Mormon says it. Even Jesus Christ is quoted in the Book of Mormon as saying he is the only way to salvation and faith in him is the beginning and the end.

So let's put this “doctrine” to the test...

During your next temple interview, tell your Bishop that you do not believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet, refuse to recognize Gordon B. Hinckley as God’s only living prophet, BUT you still accept Jesus as the Christ.

What will happen if you declare this to your Mormon Bishop? Will he sign your recommend, which certifies you as “temple worthy” and on your way to the exaltation?

What if an investigator of the Mormon church refuses to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, but testifies with confidence in their faith in Jesus AS THE CHRIST? Can they receive Mormon baptism?

What do true-believing Mormons call Mormons who ONLY believe in Jesus Christ? Do they call them “saved” or “filled with the spirit” or do they call them “apostates” and “lost?”

No wonder Christians don't think Mormons REALLY believe Jesus is the Christ.

You see, in the Mormon church, it’s not enough to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Somehow, Jesus can’t save you unless you accept everything else the Mormon Church practices and preaches.

Sure, Jesus is part of Mormonism, but it’s not the only part, and definitely not the only part that they say is required for exaltation. In practice, there’s a whole lot more Mormons have to believe in - other than Jesus - in order to be saved.

Mormon Prophets have consistently declared that Joseph Smith - not Jesus Christ - holds the “keys to this dispensation” and that NO ONE now living can be saved without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet. Mormons will deny this to your face, but just try being an accepted, temple recommend-holding Mormon without declaring faith in Joseph Smith.

Mormonism is a bait-and-switch game. They talk a lot about Jesus as the Christ, but when it comes right down to it, the Mormon Jesus can’t save you by himself. You need to wear funky Mormon underwear for the rest of your life and be “sealed” in a Mormon temple etc... to obtain exaltation.

Meanwhile, the Christian world focuses on Jesus literally as the Christ and that only faith in him is necessary to be saved. Sure, they have popes and sacraments, but when it comes right down to it, Jesus is there ready to save you by himself and doesn’t require you have a testimony of Joseph Smith or any other man in order to return to live with God.

Mormons can only classify themselves as Christian using this definition:

1. People who talk about Jesus.

Using that definition, Muslims would also be Christians!

Perhaps you are looking at this issue backwards. Instead of asking "What makes a church Christian?", ask the question, "What definition of Christianity would make Mormon practices Christian?" Now try and make that same definition also include traditional Christianity but exclude Muslim, Judean, Masonic and Pagan groups.



A truth so apparent even non-Christians can see it. Your thoughts?
Dana

[Jin-Roh]

:teeth:
That's very perceptive for a skeptic!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes it is. No matter how tough it is to say, as I know have met many Mormons I sincerely and truly like, they are grievously outside the bounds of the historic Christian faith. We do not have the same God or the same Jesus. A different Jesus cannot save, and a different God is nothing more than an idol. Tough things have to be said at times. This is not meant as anything bad against anyone's person but the doctine, and it is unloving as far as I am concerned to NOT say so.

[John Powell]

EXMO-ROBERTSON:
Are Mormons Christian? A Atheist speaks out!!!!

A good atheist friend who calls himself "Deconstructor" sent me the following:

DECONSTRUCTOR:
Are Mormons Christians?

I simply asked if Mormons REALLY believed that "Jesus is THE Christ." If that statement is true, then Mormon practice, not just talk, would bear that out. But it doesn't.


POWELL:
I will reply from the perspective of my former beliefs in Mormonism.

JOHN MORMON:
This methodology is flawed. A person's actions are not necessarily congruent with their beliefs. Deconstructor might show that Mormons don't behave like other Christians think they should, but that does not mean Mormons don't have the core belief that qualifies them to call themselves Christian.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
I wasn't referring to the definition of Christianity, I was asking if Mormons really believed "Jesus is THE Christ."


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons really do believe that. "Christ" comes from a Greek word meaning "anointed." "Messiah" comes from a Hebrew word meaning the same thing. Mormons believe that the Jesus of the New Testament was the promised Anointed one / Christ / Messiah.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
There's nothing arbitrary about that question. Either Mormons really believe in practice that Jesus is the one-and-only Christ (salvation) or they don't.


JOHN MORMON:
Now Deconstructor has added an inappropriate qualification to what it means to be "Christ / Messiah," namely that to believe Jesus is the Christ means one must believe there can be only one and that salvation can only come through Him. Perhaps there are others who were also "anointed," perhaps even on other planets. These are separate questions from whether Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ. Mormons believe that Jesus is the one and only world Savior for this planet, although person A might save the life of another person B. Also, what happens on other planets is unknown. They might have their own world savior.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
There are many definitions of Christians, but I particularly liked your [(this is in response to something I wroote him)---by EXMO-ROBERTSON] original definition that it was someone who believes Jesus is THE Christ.

In Mormon scripture, Christ Himself makes it very clear what it takes to be saved by Him. Jesus spells out that his saving doctrine is LIMITED to: 1. Faith in Jesus Christ, 2. Repentance, 3. Baptism, 4. The Gift of the Holy Ghost - nothing more, nothing less.


JOHN MORMON:
Let me quote the 4th Article of Faith.


http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


JOHN MORMON:
This is where you start on the road to salvation, but it's not the end of the story. You must obey God's commandments while enduring to the end.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
I emphasized "limited," because the Mormon Jesus said "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them." (3 Nephi 11:40

This is in harmony with bona-fide Christian churches that teach Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation, not just PART of the way.


JOHN MORMON:
Deconstructor is using an exaggerated religious claim to make unwarranted conclusions. Those four elements are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for salvation. For example, if God were to annihilate everyone then they wouldn't be saved.

The point of the exaggeration is that you can't be saved by following competing religious dogma.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
Unfortunately, Mormonism in practice rejects this notion and requires many other faiths, beliefs and (which no other Christian church recognizes) ceremonies for exaltation.

You ask "Will Catholics baptize someone who rejects the Pope and cardinals as any kind of religious authority?" Actually, Catholics accept baptism from other denominations as valid (but not Mormon baptism). And you may recall that many evangelical churches don't require you to have a testimony in the preacher or church founder in order to be saved.


JOHN MORMON:
Deconstructor didn't answer the question he asked. Will Catholics accept the baptism if the person declares that they reject the Pope and Cardinals as any kind of religious authority? What if the prospective Catholic says the Pope is spawn of Satan, would they still accept his other baptism as valid to be a member of their church?


DECONSTRUCTOR:
I'm not trying to tack on some arbitrary definition to what is means to be a Christian. I am asking, however, what the statement "Jesus is the Christ" has to do with Christianity and how Mormonism treats that statement.


JOHN MORMON:
Whether Mormon religious practice and Biblical interpretation of the phrase "Jesus is the Christ" differs from that of other Christian sects is irrelevant to the question whether Mormons can justifiably call themselves Christian.

This would be like a you, as a Christian, denying anyone but members of your own Christian sect the right to call themselves a theist or believer in God unless their religious practices and beliefs about God were the same as yours. What a Mormon, a Baptist, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. think about God is irrelevant to the question of whether they believe in God and can justifiably call themself a "theist" or a "believer in God."


DECONSTRUCTOR:
I certainly don't claim ultimate authority on who or what a Christian is. I can tell you what other people have said who claim some authority. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young consistently condemned Christians and Christianity declaring them to be an abomination, and insisted that they (the Mormons) were not Christians and that their church was not a Christian one. Most Christian churches today would agree with them too!


JOHN MORMON:
Could you supply the quotes? If they did say this it should be interpreted to mean "non-Mormon Christian sects." Isn't the name of the organization the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"?


DECONSTRUCTOR:
I thought the whole point of the "Restoration" and Joseph Smith was to supercede Christianity, not to become a part of it. In their lifetimes, neither the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith or Brigham Young had anything good to say about Christians or Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
It was supposed to be restoration of the original church of Jesus Christ, not an appendage to the modern sects of Christianity. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others may not have had good things to say about the non-Mormon Christian organizations of their day, but surely they had good things to say about Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, and other Christians of the original church and of their doctrines of Christianity. Didn't they speak highly of Christians who joined the Mormon church?


DECONSTRUCTOR:
But let's pretend we don't know anything about Mormon History or past doctrine. Let's focus on the warm and Christian-looking Mormon Church of today.

1. What other Christian church requires the participation in masononic temple rites for exaltation?

2. What other Christian church insists on a testimony of the Book of Mormon?

3. What other Christian church teaches its members that wearing church-made underwear is "an outward sign of an inward commitment to Jesus Christ?"

4. What other Christian church claims the writings of Joseph Smith in the D&C are actually the words of Jesus Christ?

5. What other Christian church has temples closed to the public, where adults are "washed and anointed" while naked, to be cleaned from "the blood and sins of this generation?"

6. What other Christian church gives you a secret new name, signs and handshakes that are required in order to "pass the sentinels and guardians" in order to return to the presence of God?

7. What other Christian church has as part of its scripture, actual revelations demanding the practice of "The Law of Abraham" which is described as polygamy, and is the only way to achieve exaltation? (See D&C 132)

8. What other Christian church practices proxy baptisms of dead relatives and recognizes such baptism for dead people as valid?


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe these were the kinds of things that the early Christians of Palestine and the Americas did.

The fact that Mormon practice and beliefs differ from other Christian sects such as the Catholics or the Baptists merely means Mormons are not Catholics or Baptists, it doesn't mean that Catholics or Baptists or Mormons aren't Christians.

It would be like arguing that since no other God-believing religion does the same as the Mormons or the Catholics or the Muslims or the Hindus that, therefore, they aren't theists.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
The clear answer is that IF the Mormon Church is Christian, it is unlike ANY OTHER Christian church.

It is so far from what all other Christian churches practice and teach, that it is in a class by itself.


JOHN MORMON:
Every religious sect is unique, but every religious sect has something in common with every other religious sect. All things are related.

If you want to distinguish Christians from other Christians, don't ask them if they believe "Jesus is the Christ" because they all do. Ask them if they believe "God is a triune being." That's a useful discriminant between trinitarian Christians and other Christians. Likewise, to ask if they believe "God exists" is not a good way to discriminate theists from other theists.

To ask "Is the Tanachk / Old Testament the Word of God" is not a good way to discriminate between Jews and Christians, but to ask "is Jesus the Christ" or "Is the New Testament the Word of God" would be. To ask "Was Abraham the chosen Patriarch of God" would not be a good way to discriminate between Jews and Muslims, but to ask "Is the Qu'ran or the Tanachk the Word of God" would be.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
So if Mormons are Christians they are a very weird type of Christian that most other Christians have a hard time swallowing. Point this out to any true-believing Mormon and they'll smile because they "know" that Mormonism is a "restoration" of the "true" Christian faith.

But that line of thinking takes you back to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said at the beginning of Mormonism - IT ISN'T CHRISTIAN, IT'S BETTER THAN CHRISTIAN!


JOHN MORMON:
I still don't see the direct quotations or links here. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said that they surely meant they weren't one of the non-Mormon Christian sects, but they were better than those non-Mormon Christian sects.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
This is the dilemma facing modern Mormon leaders. On one hand they want to be seen as Christian, on the other, they want to keep building funky temples and teach and practice things that no other Christian church accepts as having anything to do with the real Christian Jesus Christ.


JOHN MORMON:
I agree that there are efforts today more than in the past to make the Mormon church appear more mainstream Christian. In the past the differences were encouraged and emphasized. It's part of what made Mormons special.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
What's really going on is that for the Mormon church to grow, they need to be able to convert as many Christians as possible to their new faith. What better way to convert Christians to Mormonism than to first sell them on the idea that Mormons are Christians?


JOHN MORMON:
It used to work to tell them that Mormons were different, special.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
So far, the ones believing the lie the most are the Mormons themselves... Let's say for a moment that to be a Christian, all you have to believe is that Jesus is the Christ.

Sounds simple and broad, but I'm afraid Mormons would still not qualify as Christians under this definition.

Do Mormons believe Jesus is the Christ, i.e. the one-and-only savior, the one-and-only way to heaven?

Sure, the Book of Mormon says it. Even Jesus Christ is quoted in the Book of Mormon as saying he is the only way to salvation and faith in him is the beginning and the end.

So let's put this "doctrine" to the test...

During your next temple interview, tell your Bishop that you do not believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet, refuse to recognize Gordon B. Hinckley as God's only living prophet, BUT you still accept Jesus as the Christ.

What will happen if you declare this to your Mormon Bishop? Will he sign your recommend, which certifies you as "temple worthy" and on your way to the exaltation?

What if an investigator of the Mormon church refuses to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, but testifies with confidence in their faith in Jesus AS THE CHRIST? Can they receive Mormon baptism?

What do true-believing Mormons call Mormons who ONLY believe in Jesus Christ? Do they call them "saved" or "filled with the spirit" or do they call them "apostates" and "lost?"

No wonder Christians don't think Mormons REALLY believe Jesus is the Christ.


JOHN MORMON:
This argument is flawed. Suppose a "baptism by immersion" preacher was interviewing a prospective member for baptism. The person says they believe in Jesus, but don't believe in immersion, nor in the God-given authority of the preacher to baptize unto repentance, but they still want to be considered a member of their church, but only "sprinkled." Should the preacher oblige them?

What if a prospective member of a Christian religion claimed to have faith in Jesus, but didn't believe in heaven, hell, the Holy Ghost, Heavenly Father, or the vast majority of the Bible and thought the members of that church were all a bunch of hypocritical devil worshipers and was himself a convicted mass murderer recently escaped? Should they accept the prospective member into full fellowship as a saved individual? Evidently, it takes a lot more than just a belief in Jesus as the Christ to justify membership in a Christian sect. There are necessary corollary beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.

However, to justifiably call oneself a Christian, all that is required is that they honestly affirm that they believe that "Jesus is the Christ" or something similar to that.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
You see, in the Mormon church, it's not enough to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Somehow, Jesus can't save you unless you accept everything else the Mormon Church practices and preaches.


JOHN MORMON:
The Mormons aren't unique in this attitude. Try going to any Christian group and when it's your turn to speak proclaim that you believe in Jesus as the Christ, but everything else in the Bible and what the d--n preacher says in their church is a bunch of lies and see if the members will pat you on the back congratulating you for being saved.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
Sure, Jesus is part of Mormonism, but it's not the only part, and definitely not the only part that they say is required for exaltation. In practice, there's a whole lot more Mormons have to believe in - other than Jesus - in order to be saved.


JOHN MORMON:
These other Christians should also think that they have to obey God's commandments to be saved.

What if the Apostles had left Jesus after becoming His disciples and, when Jesus asked them why they quit the ministry, they replied with "We now believe that thou art the Christ so our salvation is assured. There's nothing else we must do to be saved. We can return to our fishing and such things."? If they had done that would they have really been saved?


DECONSTRUCTOR:
Mormon Prophets have consistently declared that Joseph Smith - not Jesus Christ - holds the "keys to this dispensation" . . .


JOHN MORMON:
Ridiculous. Where's the quotation? According to Mormons, Joseph Smith received the keys from God. How can Joseph get from God something that God doesn't have to give? God has all the keys.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
. . . and that NO ONE now living can be saved without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet.


JOHN MORMON:
That should not appear so strange an attitude after all.

Could the people of Moses have been saved without believing Moses was a Prophet of God? I don't think so. If they didn't believe what Moses said about God how could they know what to do? Could the early Christians be saved without believing that Peter and Paul and such were Apostles of Jesus Christ? I don't think so. If they didn't trust Peter and Paul and such to honestly declare the words of Jesus, how could they know what God wanted them to do?

In requiring the acceptance of Joseph Smith as God's representative, Mormons didn't really do anything that different than what had been done before in the Bible and the early Christian church.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
Mormons will deny this to your face, but just try being an accepted, temple recommend-holding Mormon without declaring faith in Joseph Smith.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons will deny what? I went through those interviews. If you don't believe in the scriptures or the prophets then you aren't worthy to enter the House of the Lord. It would be like an early Christian claiming to believe in Jesus, but not accepting the Gospel accounts or Peter or Paul as God's representatives.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
Mormonism is a bait-and-switch game. They talk a lot about Jesus as the Christ, but when it comes right down to it, the Mormon Jesus can't save you by himself. You need to wear funky Mormon underwear for the rest of your life and be "sealed" in a Mormon temple etc... to obtain exaltation.


JOHN MORMON:
I don't think the non-Mormon Jesus can save them either if they don't do their part. If you claim to have faith in Jesus, but don't follow in His footsteps by being obedient to God then you won't be saved. If Jesus had said "I have faith in myself" and then quit the ministry he would not have been saved. If the Apostles had done something similar then they would not have been saved. Faith without works is dead.

If God tells you to wear "funky" underwear then should you do it? You better if you hope to receive the promised rewards. Try disobeying your parents or your employer and see if you still get the rewards they promised for obedience. God operates in a similarly fair way.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
Meanwhile, the Christian world focuses on Jesus literally as the Christ and that only faith in him is necessary to be saved. Sure, they have popes and sacraments, but when it comes right down to it, Jesus is there ready to save you by himself and doesn't require you have a testimony of Joseph Smith or any other man in order to return to live with God.


JOHN MORMON:
I doubt this. What if the person claims to have faith in Jesus, but thinks practically everything in the Bible is a lie, will Jesus save such a person?


DECONSTRUCTOR:
Mormons can only classify themselves as Christian using this definition:

1. People who talk about Jesus.

Using that definition, Muslims would also be Christians!


JOHN MORMON:
That's an absurd definition since even atheists could be called Christians.


DECONSTRUCTOR:
Perhaps you are looking at this issue backwards. Instead of asking "What makes a church Christian?", ask the question, "What definition of Christianity would make Mormon practices Christian?" Now try and make that same definition also include traditional Christianity but exclude Muslim, Judean, Masonic and Pagan groups.


JOHN MORMON:
The "do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?" question does this nicely. Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. will affirm. Muslims, Jews, and non-Christian masonic and pagan groups will deny.


EXMO-ROBERTSON:
A truth so apparent even non-Christians can see it. Your thoughts?
Dana


POWELL:
I shared what would have been my views as a believing Mormon. As an atheist I support Mormons calling themselves Christian even though their practices and beliefs about Jesus differ significantly from those of the majority of Christians. Likewise, I support Mormons calling themselves theists even though they don't believe in the triune nature of God that the majority of Christians believe in.

John Powell

[Jacob]

Today @ 12:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137751#post137751)
John Powell:

JOHN MORMON:
Let me quote the 4th Article of Faith.



4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.



JOHN MORMON:
This is where you start on the road to salvation, but it's not the end of the story. You must obey God's commandments while enduring to the end.


John,

No one is contesting the need to persevere, but Mormonism is adding human works to that which is necessary to be saved. You can say that you believe the same thing, but by insisting on adding more "ingredients", you've underminded that which is held in common.

