Are Mormons Christians?

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The answer is "yes."


American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com:

Christian,
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess belief in Jesus as Christ, so they are Christians.

Are they Catholic Christians? No.
Are they Eastern Orthodox Christians? No.
Are they Protestant Christians? No.

Modern usage of the word is intended to distinguish those religions which profess belief in Jesus as Christ and, say, those who profess Mohammed as God's prophet, or who profess Moses as God's prophet, but not the New Testament as God's word, etc. The purpose is to give the hearer some basis for understanding the religious point of view of the person. It does not give the details of the belief (such as infant baptism, saved by works, etc.) beyond the fact that the Christian professes belief in Jesus as Christ.

Any particular Christian group can claim that the others aren't TRUE Christians, claim they're heretics for example, but it's contrary to the usage of the word to exclude them as Christians. For example, you can say Mormons aren't orthodox Christians, but you are mistaken if you deny that they are Christians.

It is not the case that a Christian is defined as someone who holds to the correct beliefs concerning Jesus Christ.

If you go the misguided route of claiming that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't hold to your particular view of the teachings of Jesus then what stops someone else from denying that you're a theist based on the claim that your beliefs about God don't match theirs?

John Powell

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
The answer is "yes."



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess belief in Jesus as Christ, so they are Christians.

Are they Catholic Christians? No.
Are they Eastern Orthodox Christians? No.
Are they Protestant Christians? No.

Modern usage of the word is intended to distinguish those religions which profess belief in Jesus as Christ and, say, those who profess Mohammed as God's prophet, or who profess Moses as God's prophet, but not the New Testament as God's word, etc. The purpose is to give the hearer some basis for understanding the religious point of view of the person. It does not give the details of the belief (such as infant baptism, saved by works, etc.) beyond the fact that the Christian professes belief in Jesus as Christ.

Any particular Christian group can claim that the others aren't TRUE Christians, claim they're heretics for example, but it's contrary to the usage of the word to exclude them as Christians. For example, you can say Mormons aren't orthodox Christians, but you are mistaken if you deny that they are Christians.

It is not the case that a Christian is defined as someone who holds to the correct beliefs concerning Jesus Christ.

If you go the misguided route of claiming that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't hold to your particular view of the teachings of Jesus then what stops someone else from denying that you're a theist based on the claim that your beliefs about God don't match theirs?

John PowellMormons are antichrists, denying that Jesus is the virgin born Son of the Father. As defined by the NT apostolic authors.

[John Powell]

HITCH:
Mormons are antichrists, denying that Jesus is the virgin born Son of the Father. As defined by the NT apostolic authors.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ. Their view on things like the virgin birth is irrelevent. They are Mormon Christians.

If you are going exclude Mormons from being Christians because their beliefs about Jesus (other than that He is the Christ) don't match yours then what stops others from excluding you from being a Christian because your beliefs about the virgin birth or whatever don't match theirs or excluding you from being a theist because your views about God don't match theirs?

John Powell

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ. Their view on things like the virgin birth is irrelevent. They are Mormon Christians.

Do you deny that Mormons profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ?

John PowellJesus Christ is the virgin born only begotten Son of the Father. As defined by the NT apostolic writers.

This is not niether the father ,the christ ,not the jesus of mormon mythology.

A nephite told me so...

Hitch

[John Powell]

HITCH:
Jesus Christ is the virgin born only begotten Son of the Father. As defined by the NT apostolic writers.

This is not niether the father ,the christ ,not the jesus of mormon mythology.

JOHN MORMON:
The details beyond "Jesus is the Christ" are irrelevant to the definition.

If you are going exclude Mormons from being Christians because their beliefs about Jesus (other than that He is the Christ) don't match yours then what stops others from excluding you from being a Christian because your beliefs about the virgin birth or whatever don't match theirs or excluding you from being a theist because your views about God don't match theirs?

John Powell

[Dee Dee Warren]

Nothing, and they should. That was easy John.

[John Powell]

Nothing, and they should. That was easy John.


JOHN MORMON:
"Don't tempt me," she says.

Then it would seem that we've destroyed the utility of the word "theist." It no longer includes everyone who believes in some kind of God or gods, but it only includes the group (if there is one) who has the correct belief about God(s). What word shall we use to serve as a replacement? Nonatheist?