If you're out of gas and I show up freely pouring 5 gallons of gas in your car, and then I add a cup of sugar and a cup of water, you'll be in a worse condition than if I had left you alone. Mormon doctrine on salvation puts diesel in my gas driven auto, and then adds the sugar & water.

I'll rephrase the difference. Christians believe that only Christ's death on the cross is meritorious for providing salvation. To add to this work is to reject the gospel as God gave it.

Jacob.

[Jacob]

Today @ 12:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137751#post137751)
John Powell:

JOHN MORMON:
What if a prospective member of a Christian religion claimed to have faith in Jesus, but didn't believe in heaven, hell, the Holy Ghost, Heavenly Father, or the vast majority of the Bible and thought the members of that church were all a bunch of hypocritical devil worshipers and was himself a convicted mass murderer recently escaped? Should they accept the prospective member into full fellowship as a saved individual? Evidently, it takes a lot more than just a belief in Jesus as the Christ to justify membership in a Christian sect. There are necessary corollary beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.



You're right. What if they believed that Jesus & Satan were brothers, or that they could become gods, or that God use to be a man (at least, not a god)... You're correct, no Christian religion would admit them as a saved individual.




JOHN MORMON:
Mormons will deny what? I went through those interviews. If you don't believe in the scriptures or the prophets then you aren't worthy to enter the House of the Lord. It would be like an early Christian claiming to believe in Jesus, but not accepting the Gospel accounts or Peter or Paul as God's representatives.



What early Christians believed in the Mormon prophet (or whoever you say functioned in this role)? attended a "Christian" temple? believed in the Mormon concept of heaven, gods, etc.???

You're making the Christian's point by trying to say that Mormon practices are normal and Christian and comparing them to early Christian practice.

Jacob

[Bill the Cat]

Let's not forget about the graven image at the top of all temples. Moroni. That is another strike against them.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Let me quote the 4th Article of Faith. . .

This is where you start on the road to salvation, but it's not the end of the story. You must obey God's commandments while enduring to the end.

JACOB:
John, No one is contesting the need to persevere, but Mormonism is adding human works to that which is necessary to be saved.


JOHN MORMON:
I guess I don't understand. If you need to persevere to be saved then persevering is a necessary element to be saved. If a person has faith in Jesus, but otherwise behaves like an evil person and disregards any commands from God then they surely won't be saved.

One might argue that to have faith in Jesus unto salvation implies a willingness to obey all God's relevant commandments. One might argue that the lack of such obedience is an indication that the person doesn't have sufficient faith in Jesus to be saved.


JACOB:
You can say that you believe the same thing, but by insisting on adding more "ingredients", you've underminded that which is held in common.


JOHN MORMON:
It seems quite obvious to me that one must obey God's commandments to be "saved" (meaning in this case more than mere resurrection) even if they appear to be "added ingredients."

IMO, the important issue between us should not be whether we must obey all God's relevant commandments to be saved, but whether God commands us to do the things your religion says or what my religion (POWELL: my former religion) says.


JACOB:
If you're out of gas and I show up freely pouring 5 gallons of gas in your car, and then I add a cup of sugar and a cup of water, you'll be in a worse condition than if I had left you alone. Mormon doctrine on salvation puts diesel in my gas driven auto, and then adds the sugar & water.


JOHN MORMON:
What if God approves of you and commands me to put in your tank the diesel fuel and sugar and water that you think will be bad for your car? Should you take it with faith that it will be to your eternal benefit or should you refuse it because you know better?

What should the widow have done when Elijah told her to feed him first when she thought she only had enough for herself and her son and then to die?


JACOB:
I'll rephrase the difference. Christians believe that only Christ's death on the cross is meritorious for providing salvation. To add to this work is to reject the gospel as God gave it.

Jacob.


JOHN MORMON:
What if there had never been the experience in the Garden before the cross? What if Jesus had died some other way? Mormons believe that Jesus took our sins upon Him in the Garden. Death on the cross was a much less painful experience.

What are the necessary conditions for salvation, Jacob? Perhaps this should be a new thread.

More to the point of this thread, Jacob, do you think Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ and that they are justified in claiming to be Christians?

John Powell

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
What if a prospective member of a Christian religion claimed to have faith in Jesus, but didn't believe in heaven, hell, . . .

JACOB:
You're right. What if they believed that Jesus & Satan were brothers, or that they could become gods, or that God use to be a man (at least, not a god)... You're correct, no Christian religion would admit them as a saved individual.


JOHN MORMON:
Does that mean you don't think Mormons are Christians? Do you think Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ?

If the answer to the first question is "yes" then please answer the following:

Are Mormons theists? Do Mormons believe in God?

If your answers to these two questions are "yes" and "yes" then I ask you why the apparent contradiction?

Mormons believe in a God that is very different than the one you believe in, Jacob, yet you are willing to call them theists. They also believe that Jesus is the Christ, but their beliefs about Jesus are very different from your own. For that reason you deny them justification to call themselves Christians. Why aren't you consistent?


JACOB:
What early Christians believed in the Mormon prophet (or whoever you say functioned in this role)? attended a "Christian" temple? believed in the Mormon concept of heaven, gods, etc.???

You're making the Christian's point by trying to say that Mormon practices are normal and Christian and comparing them to early Christian practice.

Jacob


JOHN MORMON:
Would you like to have a formal debate on whether the doctrines of Mormonism are Biblical? I'm interested.

Perhaps we could start with things like the authority of Peter, the ancient use of temples and other holy places, the three degrees of heaven, and the possibility of holy men to become gods.

John Powell

[John Powell]

BILL THE CAT:
Let's not forget about the graven image at the top of all temples. Moroni. That is another strike against them.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons don't worship the image of Moroni like the pagans bowed down before their idols. We don't do that with statues of Jesus either.

Are you saying those in your religion have no statues or similar things?

What's your opinion, Bill:

Are Mormons Christians? Do Mormons believe that Jesus in the Christ?

John Powell

[Dee Dee Warren]

John your analogy, vis a vis, theist to Christian fails. It is akin to saying since we all agree that a Ford is a car it must also be a Chevy. Mormons are not Christian by any meaningful defintion. Now if they would like to say they are Christian as to themselves, consistency would demand that evangelicals are not, if words are to have any meaning at all. It is not the words that are determinative but the meanings that are poured into them.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137916#post137916)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons don't worship the image of Moroni like the pagans bowed down before their idols. We don't do that with statues of Jesus either.

they may not bow to them, but they are the most prominent thing on the temple.


Are you saying those in your religion have no statues or similar things?

Nope. Stained glass images of the cross and a dove are the most we have.


Are Mormons Christians? Do Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ?
John Powell

I respect your position john. I also respect you while disagreeing with both positions you argue from.

Asking this question is more complex. If I asked you if Michael Jordan was a great basketball player, would you say yes? If so, the one working here in the wheelchair would thank you, but disagree. It has to do with the attributes the LDS assign to this one they call "Jesus" They describe a Jesus that has attributes contradictory to historic testimony.

And no I do not believe they are Christians. Even LDS leaders have stated they believe in a different Jesus


"The God whom the 'Christians' worship is a being of their own creation - if, indeed, there can be such a being as they describe him to be...." LDS "Elder" Chas. W. Penrose, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 23, p. 343, 1883

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "...do not believe in the traditional Christ.
The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak

[John Powell]

WARREN:
John your analogy, vis a vis, theist to Christian fails. It is akin to saying since we all agree that a Ford is a car it must also be a Chevy. Mormons are not Christian by any meaningful defintion. Now if they would like to say they are Christian as to themselves, consistency would demand that evangelicals are not, if words are to have any meaning at all. It is not the words that are determinative but the meanings that are poured into them.


JOHN MORMON:
I respectfully disagree.

Although a Ford is not a Chevy, they are both automobiles. It would be wrong for a Ford owner to tell the Chevy owner: "You don't have a real automobile because yours does not have the features mine has. Yours, for example, has a manual rather than an automatic transmission."

In like manner, it is wrong and inconsistent to tell Mormons they can't call themselves Christians because, although they claim to believe that Jesus is the Christ, their version of Jesus differs significantly from that of most Christians. To be consistent, a trinitarian, such as yourself, should not call Mormons theists either since they don't believe in the triune God (the only one that really exists).

It's appropriate to say that Mormons are not Evangelical Christians, nor Baptist Christians, nor Lutheran Christians, nor Catholic Christians, nor Jews, nor Muslims, etc. But, I still think it's inappropriate to say that Mormons are not any kind of Christian. They are "Mormon Christians."

There are various ways one might classify the religions. For some purposes it might be appropriate to distinguish Mormons from other sects of Christ believers. However, the division should not be based on whether the members of the religions believe Jesus is the Christ with Mormons said to be in denial.

John Powell

[John Powell]

BILL THE CAT:
And no I do not believe they are Christians. Even LDS leaders have stated they believe in a different Jesus


JOHN MORMON:
I respect your right to an opinion, but seek an opportunity to change it.

They were denying that they believed in the "traditional Jesus," meaning the one that most Christians believed in. They were denying that they were "Christian" as was then understood by the term (namely, Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or whatever). They were NOT denying that they believed that Jesus is the Christ.

Does this mean, Bill, that you also deny that Mormons are theists because they don't believe in the traditional triune God?

Let me take your apparent reasoning --- that because the Mormon concept of Jesus differs from the majority of Christians that, therefore, Mormons are not Christians --- to an extreme to show its absurdity.

Each person has their own concept of Jesus that can vary dramatically during their own lifetime. Since only one of varying concepts of Jesus can logically be right, that suggests that no one but a very small minority of people can be a "true" Christian and only for as long as they retain the perfectly correct concept.

I understand this effort to exclude Mormons from being Christians because of the honor associated with that title, but I think it would be more logical to concede that Mormons are Christians, but claim that they have a false concept of Jesus. That would be in agreement with conceding that Mormons are theists, but claiming that they have a false concept of God.

What you're doing seems similar to trying to deny citizenship to undesirable people born in your country.

John Powell

[Dee Dee Warren]

John I will be back to answer you but I respectfullly say that I think you are way off base in your reasoning. I had to butt in quickly thugh I did not have the time to dedicate right at this time.

[Piebald]

Each person has their own concept of Jesus that can vary dramatically during their own lifetime.

But are such concepts radically different from the orthodox conceptions of Jesus Christ? If they are than they put themselves outside of "Christianity" IMHO

Can I be considered a Mormon/LDS if I reject some of the basic tenets of your faith which distinguish you from Christendom?

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Each person has their own concept of Jesus that can vary dramatically during their own lifetime.

HAMSTER:
But are such concepts radically different from the orthodox conceptions of Jesus Christ? If they are than they put themselves outside of "Christianity" IMHO


JOHN MORMON:
I think this is the way many are viewing it, but I don't think it's the best solution.

If you want to determine if a person is a theist ask them this question: "Do you believe that God exists?" If they say "yes" then count them as a theist.

If you want to determine if a person is a Christian ask them this question: "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?" If they say "yes" then count them as a Christian.


HAMSTER:
Can I be considered a Mormon/LDS if I reject some of the basic tenets of your faith which distinguish you from Christendom?


POWELL:
Yes, to be a "Mormon" you just have to be on the membership list. For you, that would mean being baptized by some Mormon missionaries. However, I suspect you'd be considered either a liberal Mormon or an apostate Mormon.

John Powell

[Jin-Roh]

You know, I think when a Christian says Christ, we really do mean that he is the only way --sola fide, hypostatic union and such. It's quite a bit more then just some Christianese semantic manuevers.

There have been Buddhists who believe that Jesus is "the Christ," but they're still Buddhists, not Christians.

And going back to your orginal post, a person's action will be congruent to what the believe --or more specific to the relevent article, a Church's teachings will be congruent to what they believe.

[John Powell]

JIN-ROH:
You know, I think when a Christian says Christ, we really do mean that he is the only way --sola fide, hypostatic union and such. It's quite a bit more then just some Christianese semantic manuevers.

There have been Buddhists who believe that Jesus is "the Christ," but they're still Buddhists, not Christians.


JOHN MORMON:
What would your Buddhist friend think if you suggested that his affirmation classified him as a Buddhist Christian?

One could affirm that "Jesus is the Christ" but not qualify being a Christian by merely meaning that someone anointed the man.

This is similar to being asked "do you believe in UFO's?" An "ET is visiting Earth" skeptic could affirm this since UFO just means "unidentified flying object." The appropriate question would be "Do you believe that some UFO's are ETs visiting Earth?"

Despite this semantic loophole, I think the "Is Jesus the Christ" question is still a powerful discriminant. Perhaps a better question is "Do you believe that Jesus is God or a god." Someone could still use unusual definitions of "god" to affirm this, yet not be Christian, but that would be more difficult.


JIN-ROH:
And going back to your orginal post, a person's action will be congruent to what the believe --or more specific to the relevent article, a Church's teachings will be congruent to what they believe.


POWELL:
What a church claims to believe is expected to be congruent with what they actually believe, yes, since most groups are reasonably honest about such things.

However, what a church claims to believe is proper behavior and what the members actually do is not usually as closely congruent. This is partly because humans tend to idealize life. They often imagine that they can expect to do what an ideal person does. As some say, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

John Powell

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 03:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137936#post137936)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON:
I respectfully disagree.

Although a Ford is not a Chevy, they are both automobiles. It would be wrong for a Ford owner to tell the Chevy owner: "You don't have a real automobile because yours does not have the features mine has.


My motorhead friends say this sort of thing all the time. Use to be that any Chevy owner could tell you that FORD stood for Falling On the Road Dead. Yeah, it's an automobile, but this Chevy is a REAL car....

John, this type of criticism is not applied only to LDS. JW's, Liberals, and all who preach "a different gospel" are not REALLY Christians. By your argument, anyone who calls themselves Christians, whatever they believe, cannot be refuted.

Jacob

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 02:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137896#post137896)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON:
I guess I don't understand. If you need to persevere to be saved then persevering is a necessary element to be saved. If a person has faith in Jesus, but otherwise behaves like an evil person and disregards any commands from God then they surely won't be saved.


I'm not the ultimate judge of individuals (pretty obvious, huh?), but I generally agree with this statement.




One might argue that to have faith in Jesus unto salvation implies a willingness to obey all God's relevant commandments. One might argue that the lack of such obedience is an indication that the person doesn't have sufficient faith in Jesus to be saved.


Yes, a willingness/desire to obey is necessary, but it merits nothing. The lack of such obedience does suggest a lack of faith.



JOHN MORMON:
It seems quite obvious to me that one must obey God's commandments to be "saved" (meaning in this case more than mere resurrection) even if they appear to be "added ingredients."



Rejecting your definition of "saved".




JOHN MORMON:
What if God approves of you and commands me to put in your tank the diesel fuel and sugar and water that you think will be bad for your car? Should you take it with faith that it will be to your eternal benefit or should you refuse it because you know better?


God gave me the owner's manual (the Bible) and it says that nothing but gas goes in the fuel tank. I'll not take what you think God (or should I say, what "your" god) told you to put in my tank. By faith in God, I trust His revealed word, not yours or Joseph Smith's.



What should the widow have done when Elijah told her to feed him first when she thought she only had enough for herself and her son and then to die?


No clear command against feeding a prophet with your last crumbs...



JOHN MORMON:
What if there had never been the experience in the Garden before the cross? What if Jesus had died some other way? Mormons believe that Jesus took our sins upon Him in the Garden. Death on the cross was a much less painful experience.


What if monkeys flew out of my ..... ? :teeth:

I know Mormons believe that the atonement happened at Gethsemene -- I have no reason to agree. Paul clearly believes that it occurred on Calvary. You have no way to know how much pain was involved in the Garden. Prophecy foretold how Jesus would die.



What are the necessary conditions for salvation, Jacob? Perhaps this should be a new thread.


Repentance & Faith. Repentance is just agreeing with God regarding our need to follow Him and our wretched condition, being unable to sufficiently follow Him. Faith, biblically speaking, is trust in God's provision/offering for our sins (which is Jesus) in contrast to trusting in the merit of anything we can do.

Of course if one has repented then their heart has been changed so that they agree with the need to pursue righteousness, and if they then excercise this type of faith, they will be given a "heart of flesh" in regards to following God.

The issue, to God, is whether or not the person has repented & trusted. The particulars of obedience will depend in large part on the instruction they recieve. Perseverance does not merit or earn anything, but does indicate (imperfectly) to us (mere mortals) who it is that has been truly "born again".



More to the point of this thread, Jacob, do you think Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ and that they are justified in claiming to be Christians?

John Powell

The devil believes that Jesus is the Christ, and he is not justified in any claim to be a Christian. Mormons are not easily confused with the Devil (though I've known some devilish Mormons), but they don't mean the same thing Christians (or the Bible) means when they use the word "Jesus", so they are not Christians.

Jacob

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 02:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137912#post137912)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON:
Does that mean you don't think Mormons are Christians? Do you think Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ?


I don't think Mormons are Christians.
Mormons believe that "Jesus" (not the same as the Biblical Jesus) is "the Christ"? So does the Devil (as well as JW's & Muslims).



If the answer to the first question is "yes" then please answer the following:

Are Mormons theists? Do Mormons believe in God?


Mormons are polytheists, not theists. But even if I were to give Mormons the tag of "theists", that would not distinguish them from Jews & Muslims & JW's or many pagan religions. None of these are Christians.
Mormons believe in gods, not in God.



If your answers to these two questions are "yes" and "yes" then I ask you why the apparent contradiction?


I didn't answer "yes" to these questions. No contradiction.



Mormons believe in a God that is very different than the one you believe in, Jacob, yet you are willing to call them theists. They also believe that Jesus is the Christ, but their beliefs about Jesus are very different from your own. For that reason you deny them justification to call themselves Christians. Why aren't you consistent?


As stated above, that you are theists does not distinguish you from pagan religions or Islam. You state that you have different beliefs about Jesus. If I believe that "Jesus is the Christ", but I'm thinking of my parrot named "Jesus", does that make me a Christian? Obviously not. What if I believe that "Jesus is the Christ", but I think he had no unique relationship to "God"; am I a Christian? I would say "no". What if I believe that "Jesus is the Christ", but I don't think Jesus was really human; am I a Christian? I would say "no".

I am consistent.





JOHN MORMON:
Would you like to have a formal debate on whether the doctrines of Mormonism are Biblical? I'm interested.


No. It's been done, or should be done, by others on this board.



Perhaps we could start with things like the authority of Peter, the ancient use of temples and other holy places, the three degrees of heaven, and the possibility of holy men to become gods.


Not interested. Show me the historical/archeological basis for the language of the golden plates., or for the claim that native Americans are descendents of Hebrews, or for the geographic claims of the Book of Mormon, and I might be interested.


Jacob

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 04:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137950#post137950)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON:
I respect your right to an opinion, but seek an opportunity to change it.

They were denying that they believed in the "traditional Jesus," meaning the one that most Christians believed in. They were denying that they were "Christian" as was then understood by the term (namely, Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or whatever). They were NOT denying that they believed that Jesus is the Christ.

OK, implications of this statement. Jesus being the Christ meant that he was the son of God. This in itself is not enough to be a follower of Christ. Look at the demons who threw themselves at His feet and proclaimed Him Son of the Most High.


Does this mean, Bill, that you also deny that Mormons are theists because they don't believe in the traditional triune God?

Webster's Bible dictionary lists theist as:
Theist
THE'IST, n. One who believes in the existence of a God.

So your idea of what comprises a theist is incorrect. Mormons are theists as are Muslims, Jews, Ancient Romans and Greeks, and a host of others.


Let me take your apparent reasoning --- that because the Mormon concept of Jesus differs from the majority of Christians that, therefore, Mormons are not Christians --- to an extreme to show its absurdity.

Each person has their own concept of Jesus that can vary dramatically during their own lifetime. Since only one of varying concepts of Jesus can logically be right, that suggests that no one but a very small minority of people can be a "true" Christian and only for as long as they retain the perfectly correct concept.

OK, let's take it to the other extreme. Muslims believe in Jesus, Jehovah Witnesses believe in Jesus, the Marcionites, the Valentinians, the Hypistarians believed in Jesus, the Gnostics did too, heck even the Bhuddists believe in Jesus. Are they Christian as well?


I understand this effort to exclude Mormons from being Christians because of the honor associated with that title, but I think it would be more logical to concede that Mormons are Christians, but claim that they have a false concept of Jesus.


And that very thing is what disqualifies them. Paul listed this among the things he had against them in Corinth

2Co 11:4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.


That would be in agreement with conceding that Mormons are theists, but claiming that they have a false concept of God.

I have no problem listing Mormons as theists, just as I have no problem listing satanists as theists. Or Muslims, or Hindus, or any other group who professes a god or gods.


What you're doing seems similar to trying to deny citizenship to undesirable people born in your country.

similar, but not the same. Being born in this country, by law, automatically grants citizenship. Being born in the UK does not grant citizenship in the US because, even tough they are similar, they are not the same country.

:btc:

[Jacob]

Today @ 08:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138550#post138550)
Bill the Cat:

similar, but not the same. Being born in this country, by law, automatically grants citizenship. Being born in the UK does not grant citizenship in the US because, even tough they are similar, they are not the same country.

:btc:

Bill,

Using John's paradigm, I think the better portrayal is that you (well, actually several of us) are denying illegal immigrants from getting the full rights & benefits of citizenship. There is a way to become a citizen (of the Kingdom), but they are trying to get in through another (illegal) path....


Jacob

[Jin-Roh]

Yesterday @ 10:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138319#post138319)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON:
What would your Buddhist friend think if you suggested that his affirmation classified him as a Buddhist Christian?

They could call themselves Buddhists Christians (most do), but they're Buddhists, not Christians. Nobody serves two masters. "He who does not gather with me scatters." Do we need to define what a Christian is now? I suppose that's what we're already doing. :ahem:


One could affirm that "Jesus is the Christ" but not qualify being a Christian by merely meaning that someone anointed the man.

But even "anointed one" in the Bible still implies what Christians mean when they talk about Christ.


This is similar to being asked "do you believe in UFO's?" An "ET is visiting Earth" skeptic could affirm this since UFO just means "unidentified flying object." The appropriate question would be "Do you believe that some UFO's are ETs visiting Earth?"

False analogy. When the Bible talkes about the Messiah, or Kristos, or Annointed One, there are a lot of things that go with it. Could somebody really believe that Jesus is the Christ without believing these relevent passages? Its not just a word, nor is that the normal connotation when somebody speaks of the Christ.


Despite this semantic loophole, I think the "Is Jesus the Christ" question is still a powerful discriminant. Perhaps a better question is "Do you believe that Jesus is God or a god." Someone could still use unusual definitions of "god" to affirm this, yet not be Christian, but that would be more difficult.

Which is, of course, why Christians don't play word games when they talk about the Christ. Semantic loophole indeed. (http://www.carm.org/lds/definitions.htm)



POWELL:
What a church claims to believe is expected to be congruent with what they actually believe, yes, since most groups are reasonably honest about such things.

Is the LDS the exception to this rule? :poke:


However, what a church claims to believe is proper behavior and what the members actually do is not usually as closely congruent. This is partly because humans tend to idealize life. They often imagine that they can expect to do what an ideal person does. As some say, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

John Powell

But the article at hand isn't talking so much about believer behavior outside of the church, it's rather addressing believer behavior in-line with the church. That article is talking Mormon clerical practice and theology.

I still must respectfully disagree.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Here I respond to a few things Jacob said in separate posts.


JACOB:
John, this type of criticism is not applied only to LDS. JW's, Liberals, and all who preach "a different gospel" are not REALLY Christians. By your argument, anyone who calls themselves Christians, whatever they believe, cannot be refuted.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, if that group affirms the necessary position, such as "Jesus is the Christ."

What do you think about this, Jacob:

Anyone who calls themselves a theist, a believer in God, regardless of what kind of God that might be, cannot be refuted.


JACOB:
I know Mormons believe that the atonement happened at Gethsemene -- I have no reason to agree. Paul clearly believes that it occurred on Calvary. You have no way to know how much pain was involved in the Garden. Prophecy foretold how Jesus would die.


JOHN MORMON:
I have heard from an LDS doctor that if someone sweats blood it indicates high distress. If Jesus did this from every pore, that would suggest a very traumatic experience. Jesus did not last on the cross as long as many others. If Jesus did not suffer that much more in His death that others, how could it have been sufficient pain to cover the sins of all of us? I believe the mental torment in the Garden is where this "pain" reached the necessary level.


JOHN MORMON:
What are the necessary conditions for salvation, Jacob? Perhaps this should be a new thread.

JACOB:
Repentance & Faith. Repentance is just agreeing with God regarding our need to follow Him and our wretched condition, being unable to sufficiently follow Him.


JOHN MORMON:
To Mormons, repentance is changing your attitude and behavior to be in accordance with what's morally right.


JACOB:
Faith, biblically speaking, is trust in God's provision/offering for our sins (which is Jesus) in contrast to trusting in the merit of anything we can do.


JOHN MORMON:
To Mormons, faith in God is to trust God to keep His promises if we keep His commandments.


JACOB:
Perseverance does not merit or earn anything, but does indicate (imperfectly) to us (mere mortals) who it is that has been truly "born again".


JOHN MORMON:
Do the things we do for those we love during our lives merit or earn anything beyond our first affirmation of love, or are these later actions merely an imperfect measure of whether we really loved them that first time?

Did Satan ever love God? Did God ever trust Satan?


JOHN MORMON:
More to the point of this thread, Jacob, do you think Mormons believe that Jesus is the Christ and that they are justified in claiming to be Christians?

JACOB:
The devil believes that Jesus is the Christ, and he is not justified in any claim to be a Christian.


JOHN MORMON:
I guess for him, we'd have to ask "Do you worship Jesus Christ?" For the rest of us, "worship" is implied by "belief" in this context.


JACOB:
Mormons are not easily confused with the Devil (though I've known some devilish Mormons), but they don't mean the same thing Christians (or the Bible) means when they use the word "Jesus", so they are not Christians.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons don't believe in the triune God that presumably you believe in, Jacob. Does that mean they really can't call themselves theists, believers in God?


JACOB:
Mormons are polytheists, not theists.


JOHN MORMON:
Does that mean that monotheists aren't theists either? Or, is it that trinitarians are the only kind of theists there are?


JACOB:
But even if I were to give Mormons the tag of "theists", that would not distinguish them from Jews & Muslims & JW's or many pagan religions. None of these are Christians.

Mormons believe in gods, not in God.


JOHN MORMON:
Isn't the Father of Jesus God? Don't Mormons believe in (that) God? Isn't Jesus God? Don't Mormons believe in (that) God?


JOHN MORMON:
If your answers to these two questions are "yes" and "yes" then I ask you why the apparent contradiction?

JACOB:
I didn't answer "yes" to these questions. No contradiction.


JOHN MORMON:
That's true, which is worse. Please answer me again, Jacob, are Mormons theists, yes or no?

POWELL:
For your information, Jacob, if someone is not a theist then they are an atheist. Like "amoral" means "not moral," "atheist" means "not theist."


JACOB:
As stated above, that you are theists does not distinguish you from pagan religions or Islam. You state that you have different beliefs about Jesus. If I believe that "Jesus is the Christ", but I'm thinking of my parrot named "Jesus", does that make me a Christian? Obviously not. What if I believe that "Jesus is the Christ", but I think he had no unique relationship to "God"; am I a Christian? I would say "no". What if I believe that "Jesus is the Christ", but I don't think Jesus was really human; am I a Christian? I would say "no".

I am consistent.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, if the Jesus you were talking about wasn't the one discussed in the Bible then you should not be considered a Christian.

Your point seems to be that since some Christian-wannabes have Christologies (beliefs about Christ) that differ markedly from your own that, therefore, they are not really Christians. If you insist on this position then the Mormons and others could do the same to you (which is sort of what early Mormons did) and claim that you aren't *true* Christians because your beliefs aren't the truth (as they define it).

One of the major purposes of calling certain religions "Christian" is to group together all those religions that affirm that Jesus is the Christ or God or something like that so as to distinguish them from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. You're trying to use the term to include only those with specific beliefs about Jesus.

In that case a Christian should not be someone who merely affirms that they believe that the Jesus discussed in the Bible is the Christ, but someone who affirms the specific Christology of religious sect A (put your sect in there).


JACOB:
Not interested. Show me the historical/archeological basis for the language of the golden plates., or for the claim that native Americans are descendents of Hebrews, or for the geographic claims of the Book of Mormon, and I might be interested.


JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps we could try that.

POWELL (atheist):
Show me the historical / archaeological basis for the Biblical claim that all humans are descendants of a man and woman who lived only about 6000 years ago or for the flood, or the Exodus, or the conquests of Moses and Joshua, or of the miracles claimed in the Bible.

As an atheist, I believe that Joseph Smith copied the ways of the Bible. Bible writers made stuff up, Joseph made stuff up. If the Bible writers could establish new religions with such deceptions, Joseph should be able to do likewise. His presumed prediction turns out to have been justified.

John Powell

[John Powell]

JACOB:
Bill, Using John's paradigm, I think the better portrayal is that you (well, actually several of us) are denying illegal immigrants from getting the full rights & benefits of citizenship. There is a way to become a citizen (of the Kingdom), but they are trying to get in through another (illegal) path....

Jacob


JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps part of the problem is that those denying Mormons the right to call themselves Christian are using an undeclared definition.

Perhaps to them a Christian is not necessarily someone who affirms that Jesus is the Christ or who worships Jesus as God (or a God), but someone who is saved, who has secured "citizenship" in Christ's heaven (as opposed to the Muslim heaven, for example).

That would be a terrible definition.

Because then believers / followers of Christ who don't know if they have secured a spot in Christ's heaven could not call themselves Christians. Generally, those who think it's easy to get into heaven, by merely affirming that you believe or something like that, would tend to qualify.

Besides, the term "saved" already distinguishes these people from other believers / followers of Christ.

The term "Christian" is supposed to distinguish those people who affirm that Jesus is the Christ or who worship Jesus as God or something like that. It's supposed to group religions like Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, JW's and such who believe the N.T. to be the word of God, but who differ markedly in their beliefs about Jesus. Groups like Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are supposed to be outside of that category. To these others, Jesus may have existed, but he wasn't God. To non-Christians, the N.T. might have some good words of advice, but it isn't the word of God like the Tanachk (O.T.), the Qu'ran, etc.

POWELL:
If someone wishes to quote the Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary definition of "Christian" I will proceed with my criticism of it. They did a bad job defining atheist, so it shouldn't surprise me that they would do a bad job of defining Christian.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Thanks for your comments, Jin-Roh. I recognize your right to an opinion. I didn't read anything crying out for a response.

John Powell

[John Powell]

BILL:
OK, let's take it to the other extreme. Muslims believe in Jesus, Jehovah Witnesses believe in Jesus, the Marcionites, the Valentinians, the Hypistarians believed in Jesus, the Gnostics did too, heck even the Bhuddists believe in Jesus. Are they Christian as well?


POWELL:
Yes, if they affirm that Jesus (i.e., the one described in the Bible) is the Christ or that Jesus is God, or something like that. If they only think Jesus was a good man, but not God, then they aren't Christian by this definition.

Are you saying that "Christian heretics" aren't Christians?

If it's just whether you believe that Jesus existed, Bill, then you could include a lot of atheists too. I would be excluded, however.

John Powell

[Jacob]

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141740#post141740)
John Powell:

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, if that group affirms the necessary position, such as "Jesus is the Christ."

What do you think about this, Jacob:


OK. But the necessary position should be:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


I'll give the orthodox the benefit of the doubt on the fililoque (sp?) issue.

John, you'll say that this is an arbitrary distinction (or something like that) and resuggest "Jesus is the Christ". That's just as arbitrary, since it ignores much of what the Bible says regarding Jesus.





JOHN MORMON:
I have heard from an LDS doctor that if someone sweats blood ... ... I believe the mental torment in the Garden is where this "pain" reached the necessary level.


Well there are several things that could have been more painful than the cross, or more enduring, or more dramatic. Still, none of these are particularly identified with redemption as is the Cross.





JOHN MORMON:
To Mormons, repentance is changing your attitude and behavior to be in accordance with what's morally right.


Did the thief on the cross repent? What behavior changed?




JOHN MORMON:
To Mormons, faith in God is to trust God to keep His promises if we keep His commandments.


That's a form of faith, but is not salvific in nature. The Bible's defintion of faith that saves is not contingent on which commandments we keep.



JOHN MORMON:
Do the things we do for those we love during our lives merit or earn anything beyond our first affirmation of love, or are these later actions merely an imperfect measure of whether we really loved them that first time?


Bad analogy. "Those we love" don't necessarily have justifiable reason to wrathfully destroy us. "Those we love" did not chose to become human in order to die for our sins. etc...



Did Satan ever love God? Did God ever trust Satan?


Why speculate.



JOHN MORMON:
I guess for him, we'd have to ask "Do you worship Jesus Christ?" For the rest of us, "worship" is implied by "belief" in this context.


If we have to change the rules for Satan, let's keep those rules for everyone. Worship the one true God alone, in spirit and in truth, or you're not a Christian. I worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one true God. Do you?



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons don't believe in the triune God that presumably you believe in, Jacob. Does that mean they really can't call themselves theists, believers in God?


This is just tiresome... OK, you're a theist (John Mormon). You're not a Christian, but you are a theist.



JOHN MORMON:
Does that mean that monotheists aren't theists either? Or, is it that trinitarians are the only kind of theists there are?


Which shows how loose the term "theist" actually is... You can be a polythiest, a pantheist, or a monotheist, none of which is sufficient to be identified as Christian.




JOHN MORMON:
Isn't the Father of Jesus God? Don't Mormons believe in (that) God? Isn't Jesus God? Don't Mormons believe in (that) God?


You forgot the Holy Spirit. He is God too. Besides the three there are no others who can truthfully call themselves God.



JOHN MORMON:
That's true, which is worse. Please answer me again, Jacob, are Mormons theists, yes or no?


Yes, Mormons are theists. Big deal.



POWELL:
For your information, Jacob, if someone is not a theist then they are an atheist. Like "amoral" means "not moral," "atheist" means "not theist."


The early Christians were called, by some, athiests, because they rejected polytheism. Hmmmmm...



JOHN MORMON:
Yes, if the Jesus you were talking about wasn't the one discussed in the Bible then you should not be considered a Christian.


Therefore Mormons are not Christians.



Your point seems to be that since some Christian-wannabes have Christologies (beliefs about Christ) that differ markedly from your own that, therefore, they are not really Christians. If you insist on this position then the Mormons and others could do the same to you (which is sort of what early Mormons did) and claim that you aren't *true* Christians because your beliefs aren't the truth (as they define it).


And the Soviet Union could have called itself America, though it would be just a lie. But, they can claim it all they want. Yet they don't... how odd. They don't believe that I really believe in the "true Jesus", but they don't mind if I call myself Christian. Why is that?



One of the major purposes of calling certain religions "Christian" is to group together all those religions that affirm that Jesus is the Christ or God or something like that so as to distinguish them from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. You're trying to use the term to include only those with specific beliefs about Jesus.


I'll call Mormonism "Christian" in the same way that I call JW's, Branch Davidians, and some gnostics "Christian". You all use Christian terminology as the jumping off point in your beliefs. At the same time, I'll rightly claim that none of you are truthfully Christian.



In that case a Christian should not be someone who merely affirms that they believe that the Jesus discussed in the Bible is the Christ, but someone who affirms the specific Christology of religious sect A (put your sect in there).


I'll join with the dozens (at least) of other "religious sects" who hold to the historic view of Jesus and the Trinity as Christians. Here we see divergent strains of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism(s), Reformed, Evangelicals, Charismatics, etc. in union. This is a union of which you (Mormon) cannot partake.



POWELL (atheist):
Show me the historical / archaeological basis for the Biblical claim that all humans are descendants of a man and woman who lived only about 6000 years ago or for the flood, or the Exodus, or the conquests of Moses and Joshua, or of the miracles claimed in the Bible.


First, I reject the interpretation of scripture which dates the world at ~6000 years old. Second, human origins are highly debated, even among secular scientists. The flood is well documented by many civilizations. The Exodus is documented (with various accountings) outside of the Bible.

But you ask for documentation/archeology regarding specific details, which I did not do... There is ample archeological evidence which confirms the geography, civilizations, and individuals in the Bible, as well as a long & well studied strain of document evidence verifying the antiquity origins of the Bible. There is no similar evidence for even the most general claims of the book of Mormon (either in places & peoples it describes, or in manuscript evidence).

"One of these things is not like the other...."




Joseph made stuff up. If the Bible writers could establish new religions with such deceptions, Joseph should be able to do likewise.


John,

The writers of the Bible did not make up ancient civilizations.

I didn't realize that you recognize Joseph Smith as one who made up his "scriptures". There we agree, so there is no need to debate it any more, unless you want to discuss the truthfulness of the Bible.

Jacob

[Jacob]

Today @ 01:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141749#post141749)
John Powell:

POWELL:
Yes, if they affirm that Jesus (i.e., the one described in the Bible) is the Christ or that Jesus is God, or something like that. If they only think Jesus was a good man, but not God, then they aren't Christian by this definition.


John,

What do you do with Liberal "Christian" theologians who claim that Jesus was "the Christ", meaning that He was just a good man with wise words who people chose to follow?


Jacob

[Exmo-Robertson]

Did Jesus sweat blood?

Luke 22v44:

"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." KJV

"And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." NIV

"And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground." NASB

"And being in an agony [of mind], He prayed [all the] more earnestly and intently, and His sweat became like great clots of blood dropping down upon the ground." AMP

"And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground." NKVJ

All I see them saying is that he sweated heavily, not that he sweated blood. In all the verses it doesn't state it "was" but it "became like."


Your thoughts?

[Bill the Cat]

Exmo, I think that traditional Christianity sees it as him actually sweating blood, but in our view, this was not atonement. The purpose of the Garden was

1. Strengthen Jesus for what He was about to endure

2. Pray for unity in the disciples.

John Mormon seems to focus on the pain as the atonement. However, the purpose was not pain. The puropse of atonement was death to pay for sin as our substitute. He was prophecied to be cursed by hanging on a tree. Pain was not the goal nor the focus of the atonement.

[Bib Lit Major]

There has been some violation by several parties of the back-to-back posting rule. I think I have PMed those involved, but as a general notice, please be aware that "Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed." This is found in the Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/view.php?pg=decorum).

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm merging my responses to two different posts of Bill.


BILL THE CAT (BTC) to John Mormon (JM):
OK, implications of this statement. Jesus being the Christ meant that he was the son of God. This in itself is not enough to be a follower of Christ. Look at the demons who threw themselves at His feet and proclaimed Him Son of the Most High.


JM:
Are you suggesting that a Christian is a "follower of Christ"? That's typically part of it, but it's not good by itself since some people might follow His teachings merely because they think He was a good man.

If you're not considering demons then I think "believes that Jesus is God or a god" is a satisfactory definition. If you're going to consider demons then you need to add something like "and is a follower of Jesus."


BTC:
Webster's Bible dictionary lists theist as:
Theist
THE'IST, n. One who believes in the existence of a God.

So your idea of what comprises a theist is incorrect. Mormons are theists as are Muslims, Jews, Ancient Romans and Greeks, and a host of others.


JM:
I accept that definition and accept that those people are theists. My question is, to be consistent, why do you?

My question is why does someone, like you, who denies Mormons the right to call themselves Christian - - - note that this is a religious group who claims to be Christian, has "Jesus Christ" in the name of their church, considers the New Testament to be the word of God, worships Jesus as a God, but has some concepts of Jesus that differ from other so-called Christians - - - why does such a person not also deny people who have the wrong concept of God the right to call themselves believers in God, that is, "theists"?


BTC (To Exmo-Robertson):
Exmo, I think that traditional Christianity sees it as him actually sweating blood, but in our view, this was not atonement. The purpose of the Garden was

1. Strengthen Jesus for what He was about to endure

2. Pray for unity in the disciples.

John Mormon seems to focus on the pain as the atonement. However, the purpose was not pain. The puropse of atonement was death to pay for sin as our substitute. He was prophecied to be cursed by hanging on a tree. Pain was not the goal nor the focus of the atonement.


JM:
I'm surprised that Bill does not appreciate the importance of Jesus suffering to bring to pass the Atonement. Anyone can die. Many enemies of Rome died on the Cross. What was special about what Jesus suffered on the cross? He didn't last as long as many others did.

What was special was that no one but a God like Jesus could have suffered the pain of taking upon Himself the sins of all of us AND LIVED AFTER THAT PAIN. His bleeding at every pore was outward evidence of the spiritual torment within. His crucifixion was a completion of the atonement, He had to die to resurrect, but the paying of our sin debt was mostly done in the Garden. At least that's the way I see it.

If suffering was not required to pay the debt of our sins, Bill, then why didn't Jesus just die peacefully in His sleep or in some miraculous event?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm merging two of Jacob's posts into a single response.


JOHN MORMON:
What do you think about this, Jacob: . . .

JACOB:
OK. But the necessary position should be:

We believe in one God, . . .

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, . . .

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, . . .

John, you'll say that this is an arbitrary distinction (or something like that) and resuggest "Jesus is the Christ". That's just as arbitrary, since it ignores much of what the Bible says regarding Jesus.


POWELL:
Actually, I was trying to use the definition of the atheist whose article began this thread. The definition I've come up with is "believes the Jesus of the Bible is God or a god."

JOHN MORMON (JM):
I think it is unwise to define "Christian" by the specific beliefs of a particular group of Christ-believers. If that's valid then Mormons can justifiably do the same thing excluding every one who doesn't affirm Mormon doctrine. Likewise any sect of Judaism, Islam, etc. can exclude other sects from their general classification. This defeats, I think, the primary purpose of making these broad classifications.

Generally, the purpose in society of calling someone a Christian is to distinguish them from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc.


JM:
I have heard from an LDS doctor that if someone sweats blood ... ... I believe the mental torment in the Garden is where this "pain" reached the necessary level.

JACOB:
Well there are several things that could have been more painful than the cross, or more enduring, or more dramatic. Still, none of these are particularly identified with redemption as is the Cross.


JM:
Could much of anything be more painful than taking upon oneself the spiritual pain of billions of sinners? I imagine this would be a lot more painful than getting nails hammered into your hands / wrists and feet and hung on a cross.


JM:
To Mormons, repentance is changing your attitude and behavior to be in accordance with what's morally right.

JACOB:
Did the thief on the cross repent? What behavior changed?


JM:
Good question. According to Jesus, he would be in spirit paradise, a nice temporary place before the final judgment. However, I suspect that he would not make it into the highest degree of heaven, the celestial kingdom. However, perhaps Jesus knew something about the man that I don't.


JM:
To Mormons, faith in God is to trust God to keep His promises if we keep His commandments.

JACOB:
That's a form of faith, but is not salvific in nature. The Bible's defintion of faith that saves is not contingent on which commandments we keep.


JM:
That's controversial, Jacob. What about baptism? Can someone be saved in God's heavenly kingdom without obeying the commandment to be "born again of water" (i.e., be baptized) and "born again of the spirit" (i.e., receive the gift of the Holy Ghost)?


JM:
Do the things we do for those we love during our lives merit or earn anything beyond our first affirmation of love, or are these later actions merely an imperfect measure of whether we really loved them that first time?

JACOB:
Bad analogy. "Those we love" don't necessarily have justifiable reason to wrathfully destroy us. "Those we love" did not chose to become human in order to die for our sins. etc...


JM:
I was trying to make analogous our first time sincere declaration of faith in God with our first time sincere declaration of love of someone. Since you seem to think that to merit God's approval we don't have to continue to demonstrate our faith in God by doing His will then perhaps we don't need to continue to demonstrate our love for someone to merit their approval either.


JM:
Did Satan ever love God? Did God ever trust Satan?

JACOB:
Why speculate.


JM:
Because I want to know. Mormons seem to be more willing to seek answers to the hard religious questions than other religions. God is willing to answer just about every question we might ask (not those He has specificially indicated He won't answer).


JM:
I guess for him, we'd have to ask "Do you worship Jesus Christ?" For the rest of us, "worship" is implied by "belief" in this context.

JACOB:
If we have to change the rules for Satan, let's keep those rules for everyone. Worship the one true God alone, in spirit and in truth, or you're not a Christian. I worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one true God. Do you?


JM:
The question "Do you believe that the Jesus of the Bible is God (or a god)?" works for mortals. For Satan, I guess you should add, "and do you follow the teachings of that Jesus?"


JM:
Mormons don't believe in the triune God that presumably you believe in, Jacob. Does that mean they really can't call themselves theists, believers in God?

JACOB:
This is just tiresome... OK, you're a theist (John Mormon). You're not a Christian, but you are a theist.


JM:
But, Jacob, the reason you claim I'm not a Christian is that although I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the promised Messiah, the Savior of the world, a God, my beliefs about Jesus differ from yours. Why then am I allowed to call myself a theist, because although I believe there is a God (actually more than one), my beliefs about God differ from your own. Where's the consistency in your position?

A theist is someone who believes in God. The other beliefs they might have about God are irrelevant to this designation.

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is God or a god (and, if demons might be considered, who is a follower of Jesus). The other beliefs they might have about Jesus are irrelevant to this designation.

The designation of "Christian" to a person is supposed to indicate that they believe in God and Jesus and the New Testament and the Old Testament. It's to distinguish them from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.


JM:
Does that mean that monotheists aren't theists either? Or, is it that trinitarians are the only kind of theists there are?

JACOB:
Which shows how loose the term "theist" actually is... You can be a polythiest, a pantheist, or a monotheist, none of which is sufficient to be identified as Christian.


JM:
Why can't the term "Christian" have sufficient "looseness" to include Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, . . ., and Mormons?

Where is the clear demarcation line for these Christian-wannabes between those who are Christian and those who aren't Christian? Is it trinitarianism? Is it saved by faith rather than also by works? Is it baptism by immersion rather than by sprinkling?

If your new Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist neighbor asked about the religious association of the others in the neighborhood and the Powell family was next to be identified, would you correct him when he suggested they were Christians, by saying "No, they aren't Christians, they're Mormons." How would you explain to him why they should not be grouped with others who believe Jesus is God (or a god) and are followers of Jesus Christ?


JM:
Isn't the Father of Jesus God? Don't Mormons believe in (that) God? Isn't Jesus God? Don't Mormons believe in (that) God?

JACOB:
You forgot the Holy Spirit. He is God too. Besides the three there are no others who can truthfully call themselves God.


JM:
How do you know? The Bible is God's word to us humans on this planet. What may or may not be the situation on other worlds or other universes is not clearly identified in the Bible.


JM:
That's true, which is worse. Please answer me again, Jacob, are Mormons theists, yes or no?

JACOB:
Yes, Mormons are theists. Big deal.

POWELL (atheist):
For your information, Jacob, if someone is not a theist then they are an atheist. Like "amoral" means "not moral," "atheist" means "not theist."

JACOB:
The early Christians were called, by some, athiests, because they rejected polytheism. Hmmmmm...


JM:
The Christians were theists with respect to the Christian God, but they were atheists with respect to the Roman Gods.


JM:
Yes, if the Jesus you were talking about wasn't the one discussed in the Bible then you should not be considered a Christian.

JACOB:
Therefore Mormons are not Christians.


JM:
Mormons may not revere the New Testament as much as Christians like you, since we realize that fallible men wrote it, but we reverently read it, ponder it, and rely upon it to guide us back to God. However, we try to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, not just the words of God to the ancient Jews and disciples of Jesus.


JM:
Your point seems to be that since some Christian-wannabes have Christologies (beliefs about Christ) that differ markedly from your own that, therefore, they are not really Christians. If you insist on this position then the Mormons and others could do the same to you (which is sort of what early Mormons did) and claim that you aren't *true* Christians because your beliefs aren't the truth (as they define it).

JACOB:
And the Soviet Union could have called itself America, though it would be just a lie. But, they can claim it all they want. Yet they don't... how odd. They don't believe that I really believe in the "true Jesus", but they don't mind if I call myself Christian. Why is that?


JM:
Perhaps it's because to them the question of which church is the true Christian one is distinct from the question of whether a certain church is Christian at all.


JM:
One of the major purposes of calling certain religions "Christian" is to group together all those religions that affirm that Jesus is the Christ or God or something like that so as to distinguish them from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. You're trying to use the term to include only those with specific beliefs about Jesus.

JACOB:
I'll call Mormonism "Christian" in the same way that I call JW's, Branch Davidians, and some gnostics "Christian". You all use Christian terminology as the jumping off point in your beliefs. At the same time, I'll rightly claim that none of you are truthfully Christian.


JM:
Then what are we arguing about? That's the position I have been seeking you to accept. Let the Branch Davidians and the Mormons and all those other apostates / sects call themselves Christian, but then point out that their beliefs about Christ are wrong.


JM:
In that case a Christian should not be someone who merely affirms that they believe that the Jesus discussed in the Bible is the Christ, but someone who affirms the specific Christology of religious sect A (put your sect in there).

JACOB:
I'll join with the dozens (at least) of other "religious sects" who hold to the historic view of Jesus and the Trinity as Christians. Here we see divergent strains of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism(s), Reformed, Evangelicals, Charismatics, etc. in union. This is a union of which you (Mormon) cannot partake.


JM:
It could be useful to group those together as the dominant Christian group. Maybe the term "majority Christian" or "mainstream Christian" would be useful. Mormons generally would agree, I think, that they aren't "mainstream Christians."


POWELL (atheist):
Show me the historical / archaeological basis for the Biblical claim that all humans are descendants of a man and woman who lived only about 6000 years ago or for the flood, or the Exodus, or the conquests of Moses and Joshua, or of the miracles claimed in the Bible.

JACOB:
First, I reject the interpretation of scripture which dates the world at ~6000 years old. Second, human origins are highly debated, even among secular scientists. The flood is well documented by many civilizations. The Exodus is documented (with various accountings) outside of the Bible.

But you ask for documentation/archeology regarding specific details, which I did not do... There is ample archeological evidence which confirms the geography, civilizations, and individuals in the Bible, as well as a long & well studied strain of document evidence verifying the antiquity origins of the Bible. There is no similar evidence for even the most general claims of the book of Mormon (either in places & peoples it describes, or in manuscript evidence).

"One of these things is not like the other...."


POWELL:
I'm interested in continuing this discussion, but I'd rather not go too much into it. Let me concede as an atheist, former believer in Mormonism, that there is more correct geography and history in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon. However, let me reiterate my opinion that one of the basic elements of religious writing, namely making up geography and history, is strongly evident in both the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. This "invented geography / history" aspect of the Book of Mormon should be compared more with Genesis than with Kings / Chronicles or the New Testament. Although, even these somewhat correct geographical / historical sections of the Bible include some fictional historical / geographical.


POWELL:
Joseph made stuff up. If the Bible writers could establish new religions with such deceptions, Joseph should be able to do likewise.

JACOB:
John,

The writers of the Bible did not make up ancient civilizations.


POWELL:
What about all those civilizations that were destroyed by the flood? Where's the evidence for them?


JACOB:
I didn't realize that you recognize Joseph Smith as one who made up his "scriptures". There we agree, so there is no need to debate it any more, unless you want to discuss the truthfulness of the Bible.

Jacob


POWELL:
As an atheist, I agree with that, but I think the Bible writers did similarly. In this section of TWEB I was trying to defend my former Mormon point of view.

JOHN MORMON:
Joseph Smith did not make that up. That's ridiculous. A young man of his educational background could not have done it even if he had set his mind to do such a thing.


Jacob:
John,

What do you do with Liberal "Christian" theologians who claim that Jesus was "the Christ", meaning that He was just a good man with wise words who people chose to follow?

Jacob


JM:
If they want to be called "Christian" I guess I would let them. However, they don't satisfy the "believes Jesus is God or a god" criterion.

John Powell

[Jacob]

John,

I think we can dismiss a lot of this discussion by making a distinction. That distinction is that the term "Christian" can be used to either describe those who rightly follow Jesus & His teachings, and those who claim to follow Jesus and His teachings (usually with significantly different definitions of Jesus, God, etc. than Biblical Christianity).

I concede that Mormons are "Christian" in some of their terminology, and to distinguish them from Jews, Muslims & Buddists. I do not concede that Mormons are Christian in their beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, salvation, heaven, etc. In a word, Mormonism is best described as a "Christian Cult". In particular ways, Judaism and Islam have more in common with Christianity than does Mormonism.



Today @ 12:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144019#post144019)
John Powell:

JM:
Could much of anything be more painful than taking upon oneself the spiritual pain of billions of sinners? I imagine this would be a lot more painful than getting nails hammered into your hands / wrists and feet and hung on a cross.


You're begging the argument. It is only your pre-supposition that Christ bore mankind's sins at Gethsemene. The Bible teaches that He bore sins at Calvary.





JACOB:
That's a form of faith, but is not salvific in nature. The Bible's defintion of faith that saves is not contingent on which commandments we keep.

JM:
That's controversial, Jacob. What about baptism? Can someone be saved in God's heavenly kingdom without obeying the commandment to be "born again of water" (i.e., be baptized) and "born again of the spirit" (i.e., receive the gift of the Holy Ghost)?


John, we would not be having an argument if there was no controversy. It is not controversial to those who accept the authority of scripture and reject other authorities (such as prophets, societies, hierarchies, popes, tradition, etc...). And you misquote the Bible. Christ did not say that anyone had to be "born again" of water or the Spirit. This passage is about physical birth (born of water) and spiritual birth (born of spirit = born again). By your wording it appears that everyone in heaven is born 4 times (physical + spiritual + baptism + spiritual rebirth).



JM:
I was trying to make analogous....


Still a bad analogy.



JM:
Because I want to know.


Get use to disappointment. ;-) I'd like to know lots of things, but speculation is just speculation.



JM:
But, Jacob, the reason you claim I'm not a Christian is that although I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the promised Messiah, the Savior of the world, a God, my beliefs about Jesus differ from yours. Why then am I allowed to call myself a theist, because although I believe there is a God (actually more than one), my beliefs about God differ from your own. Where's the consistency in your position?


I never said that only Christians were theists. No inconsistency here.



A theist is someone who believes in God. The other beliefs they might have about God are irrelevant to this designation.

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is God or a god .....The other beliefs they might have about Jesus are irrelevant to this designation.

The designation of "Christian" to a person is supposed to indicate that they believe in God and Jesus and the New Testament and the Old Testament. It's to distinguish them from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

JM:
Why can't the term "Christian" have sufficient "looseness" to include Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, . . ., and Mormons?


OK, by your definition (which I reject) you're a Christian. Just a semantic game, from your perspective. But the Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, & Baptists, consider the JW's & Mormons to be cults, with a different Jesus and a different God.





JACOB:
You forgot the Holy Spirit. He is God too. Besides the three there are no others who can truthfully call themselves God.

JM:
How do you know? The Bible is God's word to us humans on this planet. What may or may not be the situation on other worlds or other universes is not clearly identified in the Bible.


The Bible says so. You're correct that there may be other worlds/universes, but there is only one God. Of course you (JM) don't recognize the authority of the Bible, so you'll disagree. BTW, Christians believe in the authority & truthfulness of the Bible.



JM:
Mormons may not revere the New Testament as much as Christians like you, since we realize that fallible men wrote it, but we reverently read it, ponder it, and rely upon it to guide us back to God. However, we try to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, not just the words of God to the ancient Jews and disciples of Jesus.


If you follow/believe these other "words of God" like you believe the Bible, then I can see that you really just believe whatever you wish.



JM:
It could be useful to group those together as the dominant Christian group. Maybe the term "majority Christian" or "mainstream Christian" would be useful. Mormons generally would agree, I think, that they aren't "mainstream Christians."


The distinction is "historic Christian" or "orthodox Christian" or "Biblical Christian". Mormons are none of those.




POWELL:
I'm interested in continuing this discussion, but I'd rather not go too much into it. Let me concede as an atheist, former believer in Mormonism, that there is more correct geography and history in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon. However, let me reiterate my opinion that one of the basic elements of religious writing, namely making up geography and history, is strongly evident in both the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. This "invented geography / history" aspect of the Book of Mormon should be compared more with Genesis than with Kings / Chronicles or the New Testament. Although, even these somewhat correct geographical / historical sections of the Bible include some fictional historical / geographical.


Show me what is historial/geographical regarding life & civilization in America, in regards to the Book of Mormon. Show me that any significant portion has any historical basis. Show me any archeological evidence that the purported language on the "plates" ever existed in any part of the world.

With respect to the Bible, it does not compare. From works of fiction, it is like comparing Tolkien's Middle earth with Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". Twain's writings have some significant geographical correlation to reality. Middle earth does not. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction without a historical/geographical/textual basis in reality.



POWELL:
What about all those civilizations that were destroyed by the flood? Where's the evidence for them?


:ahem: I've never suggested that everything in the Bible can be proven to be true. But with the flood, it is not just the Bible which makes this claim. Other civilizations have records of the flood.


whew,
Jacob

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143935#post143935)
John Powell:

POWELL:
I'm merging my responses to two different posts of Bill.

John, I must say it's been a pleasure talking with you. Thanks for the responses...


JM:
Are you suggesting that a Christian is a "follower of Christ"? That's typically part of it, but it's not good by itself since some people might follow His teachings merely because they think He was a good man.

That's the standard schpeil I get from LDS as to why they believe they are Christians; because they follow Christ.


If you're not considering demons then I think "believes that Jesus is God or a god" is a satisfactory definition. If you're going to consider demons then you need to add something like "and is a follower of Jesus."

Paul defined it a little further than that in saying:

2Co 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully


the "Jesus" of Gospel history is the correct Jesus. As a note, he does not say "Christ," which refers to the office. Paul was specific that preaching another Jesus was wrong, but the Corinthians were allowing it to happen.



JM:
I accept that definition and accept that those people are theists. My question is, to be consistent, why do you?


Because they believe in the existence of A god or gods.


My question is why does someone, like you, who denies Mormons the right to call themselves Christian

I'm gonna break it down into digestable points..

I don't deny them the right to call themselves Christian, I just say they are incorrect. As a note, if an individual is a Christian is not for me to judge, as that honor belongs to Jesus, but a system can be labeled as not Christian.


- - - note that this is a religious group who claims to be Christian,

They claim to be the "TRUE" Christianity, which I firmly disagree with


has "Jesus Christ" in the name of their church,

Doctrine and Covenants 20:1 reports that the original name of the church was the "Church of Christ." In 1834, the name was changed to "The Church of Latter-day Saints" (History of the Church 2:63). This took place at a priesthood conference at which Joseph Smith was present. The vote was unanimous. Note that the name of Christ was completely omitted. This was the church's official title until April 26, 1838 when it was changed again to its current name.

So this is not a true litmus test of a church being christian.


considers the New Testament to be the word of God,

So far as it's translated correctly. And it is only a RECORD of God's words to man.

worships Jesus as a God,

But not GOD


but has some concepts of Jesus that differ from other so-called Christians - - - why does such a person not also deny people who have the wrong concept of God the right to call themselves believers in God, that is, "theists"?

Like I said, belief in A god makes one a theist. Does the fact that a monkey has an ear make it a human? Theism is only a link between us in that we use a common word, God.


JM:
I'm surprised that Bill does not appreciate the importance of Jesus suffering to bring to pass the Atonement. Anyone can die. Many enemies of Rome died on the Cross. What was special about what Jesus suffered on the cross? He didn't last as long as many others did.

So, he suffered the ultimate horror on the Cross, separation from the Father.


What was special was that no one but a God like Jesus could have suffered the pain of taking upon Himself the sins of all of us AND LIVED AFTER THAT PAIN.

Jesus did not take upon Himself the sin of the world until He was on the cross. At that point, the Father could not bear to look upon Him

1Pe 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.


as Isaiah said it

Isa 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.




His bleeding at every pore was outward evidence of the spiritual torment within.

No argument here, as He was in agony


His crucifixion was a completion of the atonement, He had to die to resurrect, but the paying of our sin debt was mostly done in the Garden. At least that's the way I see it.

You need to buff up a bit on what atonement referred to. In the Old Testament redemption was made through the ceremonial sacrifice. God made it clear that the atonement could only result from the death of an innocent substitute. This substitute would pay, with its life, the penalty of sin. Sacrifices were made in the Jerusalem temple on a daily basis for the sins of individuals. However, once a year the people of Israel celebrated the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur. On this special day the High Priest would offer sacrifice for Israel as a nation, a nation which sought reconciliation with the God whom they had sinned against.

Still, the mere act of killing an animal for one's sins was not what God found favor in. The Bible makes it clear through numerous examples that redemption was based on an individual's faith in what that sacrifice stood for. This faith would lead to the obvious act of repentance, thereby making the sacrifice efficacious. God had no pleasure in sacrifice without these two very important elements.

And I'm also backed by a former LDS President
Fifth President Lorenzo Snow stated Jesus' suffering in the garden was a result of knowing He was about to face the cross. Said Snow, "... the time approached that He was to pass through the severest affliction that any mortal ever did pass through. He undoubtedly had seen persons nailed to the cross, because that method of execution was common at that time, and He understood the torture that such persons experienced for hours. We went by Himself in the garden and prayed to His Father, if it were possible, that that cup might pass from Him; and His feelings were such that He sweat great drops of blood, and in agony there was an angel sent to give Him comfort and strength" (Collected Discourses, Lorenzo Snow, 10/6/1893).

Never in the NT is the Garden of Gethsemane mentioned as playing a role in the atonement. Instead, it is the cross that is emphasized


If suffering was not required to pay the debt of our sins, Bill, then why didn't Jesus just die peacefully in His sleep or in some miraculous event?

Because he had to be killed, not just die naturally. It's what the atonement was all adout.


Mar 15:27 They crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left.
Mar 15:28 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors."

[John Powell]

JACOB:
John,

I think we can dismiss a lot of this discussion by making a distinction. That distinction is that the term "Christian" can be used to either describe those who rightly follow Jesus & His teachings, and those who claim to follow Jesus and His teachings (usually with significantly different definitions of Jesus, God, etc. than Biblical Christianity).

I concede that Mormons are "Christian" in some of their terminology, and to distinguish them from Jews, Muslims & Buddists. I do not concede that Mormons are Christian in their beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, salvation, heaven, etc. In a word, Mormonism is best described as a "Christian Cult". In particular ways, Judaism and Islam have more in common with Christianity than does Mormonism.


JOHN MORMON (JM):
Now we're getting somewhere.

I agree that Mormons should be considered "Christians" because they claim to follow Jesus. Whether they do so rightly is controversial. In other words, whether they are the "true church of Jesus Christ" is rightly controversial.

Perhaps "Christian sect" is a better term since too many people misuse the term "cult."

If your claim were true about Judaism and Islam having more in common with (mainstream) Christianity than does Mormonism then you could have a strong argument to exclude Mormons. However, I'm sure you're mistaken. Mormons use the New Testament in their services.


JACOB:
You're begging the argument. It is only your pre-supposition that Christ bore mankind's sins at Gethsemene. The Bible teaches that He bore sins at Calvary.


JM:
Well, it's partly both, but mostly in the Garden. If it was primarily on the cross then He didn't seem to suffer as much as other men do who have lived longer on the cross.


JM:
That's controversial, Jacob. What about baptism? Can someone be saved in God's heavenly kingdom without obeying the commandment to be "born again of water" (i.e., be baptized) and "born again of the spirit" (i.e., receive the gift of the Holy Ghost)?

JACOB:
John, we would not be having an argument if there was no controversy. It is not controversial to those who accept the authority of scripture and reject other authorities (such as prophets, societies, hierarchies, popes, tradition, etc...). And you misquote the Bible. Christ did not say that anyone had to be "born again" of water or the Spirit. This passage is about physical birth (born of water) and spiritual birth (born of spirit = born again). By your wording it appears that everyone in heaven is born 4 times (physical + spiritual + baptism + spiritual rebirth).

Still a bad analogy.


JM:
I'd like to pursue that further, but it should be in its own thread.


JM:
How do you know? The Bible is God's word to us humans on this planet. What may or may not be the situation on other worlds or other universes is not clearly identified in the Bible.

JACOB:
The Bible says so.


JM:
You're reading things into the scriptures that aren't there. The Bible writers are describing God's creation of and interaction with this world. They don't describe other mortal worlds with other inhabitants.

POWELL:
You don't seem to realize, Jacob, that the ancients didn't know there were other solar systems and other galaxies. As far as they knew the Earth was the center of the universe and the stars and planets were merely bits of light hanging from a transparent dome.


JACOB:
You're correct that there may be other worlds/universes, but there is only one God.


JM:
Only one God for this world or this galaxy or this universe or all planes of existence? The Bible only speaks of this world.


JACOB:
Of course you (JM) don't recognize the authority of the Bible, so you'll disagree.


JM:
I don't recognize your authority to represent God in interpreting the Bible. You need to be informed, Jacob, that it's not you and the Bible against me and Mormonism. It's your interpretation of the Bible against mine. Or, more correctly, it's the interpretation of your religious leaders against the interpretation of mine.


JACOB:
BTW, Christians believe in the authority & truthfulness of the Bible.


JM:
Mormons are more reasonable in realizing that fallible men wrote the Bible and so we need prophets today to help us understand what God wants us to do.


JACOB:
If you follow/believe these other "words of God" like you believe the Bible, then I can see that you really just believe whatever you wish.


JM:
That does not follow. Just because scriptures might be added to the Bible does not mean that anything ridiculous can be added. Just like the New Testament was an add-on to the Old Testament approved by God so can other scriptures be add-ons to the New Testament. God didn't stop speaking to man when John wrote His Gospel.


JACOB:
The distinction is "historic Christian" or "orthodox Christian" or "Biblical Christian". Mormons are none of those.


JM:
I'm willing to exclude Mormons from being "orthodox" Christian. But it's controversial whether Mormons are historic or Biblical in their beliefs.


JACOB:
Show me what is historial/geographical regarding life & civilization in America, in regards to the Book of Mormon. Show me that any significant portion has any historical basis. Show me any archeological evidence that the purported language on the "plates" ever existed in any part of the world.


JM:
Research is being done. These things take time. At one point people complained that the ancients did not use plates of metal to record important documents, but later that claim was shown to be false.

POWELL (atheist):
Show me data on the lifespan of ancient man. It's my understanding it was more like 30 years rather than 120 years. It certainly was not 900 years!

Show me data for the existence of the first humans approximately 6000 years ago. It's my understanding that our species began in Africa about 100,000 or more years ago.

Show me data for a world wide flood.

Show me data for the Exodus.

Show me data for the miracles claimed in the Bible.

I suspect Joseph Smith realized that if people were willing to believe the Bible's fictional parts they might be willing to believe his fictional stories about American Indians. He was right.


JACOB:
With respect to the Bible, it does not compare. From works of fiction, it is like comparing Tolkien's Middle earth with Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". Twain's writings have some significant geographical correlation to reality. Middle earth does not. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction without a historical/geographical/textual basis in reality.


POWELL:
Yes, there's more correct geography in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon. However, the geography in Genesis is probably as fictional as that of the Book of Mormon.


JACOB:
:ahem: I've never suggested that everything in the Bible can be proven to be true.


JM:
God will reveal the truths in the Bible if you read them with the right frame of mind and pray sincerely to know if they are true.


JACOB:
But with the flood, it is not just the Bible which makes this claim. Other civilizations have records of the flood.


POWELL:
The existence of myths of world wide floods in different societies around the world is not good evidence for it. That's more likely an exaggeration of some major local flooding. Perhaps it's related to the massive flooding of the Black sea.

I'm talking about geological evidence, not legendary stories.

John Powell

[John Powell]

BILL THE CAT (BTC):
John, I must say it's been a pleasure talking with you. Thanks for the responses...


JOHN MORMON (JM):
You're welcome, and thanks to you for being such a pleasant opponent.


JM:
Are you suggesting that a Christian is a "follower of Christ"? That's typically part of it, but it's not good by itself since some people might follow His teachings merely because they think He was a good man.

BTC:
That's the standard schpeil I get from LDS as to why they believe they are Christians; because they follow Christ.


JM:
Actually, originally this is probably all that was required to define a Christian. However, today we have people who follow (some of) the teaching of Jesus, but don't worship Him as the promised Messiah or as God or a god and don't want to call themselves Christian.


JM:
If you're not considering demons then I think "believes that Jesus is God or a god" is a satisfactory definition. If you're going to consider demons then you need to add something like "and is a follower of Jesus."

BTC:
Paul defined it a little further than that in saying:

Scripture Verse:
2Co 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully

BTC:
the "Jesus" of Gospel history is the correct Jesus. As a note, he does not say "Christ," which refers to the office. Paul was specific that preaching another Jesus was wrong, but the Corinthians were allowing it to happen.


JM:
Is the context of this scripture what defines a "Christian"?


JM:
I accept that definition and accept that those people are theists. My question is, to be consistent, why do you?

BTC:
Because they believe in the existence of A god or gods.


JM:
Yes, but their beliefs about God are wrong, Bill, so they really aren't believers in God, right? Isn't the reason you say that Mormons aren't Christian because their beliefs about Christ are wrong?


JM:
My question is why does someone, like you, who denies Mormons the right to call themselves Christian

BTC:
I'm gonna break it down into digestable points.

I don't deny them the right to call themselves Christian, I just say they are incorrect. As a note, if an individual is a Christian is not for me to judge, as that honor belongs to Jesus, but a system can be labeled as not Christian.


JM:
If it's not for you to judge, Bill, then I suggest you refrain from judging whether Mormons are Christians. Perhaps you should say, "Whether Mormons really are Christians is something for Jesus to decide."


JM:
- - - note that this is a religious group who claims to be Christian,

BTC:
They claim to be the "TRUE" Christianity, which I firmly disagree with


JM:
Ok. Let's agree, however, that Mormons claim to be Christian. Can we agree with that?


JM:
has "Jesus Christ" in the name of their church,

BTC:
Doctrine and Covenants 20:1 reports that the original name of the church was the "Church of Christ." In 1834, the name was changed to "The Church of Latter-day Saints" (History of the Church 2:63). This took place at a priesthood conference at which Joseph Smith was present. The vote was unanimous. Note that the name of Christ was completely omitted. This was the church's official title until April 26, 1838 when it was changed again to its current name.

So this is not a true litmus test of a church being christian.


JM:
The point is that they put into their name things designating a tie to Jesus and His Church. The "Latter-day Saints" was in comparison to the original "saints" or members of Christ's church.


JM:
. . . considers the New Testament to be the word of God,

BTC:
So far as it's translated correctly. And it is only a RECORD of God's words to man.


JM:
Interesting, Bill. You seem to disagree. Does that mean you believe the Bible to be the Word of God even when it's NOT TRANSLATED CORRECTLY? The point of that is that there are more translation problems in the Bible than in the modern Modern scriptures.


JM:
worships Jesus as a God,

BTC:
But not GOD


JM:
Jesus is God, a member of the Godhead, but He's not the Father. Do you think Jesus is the Father, Bill?


JM:
. . . but has some concepts of Jesus that differ from other so-called Christians - - - why does such a person not also deny people who have the wrong concept of God the right to call themselves believers in God, that is, "theists"?

BTC:
Like I said, belief in A god makes one a theist. Does the fact that a monkey has an ear make it a human?


JM:
No. Lots of animals have an ear, Bill. Those that have one usually have two.:jaltus:


BTC:
Theism is only a link between us in that we use a common word, God.


JM:
And belief in Jesus as God makes one a Christian.


JM:
I'm surprised that Bill does not appreciate the importance of Jesus suffering to bring to pass the Atonement. Anyone can die. Many enemies of Rome died on the Cross. What was special about what Jesus suffered on the cross? He didn't last as long as many others did.

BTC:
So, he suffered the ultimate horror on the Cross, separation from the Father.


JM:
Big deal. That was only for a few moments. You make Jesus sound like a baby who can't be on His own.

The reason Mormons think the Father left the Son was so that the final victory at that moment would be more clearly the Son's alone. It's like a father letting his son sink or swim in his job rather than holding him by the hand as he did when he learned to walk and holding the bike when he learned to ride and fixing anything that might go wrong.


JM:
What was special was that no one but a God like Jesus could have suffered the pain of taking upon Himself the sins of all of us AND LIVED AFTER THAT PAIN.

BTC:
Jesus did not take upon Himself the sin of the world until He was on the cross. At that point, the Father could not bear to look upon Him

Scripture Verse:
1Pe 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.


JM:
Well, it was both in the Garden and on the cross, but mostly in the Garden.


BTC:
as Isaiah said it

Scripture Verse:
Isa 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.


JM:
But, Bill, Jesus was not scourged on the cross was He? Wasn't that before?


JM:
His bleeding at every pore was outward evidence of the spiritual torment within.

BTc:
No argument here, as He was in agony


JM:
The disagreement apparently is whether Jesus suffered more in the Garden or on the cross and whether most of the "paying the debt" was done in the Garden or on the cross.


JM:
His crucifixion was a completion of the atonement, He had to die to resurrect, but the paying of our sin debt was mostly done in the Garden. At least that's the way I see it.

BTC:
You need to buff up a bit on what atonement referred to. In the Old Testament redemption was made through the ceremonial sacrifice. God made it clear that the atonement could only result from the death of an innocent substitute. This substitute would pay, with its life, the penalty of sin.


JM:
That's not making sense to me, Bill. If all that is needed is an innocent victim then why not an innocent baby to serve as the sacrifice?


BTC:
Sacrifices were made in the Jerusalem temple on a daily basis for the sins of individuals. However, once a year the people of Israel celebrated the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur. On this special day the High Priest would offer sacrifice for Israel as a nation, a nation which sought reconciliation with the God whom they had sinned against.

Still, the mere act of killing an animal for one's sins was not what God found favor in. The Bible makes it clear through numerous examples that redemption was based on an individual's faith in what that sacrifice stood for. This faith would lead to the obvious act of repentance, thereby making the sacrifice efficacious. God had no pleasure in sacrifice without these two very important elements.


JM:
This sounds good.


BTC:
And I'm also backed by a former LDS President
Fifth President Lorenzo Snow stated Jesus' suffering in the garden was a result of knowing He was about to face the cross. Said Snow, "... the time approached that He was to pass through the severest affliction that any mortal ever did pass through. He undoubtedly had seen persons nailed to the cross, because that method of execution was common at that time, and He understood the torture that such persons experienced for hours. We went by Himself in the garden and prayed to His Father, if it were possible, that that cup might pass from Him; and His feelings were such that He sweat great drops of blood, and in agony there was an angel sent to give Him comfort and strength" (Collected Discourses, Lorenzo Snow, 10/6/1893).

Never in the NT is the Garden of Gethsemane mentioned as playing a role in the atonement. Instead, it is the cross that is emphasized


JM:
It's typical for people to suffer more fearing what might happen than suffering from what actually happens. So what? What the Prophet Lorenzo Snow apparently said suggests to me that if Jesus did not afterwards die on the cross, His torment concerning it would have been without need.

Jesus had overcome His fear and accepted that form of death. That death, however, was probably not as painful as the torment thinking about it and the taking upon Himself all our sins in the Garden.


JM:
If suffering was not required to pay the debt of our sins, Bill, then why didn't Jesus just die peacefully in His sleep or in some miraculous event?

BTC:
Because he had to be killed, not just die naturally. It's what the atonement was all adout.


JM:
Right. Then why not a less painful death? The Romans knew how to stab a man to cause quick death. If pain was NOT the key to the Atonement, then why didn't God have a Roman executioner stab Jesus in the heart and avoid all the pain of the crucifixion?

Besides, Bill, weren't the sacrificial animals killed in a quick, rather than in a painfully long, way?


BTC:
Scripture Verse:
Mar 15:27 They crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left.

Mar 15:28 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors."


JM:
That was just to indicate that it fulfilled the prophecy. That particular prophecy might have been fulfilled if two robbers had been stabbed to death for their crimes.

John Powell

[mickiel]

Many christians here constantly challange and claim other groups to not be christians. One of the charactheristics of MOST public christian groups is the duty to expose who is "not of God", of course one would have to be of God to perform such a thing anyway, and also it must be Gods will for them to do it also. I can't see this in the bible, God commissioning a church to expose who is not his church, or is it a personal thing that Christ asked each individual christian to do? I would like to read that also if one of you christians would bother helping me in the study.


How does it help people to belittle them? What good does it do a blind man for you to tell him hes blind? What is it doing to your own physce to believe you are able to judge another mans soul?

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Based on the sentiments you expressed, I like you Mickiel, so I hope you're not offended by my reply.

JOHN MORMON (My former believing self):
The Bible supports Christians exposing false saints (i.e., members of Christ's true Church), false teachers, false prophets, and false Christs.

Jesus was harsh on the hypocrites who claimed to be God's people, but weren't really. So was Paul.

POWELL(atheist):
If you lived during the days of Jesus, Mickiel, I suspect you would not be criticizing those who are trying to expose the false followers of Jesus. You would be joining in the effort.

What you don't seem to realize Mickiel, is that many modern Christians are generally more "Christian" (i.e., ideally good) than were the disciples of Jesus.

Who today would be willing to take up stones or grab a rope to kill a Sabbath breaker, a profaner of God's name, an adulterer, or a witch? There are fewer today than 100 years ago and fewer 100 years ago than there were 2000 years ago. This is due to education and genetic selection. I suspect (hope?) that violent men are becoming less desirable as husbands. So, violence in men will probably gradually diminish in human populations.

That's one reason people on Earth are slowly improving in ethics.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

John, sadly I do not have time for a reply. I am involved in the eschatology wrestlefest and my efforts will be there.

Mickiel, you already know how I feel about your issue...

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I understand, Bill. I look forward to the next opportunity. Try a half-Nelson or something like that on your opponent. :fight:

John Powell

[Jacob]

07-10-2003 @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146097#post146097)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON (JM):

Perhaps "Christian sect" is a better term since too many people misuse the term "cult."


I think the term cult should be used, with most of the typical connotations (not including brainwashing).



If your claim were true about Judaism and Islam having more in common with (mainstream) Christianity than does Mormonism then you could have a strong argument to exclude Mormons. However, I'm sure you're mistaken. Mormons use the New Testament in their services.


Using the NT does not make ones view "Christian" any more than using a stethoscope makes one a doctor. Your concept of God is rejected by orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.



JM:
Well, it's partly both, but mostly in the Garden. If it was primarily on the cross then He didn't seem to suffer as much as other men do who have lived longer on the cross.


How long he suffered at any point in time is irrelevant. As someone else pointed out, the passages say he sweated drops "like" blood -- which show distress, not atonement.



JM:
I don't recognize your authority to represent God in interpreting the Bible. You need to be informed, Jacob, that it's not you and the Bible against me and Mormonism. It's your interpretation of the Bible against mine. Or, more correctly, it's the interpretation of your religious leaders against the interpretation of mine.


Even if I concede this, your interpretation of the Bible is pre-filtered through your other scriptures and the teachings of the LDS through history. You cannot be unbiased in this issue



JM:
Mormons are more reasonable in realizing that fallible men wrote the Bible and so we need prophets today to help us understand what God wants us to do.


The athiest will also claim to be more "reasonable", will he not (JP)?

Evangelicals are more reasonable in realizing that the Bible is "God-breathed", and communicate precisely as He desired.

Your "prophets" are just one more layer in ignoring what the Bible says. It is not a matter of reasonableness, but of control.



JM:
Research is being done. These things take time. At one point people complained that the ancients did not use plates of metal to record important documents, but later that claim was shown to be false.


Research is being done, but nothing substantial is being found.



POWELL (atheist):
Show me data on the lifespan of ancient man. It's my understanding it was more like 30 years rather than 120 years. It certainly was not 900 years!


How ancient? Unless you find the bones of people who lived at the time of Methusaleh (sp?), how will you know? John, I already conceded that many things in the Bible are not provable. In contrast, is there anything unique (historically, geographically, textually, culturally) in the Book of Mormon which is provable? As I said before, the two do not compare, especially regarding textual evidence for the authenticity of the "inspired writings".


jk

[Bill the Cat]

John, I have time for a quick comment. Your reference to the copper scroll is only similar to the idea of "gold" plates at the surface level. From what I have read about the copper scroll, it was etched to show an "inventory" of the booty located elsewhere. It has been argued that it was employed by theives who had the cache of artifacts and treasures, not Jewish authorities. If I remember correctly, the language on the copper scroll was aramaic. Also, note that it was a copper sheet beaten thin to resemble parchment for ease of writing and rolling (presumably for ease of carrying when the bandits needed to make a hasty retreat.) This has no resemblance to a metal "3 Ring Binder"

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The resemblance is significant to Mormons looking for external evidences for the Book of Mormon. Here are four other popular external evidences for the Book of Mormon that come to mind.

1. Chiasmus, a kind of parallel form of writing popular in Hebrew literature, is in the Book of Mormon.

2. The Indian legends of the coming of the bearded white God.

3. The "tree of life" stone that seems to follow Lehi's dream.

4. The discovery that although "alma" might be a feminine word in latin, it was later discovered to be a Jewish male name.

There's also the story of the Jewish translator of the Book of Mormon who converted to Mormonism based on the linguistics in the book.

John Powell

[Bib Lit Major]

Yesterday @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150724#post150724)
John Powell:

JOHN MORMON:
The resemblance is significant to Mormons looking for external evidences for the Book of Mormon. Here are four other popular external evidences for the Book of Mormon that come to mind.

1. Chiasmus, a kind of parallel form of writing popular in Hebrew literature, is in the Book of Mormon.

/ot Very interesting. Could you perhaps quote an example? No pressure...I'm just curious.

[Exmo-Robertson]

Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150724#post150724)
John Powell:

JOHN MORMON:
The resemblance is significant to Mormons looking for external evidences for the Book of Mormon. Here are four other popular external evidences for the Book of Mormon that come to mind.

1. Chiasmus, a kind of parallel form of writing popular in Hebrew literature, is in the Book of Mormon.

I hope people don't mind if I jump in here, a lot of outsiders may not even know what you're refering to. Here's some things I've found concerning your points. Concerning the Chiasmus in the BOM:

Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon

By Sandra Tanner


Some LDS writers are trying to establish the historicity of the Book of Mormon by maintaining that it contains a poetic style, sometimes used in the Bible, called chiasmus. They also point out that this style was not identified as ‘chiasmus’ until after the time of Joseph Smith. Thus, they reason, his use of it in the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it is a translation of an ancient text. However, a brief investigation shows just the opposite.

First, this poetic style has always been in the Bible. Whether anyone had a name for it or not is beside the point; the style was present for Joseph Smith to imitate.

Second, the Doctrine and Covenants has examples of the same pattern. Since Joseph Smith dictated the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it is not claimed that they were translations of ancient writings, obviously this pattern was part of Smith’s style. The Pearl of Great Price and Joseph's diary exhibit similar patterns.

A thesis at BYU by Richard C. Shipp, "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications" (Masters Thesis), arrives at a similar conclusion. Although Mr. Shipp was not trying to disprove chiasmus claims in the Book of Mormon, his study shows that Joseph Smith had picked up both the rhythm of chiasmus and parallelism. In his 1832 first vision account, Joseph claims that he had studied the Bible since he was twelve, so it is quite conceivable he picked up this style from his studies.

In the Oct. 1989 Ensign article, "Hebrew literary Patterns in the Book of Mormon," there is mention of a book on Hebrew poetry, dated 1787, which discusses the poetic style of parallelisms. The term "chiasmus" is never used, but this book clearly shows that Hebrew poetic styles were recognized and studied even before Joseph Smith's time.

LDS scholar Blake Ostler, in reviewing the book Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, commented:

The wordprint analysis by Wayne Larson and Alvin Rencher questions once again the theory that Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding authored the Book of Mormon (pp. 158-88). This theory continues to surface, though thoroughly discredited, because of the suspicion that the prodigious narrative, theological insight, and biblical knowledge manifest in the Book of Mormon were beyond Joseph's limited education and mental abilities. In computer studies of noncontextual word frequencies to measure unconscious language patterns, word groupings from nineteenth-century authors were clearly distinguishable from Book of Mormon word groupings. Further, the individual Book of Mormon prophets had distinct and contrasting styles from one another. Such decisive findings may give pause to even the most vehement critics of the Book of Mormon and put to rest once and for all the theory that either Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding authored it.

David D. Croft, a University of Utah statistician, has questioned the validity of Larsen and Rencher's major premise that an author-specific wordprint exists ("Book of Mormon Wordprint Examined" Sunstone [March-April 1981]: 15-21). Notwithstanding well over a dozen studies cited by Rencher and Larsen supporting this premise, Croft's skepticism is supported by studies on the works of the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. According to Howard Hong, an expert on Kierkegaard's writings, computer studies demonstrate that the Danish philosopher could adjust his wordprint in relation to various pseudonyms he assumed in his works, though perhaps not as frequently or distinctively as those in the Book of Mormon.

Croft criticized the first version of the wordprint study printed in BYU Studies by asserting that a wordprint could not survive translation. This criticism is answered in the Book of Mormon Authorship version. Wordprints of twelve German novellas translated by a single translator demonstrated a statistically significant difference that was not altered by the translation (p. 177).

However, the issue of translation raises a problem of internal consistency in Book of Mormon Authorship. In order to make sense of applying a wordprint analysis, one must assume that the "translation process was both direct and literal, and that each individual author's style was preserved" (p. 179). However, for B. H. Roberts to explain nineteenth-century anachronisms and King James Bible quotations he had to assume that "Joseph's vocabulary and grammar are as clearly imposed on the book as a fingerprint on a coin" (p. 13). If the expressions and ideas in the Book of Mormon are partly the result of Joseph's attempt to communicate the translation, then the nineteenth-century theological ideas and biblical quotations can be explained as a result inherent in the translation process. If these expansions are indeed Joseph's, however, then they should reflect his wordprint. To assume that Nephi had access to a King James Bible or that he was acquainted with nineteenth-century Arminian theology in the sixth century B.C. is beyond the bounds of competent scholarship. Yet this is precisely what must be assumed if the wordprint is to be taken seriously. Even given this criticism, however, the results of the wordprint study must be explained. Perhaps the wordprint analysis tells us more about computers than about the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon Authorship has made a prima facie case for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. It fails, however, to respond to scholarly criticism in some crucial areas. For example, since Welch first published his study on chiasmus in 1969, it has been discovered that chiasmus also appears in the Doctrine and Covenants (see, for example, 88:34-38; 93:18-38; 132:19-26, 29-36), the Pearl of Great Price (Book of Abraham 3:16-19; 22-28), and other isolated nineteenth-century works. Thus, Welch's major premise that chiasmus is exclusively an ancient literary device is false. Indeed, the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon may be evidence of Joseph Smith's own literary style and genius. Perhaps Welch could have strengthened his premise by demonstrating that the parallel members in the Book of Mormon consist of Semitic word pairs, the basis of ancient Hebrew poetry. Without such a demonstration, both Welch's and Reynold's arguments from chiasmus are weak.

(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 16, No. 4, Winter, 1983, p. 141-143)

Since chiasmus occurs in many languages its use in the Book of Mormon does not prove either its Semitic origin or that it is a style peculiar to inspired ancient scripture. In fact, many nursery rhymes have this same type of structure (e.g. Hickory Dickory Dock).

Further comments on chiasmus can be found in our Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 96G-96I; Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 17, no. 4, Winter 1984, "Ancient Chiasmus Studied," by Prof. John Kselman, p. 146-148; Dialogue, vol. 26, no. 3, Fall 1993, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity," by Brent Metcalfe, p. 162-171. Also, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. by Brent Metcalfe, Signature Books, SLC, 1993, ch. 9, "A Record in the Language of My Father: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon," by Ed. Ashment, p. 329-394.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/chiasmusandthebom.htm


Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150724#post150724)
John Powell:

2. The Indian legends of the coming of the bearded white God.

Here's what I found on that subject at: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/letters_to_the_editor/2001/2001april.htm

[Sandra's Note: First, the deity named Quetzalcoatl was just one of many pagan Indian deities. In The Maya, by Michael Coe, we read:

Exceedingly little is known about the Maya pantheon. That their Olympus was peopled with a bewildering number of gods can be seen in the eighteenth-century manuscript, 'Ritual of the Bakabs,' in which 166 deities are mentioned by name, or in the pre-Conquest codices where more than thirty can be distinguished. (The Maya, 1999 ed., p.204)

Second, the Indians thought the Spaniards were gods because there was a legend of a past ruler (around 900 AD) named Quetzalcoatl (named after the deity) who sailed away promising to return.

Quoting from The Maya:

The Toltec invasion and Chich'en Itza

Into the vacuum created by the collapse of the older civilizations of central Mexico moved a new people, the Nahua-speaking Toltecs, whose northern origins are proclaimed by their kinship with the non-agricultural barbarians called the Chichimec. Shortly after AD 900 they had settled themselves at the key site of Tula...under the leadership of a king named Topiltzin, who also claimed the title of Quetzalcoatl or 'Feathered Serpent' (the culture hero of Mexican theology)....According to a number of quasi-historical accounts of great poetic merit, a struggle ensued between Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl and his adherents on the one hand, and the warrior faction on the other. Defeated by the evil magic of his adversary Tezcatlipoca, the king was forced to leave Tula with his followers, most probably in AD 987. In one version well known to all the ancient Mexicans, he made his way to the Gulf Coast and from there set across on a raft of serpents for Tlapallan ('Red Land'), some day to return for the redemption of his people. (The Maya, 1999 ed., p. 167)

The National Geographic Mag. for Dec. 1980, ran several articles on the Aztecs. On page 762 it is stated:

PANTHEON OF GODS-- so intertwined that their complexities must have dazzled even the high priests--pervaded all Aztec life at least 1,600 deities, according to myth, but their forms were so intricate as to be countless.

Gods and goddesses of agriculture and fertility abounded, and of crops and flowers, fire, rain, and the underworld. Women who died in childbirth were transformed into the 'cihuateto,' spirits who accompanied the sun on its downward path. Each community had its god; craftsmen had their gods....

Tezcatlipoca (tess-kah-tlee-POH-kah)--supreme god and patron of the rulers--was formed with the creation....

The powerful Quetzalcoatl--adopted, as were many other deities, from earlier Mesoamerican cultures--bridged the gap between history and mythology. A human ruler between history and mythology. A Human ruler of the Toltec capital of Tula, he merged with an earlier plumed serpent god, who created civilization through agriculture and writing. Quetzalcoatl left Tula in disgrace because of drunkenness, tradition held, but was expected to return someday from the east. He did, some Aztecs believed, as Hernan Cortes. (National Geographic Mag., Dec. 1980, p. 762)

But that hardly equates with Jesus. Also, they had never seen such a ship before, firing arms, horses, etc . So they thought the gods had arrived. For more on this, see the article in Sunstone Mag., 1986, "The Christianization of Quetzalcoatl" by Brent Gardner, who at the time of the article was working on his Ph.D. in anthropology. Regarding the claim that Quetzalcoatl was white, Mr. Gardner comments:

Perhaps the most confusing aspect of the myth is the reference to a white Quetzalcoatl. The idol of the god was always painted black, and I know of no native or even early Spanish text which specifically mentions a white skin. I have been unable to find the point at which this concept enters the legend, but it is clearly not a part of the important information which described Quetzalcoatl at the time of the Conquest.

I can offer only one possible source for the theme. Quetzalcoatl is associated with the west, which in the Aztec symbol system was white. Thus Quetzalcoatl is white as in indication of the west, just as other deities were red, blue, and black when associated with other compass directions.

It could be argued that the elevation of Cortex to the status of the returning Quetzalcoatl was based on the color of Cortez's skin, but the earliest evidence does not support this conclusion. The Spaniards were revered as gods, but according to Sahagun the black slaves which shipped with them were also specifically called gods. Clearly a white skin was not a requisite of deification. The Spanish were gods by virtue of their miraculous ships which appeared to be floating temples and their sticks which spit thunder and fire and caused trees to fall down. It was the miracle of who they were rather than their color which fired the native imagination. ...

Stripping away the influence of the Spanish, Quetzalcoatl becomes once again a very Aztec god, complete with the duality of good and bad which characterizes the Aztec pantheon. The moral and political climate of the Conquest generated pressures which selected certain facets of the native tradition and so presented them as to appear Christian. The early Spanish fathers found such evidences behind every tree, but no bough was more fruitful than Quetzalcoatl. (Sunstone, vol.10, no.11, 1986, p. 10)

We sell a pamphlet called Quetzalcoatl—Jesus in the Americas? by E. Johnson.]


Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150724#post150724)
John Powell:

3. The "tree of life" stone that seems to follow Lehi's dream.

From: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/letters_to_the_editor/2002/2002february.htm

[Sandra's Note: Some sixty years ago a large carved stone, referred to as Stela 5, Izapa, was found in Chiapas, Mexico. A few LDS writers have claimed that this stone depicts a scene in the Book of Mormon and is thus evidence for the historicity of that book. However, the National Geographic Society does not make that connection. In a letter dated April 27, 1965, George Crossetter, Chief, Geographical Research, National Geographic Magazine, stated:

"The National Geographic Society along with the Smithsonian Institution sponsored archeological work in Mexico where 'Stela 5, Izapa' was found....No one associated with our expedition connected this stela in any way with the Book of Mormon."

It should be noted that there is no written text on the stone, only drawings of various people and objects. Problems arise from the unsupported interpretation of the drawings by LDS writers. Stan Larson, Marriott Library, University of Utah, wrote:

Izapa Stela 5 and Lehi's Dream

In One Fold and One Shepherd Ferguson also cited the recent study on Stela 5 at Izapa, which M. Wells Jakeman, in a controversial identification, interpreted as a representation of Lehi's dream of the Tree of Life in 1 Nephi 8. A miniature model of the Lehi Tree-of-Life Stone has "taken on the function of a kind of cult object" in the LDS community, since many homes have a replica in the living room serving as a conversation piece about the Book of Mormon. Jakeman claimed to have deciphered the personal names Lehi and Nephi from name-glyphs on the stela:

For the meaning of the name Lehi is the jaws-especially the upper jaw-in side view, i.e., "cheek." And we have already noted that Feature 9, the cipactli glyph held above the old bearded man, mainly depicts a pair of huge jaws (those of the crocodile)-especially the upper jaw-in slate view, i.e., a great cheek! That is, this glyph is essentially a portrayal of what the name Lehi means. It therefore constitutes-whether intended or not-a symbolic recording of that name. . . .

There is, however, a defensible Egyptian derivation [of Nephi] that has not previously been noted. This is that the name Nephi . . . is Lehi's rendering of the Egyptian name of the personification or Rod of grain in Egyptian belief, N(e)pri (from n[é]prî, the Egyptian word for grain). . . .

The interpretation offered by Jakeman impressed many LDS General Authorities. For example, on a trip to Izapa in June 1960 Marion G. Romney, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote in his diary: "It could well be what he [Jakeman] says it is-a representation of that dream which Lehi had.

However, Mormon archaeologist V. Garth Norman said that "the inaccuracies in the Jakeman reproduction of Stela 5" make his interpretations invalid. Jakeman has been charged with altering the latex mold of the stela to fit his interpretation. Norman supported Jakeman's use of the cipactli glyph (a bared [p.65] jawbone) being correlated with the Hebrew word lechî "jawbone" or "cheek," but doubted Jakeman's "interpretation of 'Nephi' for the other name glyph." Gareth W. Lowe, archaeologist for NWAF, in summation of his analysis of this monument, said: "I cannot escape the impression that Stela 5 presents an original creation myth, closely similar to those recorded very much later in the Popol Vuh." Coe, representing non-Mormon archaeologists, said that Jakeman's parallels are "a matter of mere chance based upon only superficial similarities." Jakeman's interpretation of Izapa Stela 5 which connects it with the Book of Mormon remains unproven speculation, while the interpretation which understands this monument as a Mesoamerican creation account, like the Popol Vuh, gains more support. (Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates, p.64)

Hope this helps. There is also material on this in our book: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.]


Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150724#post150724)
John Powell:

4. The discovery that although "alma" might be a feminine word in latin, it was later discovered to be a Jewish male name.

John, you've got me on this one. This is the first I've heard of it. Can you give me a reference?


Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150724#post150724)
John Powell:

There's also the story of the Jewish translator of the Book of Mormon who converted to Mormonism based on the linguistics in the book.

That may be true or it may not. Even if true the conversion of someone isn't really proof of the truthfulness of the BOM. People are fooled everyday.

I hope this helps clear up some of yours and John Mormon's questions or did John the atheist already know this? hmmmm.... :smile:

[Bill the Cat]

John, you know I just have to take a look at these. John Powell probably already knows this, but...


Today @ 12:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150724#post150724)
John Powell:

JOHN MORMON:
The resemblance is significant to Mormons looking for external evidences for the Book of Mormon. Here are four other popular external evidences for the Book of Mormon that come to mind.

1. Chiasmus, a kind of parallel form of writing popular in Hebrew literature, is in the Book of Mormon.

The fact that Joseph Smith knew about Chiasmus prior to his penning of the BOM is evident. As extra evidence, James Strang supposedly translated some plates and touted the chiasmus in them. http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm so this is no real evidence as chiasmus was known at the time.


2. The Indian legends of the coming of the bearded white God.

I am not familiar with this one. Please explain. (If this refers to Quetzalcoatle {sp?} then it really fails because he had a bird head.)


3. The "tree of life" stone that seems to follow Lehi's dream.

Are you referring to Izapa Stella-5? Not even Mormons use this one any more. http://www.lds-mormon.com/tols.shtml


4. The discovery that although "alma" might be a feminine word in latin, it was later discovered to be a Jewish male name.

Alma was a name of a river in Russia. Joseph had a penchant for using geographical names as proper names:

A description of the history of Alma, Wisconsin
http://www.almawisconsin.com/history.htm
There are several theories as to how the current name, Alma, was chosen for this new settlement. One was that it was short and easier to spell. Another was that it derived its name from the battle of 1854 on the Alma River, in Russia.

Joseph also used the name cumorah from the comoros Island, who's capital, ironically, is Moroni

There is a suspicious link between the hill Cumorah and the angel Moroni, and the Comoros Islands off the eastern coast of Mozambique, the capital of which is Moroni, and has been since before the Book of Mormon. Defenders of the Book of Mormon claim that this is only a coincidence, and that 'Comoros' in fact has very little correspondence with 'Cumorah'. The fact of the matter is that prior to the French occupation of the late 1860's, Comoros was known by its Arabic name, Camora (sometimes also spelled Comora). It is thus more than a little suspicious to note that the 1830 Book of Mormon uniformly spells 'Cumorah' as 'Camorah'. See, for example, the original text of Mormon 6:2:
And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Camorah, by the hill which was called Camorah, and there we would give them battle.


1808 map of Africa
The full map can be downloaded from the University of Texas.

[Noesis]

I'm a bit late to this discussion.

I think some helpful reading on this topic, assuming you actually want to examine it fairly, would be "Restoring the Ancient Church" by Barry Robert Bickmore, available at DeseretBook.com I think he does a good job of pointing out that most of modern Mormonism had antecedents in the ancient church. Or you can simply research for yourself, though mostly you will only find the writings which critique the heretics, as opposed to the heretic's writings, which the State Church did it's level best to burn out of history.

I think most Christians know very little about the ancient church, particularly through the first seven ecumenical councils, or they wouldn't be so quick to debate issues of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, over which bishops, prelates and popes poisoned one another, murdered one another, set fire to ships to prevent each other from attending and voting at councils, set mobs after one another and burned each other's churches to the ground over theological points that were beyond all rational explication, all mostly in the pursuit of personal power and fortune.

Two issues, trinitarianism and related to it the nature of the Godhood and Sonship of Jesus, were far from established for centuries. Virtually every notion of Mormonism was present among one variety of Christianism or another during these contentious times. An outsider viewing the various sects that were subsequently declared heterodox and heretic by the victorious Catholic State Church, would say that the winners had the Roman Army, and not the Lord on their side. Indeed Joseph Smith's very claim was that the forces of darkness had temporarily triumphed and the true church was suppressed.

I think if we are honest, it's a fair critique of modern day notions of orthodoxy to say that these views are only orthodox in the sense that the side with the most imperial troops was victorious. Whether that side also had a correct understanding of soteriology, pneumatology and theology can fairly be argued.

For example, no matter how one explains the Trinity it is a stone of stumbling to the Jew (Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one God), and foolishness to the Gentile (three persons, but one Godhead and substance). Christians would say it is something we simply cannot understand because of our limitations and must be accepted on faith. Non-Christians would say we cannot understand it because it is transparently nonsensical and strains all credulity, and the argument between Mormons and other Christianisms is a dispute over whose mirage has the prettier pond.

I think objectively we must agree that Mormonism is a Christianism. Whether it is a true or false Christianism, or whether it contains sufficent truth to be salvific, as was being argued above, is an argument that will get settled if and when one side or the other burns in hell or sings in the heavenly choir. When I run out of hungry widows and orphans, when there are no more hopeless prisoners, when I am walking humbly, acting justly and showing mercy in all that I do, and I simply can't find anything else to fix, anyone else to love or any more beauty to create, then I'll make time for sniffing around for heresies.

That's my two cents, and if get the bonfire for it, so be it.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The resemblance is significant to Mormons looking for external evidences for the Book of Mormon. Here are four other popular external evidences for the Book of Mormon that come to mind.

1. Chiasmus, a kind of parallel form of writing popular in Hebrew literature, is in the Book of Mormon.

EXMO-ROBERTSON:
I hope people don't mind if I jump in here, a lot of outsiders may not even know what you're refering to. Here's some things I've found concerning your points. Concerning the Chiasmus in the BOM:

Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon

By Sandra Tanner

S TANNER:
Some LDS writers are trying to establish the historicity of the Book of Mormon by maintaining that it contains a poetic style, sometimes used in the Bible, called chiasmus. They also point out that this style was not identified as ‘chiasmus’ until after the time of Joseph Smith. Thus, they reason, his use of it in the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it is a translation of an ancient text. However, a brief investigation shows just the opposite.

First, this poetic style has always been in the Bible. Whether anyone had a name for it or not is beside the point; the style was present for Joseph Smith to imitate.


JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, it was so subtle no one thought to name it. Maybe Joseph was a prophet rather than an especially enlightened student of literatary analysis, eh?


S. TANNER:
Second, the Doctrine and Covenants has examples of the same pattern. Since Joseph Smith dictated the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it is not claimed that they were translations of ancient writings, obviously this pattern was part of Smith’s style. The Pearl of Great Price and Joseph's diary exhibit similar patterns.


JOHN MORMON:
Non sequitur. Perhaps Joseph had learned the pattern from reading the Bible and translating the Book of Mormon, or God reveals sometimes using Chiasmus. God is a poet, you know.


S. TANNER:
A thesis at BYU by Richard C. Shipp, "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications" (Masters Thesis), arrives at a similar conclusion. Although Mr. Shipp was not trying to disprove chiasmus claims in the Book of Mormon, his study shows that Joseph Smith had picked up both the rhythm of chiasmus and parallelism. In his 1832 first vision account, Joseph claims that he had studied the Bible since he was twelve, so it is quite conceivable he picked up this style from his studies.


JOHN MORMON:
Then why wasn't this thing well known around educated circles? Why didn't it have a name? Was this young man a genius or something?


S. TANNER:
In the Oct. 1989 Ensign article, "Hebrew literary Patterns in the Book of Mormon," there is mention of a book on Hebrew poetry, dated 1787, which discusses the poetic style of parallelisms. The term "chiasmus" is never used, but this book clearly shows that Hebrew poetic styles were recognized and studied even before Joseph Smith's time.


JOHN MORMON:
So, SOME people knew about it, but it wasn't well known. It's apparently either something the genius boy came up with on his own without a serious formal education or something God inspired.


S. TANNER:
LDS scholar Blake Ostler, in reviewing the book Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, commented:

The wordprint analysis by Wayne Larson and Alvin Rencher questions once again the theory that Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding authored the Book of Mormon (pp. 158-88). This theory continues to surface, though thoroughly discredited, because of the suspicion that the prodigious narrative, theological insight, and biblical knowledge manifest in the Book of Mormon were beyond Joseph's limited education and mental abilities. In computer studies of noncontextual word frequencies to measure unconscious language patterns, word groupings from nineteenth-century authors were clearly distinguishable from Book of Mormon word groupings. Further, the individual Book of Mormon prophets had distinct and contrasting styles from one another. Such decisive findings may give pause to even the most vehement critics of the Book of Mormon and put to rest once and for all the theory that either Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding authored it.

David D. Croft, a University of Utah statistician, has questioned the validity of Larsen and Rencher's major premise that an author-specific wordprint exists ("Book of Mormon Wordprint Examined" Sunstone [March-April 1981]: 15-21). Notwithstanding well over a dozen studies cited by Rencher and Larsen supporting this premise, Croft's skepticism is supported by studies on the works of the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. According to Howard Hong, an expert on Kierkegaard's writings, computer studies demonstrate that the Danish philosopher could adjust his wordprint in relation to various pseudonyms he assumed in his works, though perhaps not as frequently or distinctively as those in the Book of Mormon.


JOHN MORMON:
So, Joseph isn't only a genius of literary analysis, but an incredibly adaptable writer, able to change his word prints as needed? Or, maybe he translated the words of others.


S. TANNER:
Croft criticized the first version of the wordprint study printed in BYU Studies by asserting that a wordprint could not survive translation. This criticism is answered in the Book of Mormon Authorship version. Wordprints of twelve German novellas translated by a single translator demonstrated a statistically significant difference that was not altered by the translation (p. 177).

However, the issue of translation raises a problem of internal consistency in Book of Mormon Authorship. In order to make sense of applying a wordprint analysis, one must assume that the "translation process was both direct and literal, and that each individual author's style was preserved" (p. 179). However, for B. H. Roberts to explain nineteenth-century anachronisms and King James Bible quotations he had to assume that "Joseph's vocabulary and grammar are as clearly imposed on the book as a fingerprint on a coin" (p. 13). If the expressions and ideas in the Book of Mormon are partly the result of Joseph's attempt to communicate the translation, then the nineteenth-century theological ideas and biblical quotations can be explained as a result inherent in the translation process. If these expansions are indeed Joseph's, however, then they should reflect his wordprint. To assume that Nephi had access to a King James Bible or that he was acquainted with nineteenth-century Arminian theology in the sixth century B.C. is beyond the bounds of competent scholarship. Yet this is precisely what must be assumed if the wordprint is to be taken seriously. Even given this criticism, however, the results of the wordprint study must be explained. Perhaps the wordprint analysis tells us more about computers than about the Book of Mormon.


JOHN MORMON:
It's not necessarily black or white. Maybe some parts of the Book of Mormon are more faithful translations of what was said and others are more paraphrasing in the language Joseph was familiar with.


S. TANNER:
Book of Mormon Authorship has made a prima facie case for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. It fails, however, to respond to scholarly criticism in some crucial areas. For example, since Welch first published his study on chiasmus in 1969, it has been discovered that chiasmus also appears in the Doctrine and Covenants (see, for example, 88:34-38; 93:18-38; 132:19-26, 29-36), the Pearl of Great Price (Book of Abraham 3:16-19; 22-28), and other isolated nineteenth-century works. Thus, Welch's major premise that chiasmus is exclusively an ancient literary device is false. Indeed, the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon may be evidence of Joseph Smith's own literary style and genius. Perhaps Welch could have strengthened his premise by demonstrating that the parallel members in the Book of Mormon consist of Semitic word pairs, the basis of ancient Hebrew poetry. Without such a demonstration, both Welch's and Reynold's arguments from chiasmus are weak.

(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 16, No. 4, Winter, 1983, p. 141-143)


POWELL:
Tanner is supporting the "Joseph was a genius, but not a prophet" hypothesis. I suppose a Jew or Muslim could claim the same about Jesus. He was a genius, but not the Son of God.


S. TANNER:
Since chiasmus occurs in many languages its use in the Book of Mormon does not prove either its Semitic origin or that it is a style peculiar to inspired ancient scripture. In fact, many nursery rhymes have this same type of structure (e.g. Hickory Dickory Dock).

Further comments on chiasmus can be found in our Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 96G-96I; Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 17, no. 4, Winter 1984, "Ancient Chiasmus Studied," by Prof. John Kselman, p. 146-148; Dialogue, vol. 26, no. 3, Fall 1993, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity," by Brent Metcalfe, p. 162-171. Also, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. by Brent Metcalfe, Signature Books, SLC, 1993, ch. 9, "A Record in the Language of My Father: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon," by Ed. Ashment, p. 329-394.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources...usandthebom.htm


JOHN MORMON:
Chiasmus is not PROOF of the truth of the Book of Mormon, but it is external evidence.


JOHN MORMON:
2. The Indian legends of the coming of the bearded white God.

EXMO-ROBERTSON:
Here's what I found on that subject at: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources...1/2001april.htm

[Sandra's Note: First, the deity named Quetzalcoatl was just one of many pagan Indian deities. In The Maya, by Michael Coe, we read:


POWELL:
Well, there's evidence that YHWH was just one of several deities worshipped by early Hebrews that eventually became the one and only.


S. TANNER:
Exceedingly little is known about the Maya pantheon. That their Olympus was peopled with a bewildering number of gods can be seen in the eighteenth-century manuscript, 'Ritual of the Bakabs,' in which 166 deities are mentioned by name, or in the pre-Conquest codices where more than thirty can be distinguished. (The Maya, 1999 ed., p.204)

Second, the Indians thought the Spaniards were gods because there was a legend of a past ruler (around 900 AD) named Quetzalcoatl (named after the deity) who sailed away promising to return.


POWELL:
Also because of their technological superiority.


S. TANNER:
Quoting from The Maya:

The Toltec invasion and Chich'en Itza

Into the vacuum created by the collapse of the older civilizations of central Mexico moved a new people, the Nahua-speaking Toltecs, whose northern origins are proclaimed by their kinship with the non-agricultural barbarians called the Chichimec. Shortly after AD 900 they had settled themselves at the key site of Tula...under the leadership of a king named Topiltzin, who also claimed the title of Quetzalcoatl or 'Feathered Serpent' (the culture hero of Mexican theology)....According to a number of quasi-historical accounts of great poetic merit, a struggle ensued between Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl and his adherents on the one hand, and the warrior faction on the other. Defeated by the evil magic of his adversary Tezcatlipoca, the king was forced to leave Tula with his followers, most probably in AD 987. In one version well known to all the ancient Mexicans, he made his way to the Gulf Coast and from there set across on a raft of serpents for Tlapallan ('Red Land'), some day to return for the redemption of his people. (The Maya, 1999 ed., p. 167)

The National Geographic Mag. for Dec. 1980, ran several articles on the Aztecs. On page 762 it is stated:

PANTHEON OF GODS-- so intertwined that their complexities must have dazzled even the high priests--pervaded all Aztec life at least 1,600 deities, according to myth, but their forms were so intricate as to be countless.

Gods and goddesses of agriculture and fertility abounded, and of crops and flowers, fire, rain, and the underworld. Women who died in childbirth were transformed into the 'cihuateto,' spirits who accompanied the sun on its downward path. Each community had its god; craftsmen had their gods....


POWELL:
Sort of like all the patron saints, huh?


S. TANNER:
Tezcatlipoca (tess-kah-tlee-POH-kah)--supreme god and patron of the rulers--was formed with the creation....

The powerful Quetzalcoatl--adopted, as were many other deities, from earlier Mesoamerican cultures--bridged the gap between history and mythology. A human ruler between history and mythology. A Human ruler of the Toltec capital of Tula, he merged with an earlier plumed serpent god, who created civilization through agriculture and writing. Quetzalcoatl left Tula in disgrace because of drunkenness, tradition held, but was expected to return someday from the east. He did, some Aztecs believed, as Hernan Cortes. (National Geographic Mag., Dec. 1980, p. 762)


JOHN MORMON:
Maybe this later Quetzalcoatl was also playing on their vague memory of the visit of Jesus to the Americas around 33 A.D.


S. TANNER:
But that hardly equates with Jesus. Also, they had never seen such a ship before, firing arms, horses, etc . So they thought the gods had arrived.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons don't claim that Jesus arrived by boat.


S. TANNER:
For more on this, see the article in Sunstone Mag., 1986, "The Christianization of Quetzalcoatl" by Brent Gardner, who at the time of the article was working on his Ph.D. in anthropology. Regarding the claim that Quetzalcoatl was white, Mr. Gardner comments:

Perhaps the most confusing aspect of the myth is the reference to a white Quetzalcoatl. The idol of the god was always painted black, and I know of no native or even early Spanish text which specifically mentions a white skin. I have been unable to find the point at which this concept enters the legend, but it is clearly not a part of the important information which described Quetzalcoatl at the time of the Conquest.

I can offer only one possible source for the theme. Quetzalcoatl is associated with the west, which in the Aztec symbol system was white. Thus Quetzalcoatl is white as in indication of the west, just as other deities were red, blue, and black when associated with other compass directions.

It could be argued that the elevation of Cortex to the status of the returning Quetzalcoatl was based on the color of Cortez's skin, but the earliest evidence does not support this conclusion. The Spaniards were revered as gods, but according to Sahagun the black slaves which shipped with them were also specifically called gods. Clearly a white skin was not a requisite of deification. The Spanish were gods by virtue of their miraculous ships which appeared to be floating temples and their sticks which spit thunder and fire and caused trees to fall down. It was the miracle of who they were rather than their color which fired the native imagination. ...

Stripping away the influence of the Spanish, Quetzalcoatl becomes once again a very Aztec god, complete with the duality of good and bad which characterizes the Aztec pantheon. The moral and political climate of the Conquest generated pressures which selected certain facets of the native tradition and so presented them as to appear Christian. The early Spanish fathers found such evidences behind every tree, but no bough was more fruitful than Quetzalcoatl. (Sunstone, vol.10, no.11, 1986, p. 10)

We sell a pamphlet called Quetzalcoatl—Jesus in the Americas? by E. Johnson.]


JOHN MORMON:
The servants of the Gods might also be considered Gods despite their skin color. If Quetzalcoatl had been a BLACK person then it doesn't make much sense for them to think Cortez, a WHITE person, was that BLACK person, now would it?


JOHN MORMON:
3. The "tree of life" stone that seems to follow Lehi's dream.

EXMO-ROBERTSON:
From: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources...002february.htm

[Sandra's Note: Some sixty years ago a large carved stone, referred to as Stela 5, Izapa, was found in Chiapas, Mexico. A few LDS writers have claimed that this stone depicts a scene in the Book of Mormon and is thus evidence for the historicity of that book. However, the National Geographic Society does not make that connection. In a letter dated April 27, 1965, George Crossetter, Chief, Geographical Research, National Geographic Magazine, stated:


JOHN MORMON:
Just because some people don't think it depicts Lehi's dream doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't.


S. TANNER:
"The National Geographic Society along with the Smithsonian Institution sponsored archeological work in Mexico where 'Stela 5, Izapa' was found....No one associated with our expedition connected this stela in any way with the Book of Mormon."


JOHN MORMON:
Were any of those people Mormons? If they were maybe they would have made the connection.


S. TANNER:
It should be noted that there is no written text on the stone, only drawings of various people and objects. Problems arise from the unsupported interpretation of the drawings by LDS writers. Stan Larson, Marriott Library, University of Utah, wrote:

S LARSON:
Izapa Stela 5 and Lehi's Dream

In One Fold and One Shepherd Ferguson also cited the recent study on Stela 5 at Izapa, which M. Wells Jakeman, in a controversial identification, interpreted as a representation of Lehi's dream of the Tree of Life in 1 Nephi 8. A miniature model of the Lehi Tree-of-Life Stone has "taken on the function of a kind of cult object" in the LDS community, since many homes have a replica in the living room serving as a conversation piece about the Book of Mormon. Jakeman claimed to have deciphered the personal names Lehi and Nephi from name-glyphs on the stela:

For the meaning of the name Lehi is the jaws-especially the upper jaw-in side view, i.e., "cheek." And we have already noted that Feature 9, the cipactli glyph held above the old bearded man, mainly depicts a pair of huge jaws (those of the crocodile)-especially the upper jaw-in slate view, i.e., a great cheek! That is, this glyph is essentially a portrayal of what the name Lehi means. It therefore constitutes-whether intended or not-a symbolic recording of that name. . . .

There is, however, a defensible Egyptian derivation [of Nephi] that has not previously been noted. This is that the name Nephi . . . is Lehi's rendering of the Egyptian name of the personification or Rod of grain in Egyptian belief, N(e)pri (from n[é]prî, the Egyptian word for grain). . . .

The interpretation offered by Jakeman impressed many LDS General Authorities. For example, on a trip to Izapa in June 1960 Marion G. Romney, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote in his diary: "It could well be what he [Jakeman] says it is-a representation of that dream which Lehi had.

However, Mormon archaeologist V. Garth Norman said that "the inaccuracies in the Jakeman reproduction of Stela 5" make his interpretations invalid. Jakeman has been charged with altering the latex mold of the stela to fit his interpretation. Norman supported Jakeman's use of the cipactli glyph (a bared [p.65] jawbone) being correlated with the Hebrew word lechî "jawbone" or "cheek," but doubted Jakeman's "interpretation of 'Nephi' for the other name glyph."


JOHN MORMON:
Some people are more skeptical than others.


S LARSON:
Gareth W. Lowe, archaeologist for NWAF, in summation of his analysis of this monument, said: "I cannot escape the impression that Stela 5 presents an original creation myth, closely similar to those recorded very much later in the Popol Vuh." Coe, representing non-Mormon archaeologists, said that Jakeman's parallels are "a matter of mere chance based upon only superficial similarities." Jakeman's interpretation of Izapa Stela 5 which connects it with the Book of Mormon remains unproven speculation, while the interpretation which understands this monument as a Mesoamerican creation account, like the Popol Vuh, gains more support. (Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates, p.64)


JOHN MORMON:
Stela 5 is not PROOF of the truth of the Book of Mormon, but it is evidence.


S. TANNER? (Please use tags better, Exmo-Robertson, so it's clear who said what)

Hope this helps. There is also material on this in our book: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.]


POWELL:
You seem so willing to support scientists when they don't support the Book of Mormon, Exmo-Robertson, but what about when scientists don't support the Bible? Do you then disregard their expert opinions?


JOHN MORMON:
4. The discovery that although "alma" might be a feminine word in latin, it was later discovered to be a Jewish male name.

EXMO-ROBERTSON:
John, you've got me on this one. This is the first I've heard of it. Can you give me a reference?


JOHN MORMON:
Here's one reference. I don't know how reliable it is.
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/HebrewNames.pdf


JOHN A. TVEDTNES (pg. 3)
It is one thing to propose valid Hebrew etymologies for these names. More significant is the fact that some non-biblical Book of Mormon names are now attested in ancient Jewish texts. For example, the name of the prophet Alma, long attacked by critics as feminine in form in both Spanish and Hebrew (if written XXXX), is now known from of the Bar Kochba documents, where we read XXXXX XX XXXX^40. It is also known from the medieval place-name XXXX in Eretz Israel.^41 Alma is also attested as a masculine personal name at Ebla.^42 The final aleph^43 suggests that the name may be hypocoristic.^44


POWELL:
Alma, apparently is also a male Irish name

http://www.irelandseye.com/irish/traditional/names/first/alma.shtm

Maybe that's where Joseph got it.


JOHN MORMON:
There's also the story of the Jewish translator of the Book of Mormon who converted to Mormonism based on the linguistics in the book.

EXMO-ROBERTSON:
That may be true or it may not. Even if true the conversion of someone isn't really proof of the truthfulness of the BOM. People are fooled everyday.


JOHN MORMON:
Nothing I posted here is "proof," but only external evidences. The best evidence is God revealing the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost.


EXMO-ROBERTSON:
I hope this helps clear up some of yours and John Mormon's questions or did John the atheist already know this? hmmmm....


POWELL:
Yes, I knew about these kinds of things.

John Powell

[musicman]

Evidently, it takes a lot more than just a belief in Jesus as the Christ to justify membership in a Christian sect. There are necessary corollary beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.



However, to justifiably call oneself a Christian, all that is required is that they honestly affirm that they believe that "Jesus is the Christ" or something similar to that.



musicman:



I would like to get back to the original question, “Are Mormons Christians?” Your reasoning above is, at least in my mind, flawed (I’ll explain later). You do say that to be a member of a Christian “sect” requires more than just “a belief in Jesus as the Christ”, but then you say that all one needs to be called “Christian” is an honest belief that Jesus was/is the Christ. You defend this line of thinking with the following equations:

- belief in Jesus as the Christ = Christian, just as

- belief in God or a god = “Theist”

Therefore, you say, since Mormons express faith and belief in Jesus, they must also rightfully be called “Christians” – just as Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. do.

I think your comparisons are not quite apropos. First, a belief in theism is an extremely general term that can be used to define a wide variety of beliefs in a higher power. However, I don’t think you can do quite the same thing with the title of “Christian”. By your definition of Christian – anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah is a Christian. Someone pointed out earlier that Satan and demons believe that Jesus is the Christ, and yet are not Christians. You answered that that belief was not accompanied by submission and worship of Christ – but that is an addition to your original definition. You changed your equation. Even Jesus Himself makes clear in Matthew 7:21 that:


“not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”.

Jesus is not talking about differences between “sects”. He is saying that there are people who may think they are Christians, but aren’t. They may use His name to do many good and wonderful things, and yet do not really belong to Him. Therefore, I think your mistake is that your definition of a Christian leaves out the possibility of a counterfeit Jesus, or counterfeit Gospel. If your definition of Christian has any meaning at all, it is only in a very extreme general sense (in the same category of your definition of a theist). I can believe in the existence of “money”, and yet, there is counterfeit currency that, although it looks like the real thing, it is not “real” money. Paul speaks of this counterfeit gospel in Galatians 1:6-9:


I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Obviously, Paul is not just talking about a different “sect” – he is talking about the Gospel itself. There are essentials of faith, which must be accepted before one can legitimately be called a Christian. We must compare the doctrines of persons and religious groups with the teaching of Scripture in order to identify what is orthodox and what is error. Some differences are merely peripheral (which explains the variety of denominations), but some differences are a denial of the essentials of the gospel. These kinds of groups cannot rightfully be called Christian because they have strayed from the essential doctrines regarding who Christ is as given in the Scripture. One can be right in nearly every other doctrinal belief, but if one is wrong about whom Jesus is – then that one is a “counterfeit”. One can be wrong on nearly every other doctrine, but if that one is right about whom Christ is – that one is still a Christian. Therefore, I think your mistake is that you are attempting to over-generalize the meaning of the word “Christian”.

musicman

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Evidently, it takes a lot more than just a belief in Jesus as the Christ to justify membership in a Christian sect. There are necessary corollary beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.

. . .

However, to justifiably call oneself a Christian, all that is required is that they honestly affirm that they believe that "Jesus is the Christ" or something similar to that.

MUSICMAN:
I would like to get back to the original question, "Are Mormons Christians?" Your reasoning above is, at least in my mind, flawed (I’ll explain later). You do say that to be a member of a Christian "sect" requires more than just "a belief in Jesus as the Christ," but then you say that all one needs to be called "Christian" is an honest belief that Jesus was/is the Christ. You defend this line of thinking with the following equations:

- belief in Jesus as the Christ = Christian, just as

- belief in God or a god = "Theist"

Therefore, you say, since Mormons express faith and belief in Jesus, they must also rightfully be called "Christians" -- just as Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. do.

I think your comparisons are not quite apropos. First, a belief in theism is an extremely general term that can be used to define a wide variety of beliefs in a higher power.


POWELL:
Christianity is an extremely general term that can be used to define a wide variety of beliefs in Jesus Christ. The difference is that it's a NARROWER term than "theism." "Mormonism" is somewhat general, but is more restrictive than "Christianity."


MUSICMAN:
However, I don’t think you can do quite the same thing with the title of "Christian".


POWELL:
I think I just did. Christians, Muslims, and Hindus are different kinds of theists. Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons are different kinds of Christians.


MUSICMAN:
By your definition of Christian - anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah is a Christian.

POWELL:
Right. There may be a problem with that definition if there are people (like Messianic Jews?) who believe Jesus was the Messiah, but not God or the son of God and who do not want to be considered Christian. Rather than Christians being those who believe "Jesus is the Christ," a better definition may be those who believe "Jesus is the divine Christ" or something like that.


MUSICMAN:
Someone pointed out earlier that Satan and demons believe that Jesus is the Christ, and yet are not Christians.


POWELL:
The definition was applicable to MORTALS. Is God, the Father, Christian? Has God, the Father, done those things you think a Christian must do like accept Jesus as His personal Savior and maybe other things like be baptized?


MUSICMAN:
You answered that that belief was not accompanied by submission and worship of Christ - but that is an addition to your original definition. You changed your equation.


POWELL:
Yea, I guess that doesn't work since even a mortal might concede that X is a real God, but not submit to or worship X. Instead, let's say the definition is intended to apply to MORTALS, not to God, Himself or Theirselves, or to Satan and his demons. Its purpose is to distinguish mortal Christians from mortal Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. What God or Satan believe and whether they even exist is controversial.


MUSICMAN (revised formatting by Powell):
Even Jesus Himself makes clear in Matthew 7:21 that:


not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’.


MUSICMAN:
Jesus is not talking about differences between "sects". He is saying that there are people who may think they are Christians, but aren’t.


POWELL:
No, Musicman. Jesus is speaking of those who may think "they will enter the kingdom of heaven," but won't. Jesus is speaking to CHRISTIANS, people who believe He is divine (God or the son of God). He's clarifying that not all Christians will go to heaven, only the obedient ones. Even those who revealed the word of God and who performed miracles in His name won't make it if they weren't obedient.


MUSICMAN:
They may use His name to do many good and wonderful things, and yet do not really belong to Him.

POWELL:
They won't be His in heaven. We are all God's possession in some way, no?


MUSICMAN:
Therefore, I think your mistake is that your definition of a Christian leaves out the possibility of a counterfeit Jesus, or counterfeit Gospel.


POWELL:
That's a mistake. You could then likewise argue that mortals who believe in a counterfeit God or a counterfeit Word of God should not be called "theist." The purpose of the broad designation "theist" is to distinguish believers in some kind of God or gods from those who don't. Polytheist and monotheist are two subdivisions of "theist."


MUSICMAN:
If your definition of Christian has any meaning at all, it is only in a very extreme general sense (in the same category of your definition of a theist). I can believe in the existence of "money", and yet, there is counterfeit currency that, although it looks like the real thing, it is not "real" money.


POWELL:
That's debatable, since whatever one uses as a medium of exchange, whether authorized by the government or not could be called "money" if enough people in the society do it. However, in modern terminology "legal tender" is often considered the only "real" money.

The issue of "counterfeit" Christianity is NOT that it isn't a set of religious beliefs treating Jesus as divine, but that it IS a set of beliefs that might appear correct on the surface, but on closer inspection turn out to be very mistaken.


MUSICMAN:
Paul speaks of this counterfeit gospel in Galatians 1:6-9:


I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!



POWELL:
Paul contradicts himself. He claims that a different gospel is not a gospel. What he might mean is that the "good news" the others might preach isn't really that "good." Or, he might mean that the other message they preach isn't the TRUE gospel of Jesus.


MUSICMAN:
Obviously, Paul is not just talking about a different "sect" - he is talking about the Gospel itself.


POWELL:
He seems to be talking about both people within their religious group (their own sect) who might mislead them and others, of other religious groups (other sects), who might do the same.


MUSICMAN:
There are essentials of faith, which must be accepted before one can legitimately be called a Christian.


POWELL:
When you get to those "essentials" then you are identifying what features distinguish one Christian from another.


MUSICMAN:
We must compare the doctrines of persons and religious groups with the teaching of Scripture in order to identify what is orthodox and what is error.


POWELL:
GOOD! However, you are now distinguishing ORTHODOX Christian from UNORTHODOX Christian. Mormons are willing to concede they aren't "orthodox" Christians in the way people generally mean. However, like pretty much all Christian groups, they think their beliefs better match what the Bible says.

Mormons are NOT orthodox Christians or fundamentalist Christians or evangelical Christians or Catholic Christians or Lutheran Christians or Baptist Christians or Jehovah's Witness Christians or Seventh Day Adventist Christians or whatever. Mormons are "Mormon Christians."


MUSICMAN:
Some differences are merely peripheral (which explains the variety of denominations), but some differences are a denial of the essentials of the gospel. These kinds of groups cannot rightfully be called Christian because they have strayed from the essential doctrines regarding who Christ is as given in the Scripture.


POWELL:
Then call them "mistaken Christians" or "heretical Christians," but don't call them "non-Christians."


MUSICMAN:
One can be right in nearly every other doctrinal belief, but if one is wrong about whom Jesus is - then that one is a "counterfeit". One can be wrong on nearly every other doctrine, but if that one is right about whom Christ is - that one is still a Christian. Therefore, I think your mistake is that you are attempting to over-generalize the meaning of the word "Christian".

musicman


POWELL:
Your flawed methodology would allow you to disqualify every religion but your own from being "Christian" merely by claiming that their Christology is not entirely correct. What Christians should be doing is debating WHO among them is right or more right about Jesus, NOT who among them is a Christian or not.

Your efforts frustrate the PURPOSE of designations like "Christian." The purpose is not to identify who is going to heaven or not, who is "saved" or not, who has the truth or not. It's to make a broad distinction between those MORTALS who believe Jesus is divine and who believe the New Testament is the Word of God from those who believe the Old Testament is the Word of God, but not the New Testament (Jews), from those who believe neither is the Word of God, but the Quran is the Word of God (Muslims), etc.

AFAICS, you did not avoid the problem that if you deny Mormons the right to call themselves Christians then you justify others to claim you are neither a Christian nor a theist. Mormons think your views on Jesus and God are mistaken. You have a "counterfeit" understanding of Jesus and God according to them. Therefore, Mormons would seem to be justified BY YOU in claiming that you are NOT a "real" Christian or even a "real" theist. You're a non-Christian non-theist.

John Powell