John Powell

[Dee Dee Warren]

Utility is not always the end all and be all. Further I was more specifically answering your portion about the Christian not the "theist" part. However, it doesn't matter either way. Depending upon what aspect we are focusing on, I would deny that there are any true theists than those who are Christians as I would define Christian since one cannot believe in something which does not exist and false gods do not exist except perhaps as demons - but demons are not God.

And I wouldn't argue utility for that begs your own question John. By your expansion of the word "Christian" I can argue that you have destroyed utility by unwarranted expansion - that snake has two heads and you aren't holding it in the middle.

Mormons are not Christian just like they are not Muslim. How dare you say they are not Muslim John. You are destroying the utility of the word. Or are you going to argue that there are specific beliefs to be a Muslim? Mininums? Says who? You?

[Ryokan]

JOHN MORMON:
The answer is "yes."



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess belief in Jesus as Christ, so they are Christians.

Are they Catholic Christians? No.
Are they Eastern Orthodox Christians? No.
Are they Protestant Christians? No.

Modern usage of the word is intended to distinguish those religions which profess belief in Jesus as Christ and, say, those who profess Mohammed as God's prophet, or who profess Moses as God's prophet, but not the New Testament as God's word, etc. The purpose is to give the hearer some basis for understanding the religious point of view of the person. It does not give the details of the belief (such as infant baptism, saved by works, etc.) beyond the fact that the Christian professes belief in Jesus as Christ.

Any particular Christian group can claim that the others aren't TRUE Christians, claim they're heretics for example, but it's contrary to the usage of the word to exclude them as Christians. For example, you can say Mormons aren't orthodox Christians, but you are mistaken if you deny that they are Christians.

It is not the case that a Christian is defined as someone who holds to the correct beliefs concerning Jesus Christ.

If you go the misguided route of claiming that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't hold to your particular view of the teachings of Jesus then what stops someone else from denying that you're a theist based on the claim that your beliefs about God don't match theirs?

John Powell
At heart, its an idiotic semantical battle.It all just depends on how you define Christian, and their is no compelling reason to accept any definition as the "right" one over any others. Generally, I think when other Christian groups deny the Christianity of Mormonism, they are trying to a. label it as heresy, and b. deny the hope of salvation for mormonisms adherents, unlike other (in the users mind) wrong headed but still not heretical point of view. But, as not John Mormon, but John Powell, why do you care what mainstream Christianity thinks about Mormonism? Its not like the Mormons are being oppressed any more than any other small religious group, or some large ones like Catholicism. Differences of opinion are inevitable.

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
The details beyond "Jesus is the Christ" are irrelevant to the definition.

If you are going exclude Mormons from being Christians because their beliefs about Jesus (other than that He is the Christ) don't match yours then what stops others from excluding you from being a Christian because your beliefs about the virgin birth or whatever don't match theirs or excluding you from being a theist because your views about God don't match theirs?

John PowellMonothisistic Trinitarianism is required ,along with the Virgin Birth, and the bodily resurrection from the dead. Mormon mythology fails on the first two.

But why would any mormon,except a jackmormon, want to be considered among the christian sects when Joseph tolds us all the sects are abominable?

[PaulT]

John Powell aka John Mormon,



Thanks for delving into this mystery,




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Mormons profess belief in Jesus as Christ, so they are Christians.



John Powell



Christianity is defined by Webster’s as comprised of those groups who profess beliefs in certain doctrines. One of the key doctrines is the doctrine of Christ better known as who Christ is. The plain fact is that Mormonism professes a belief in a different Jesus than the Christ of the Bible, which is why Webster’s does not count them among the members of Christianity.




JOHN MORMON:

Modern usage of the word is intended to distinguish those religions which profess belief in Jesus as Christ and, say, those who profess Mohammed as God's prophet, or who profess Moses as God's prophet, but not the New Testament as God's word, etc.



Webster’s modern definition of Christianity excludes the Mormons. When one denies who the Bible proclaims Christ to be then they deny Christ. I could be wrong, but I think Islam recognizes Jesus Christ as a prophet from God but deny He is God, in a similar fashion as do the Mormons. I also think Islam recognizes the Bible, while they too have their own book. I haven’t seen many Islamic’s attempting to co-opt the Christian title.




The purpose is to give the hearer some basis for understanding the religious point of view of the person. It does not give the details of the belief (such as infant baptism, saved by works, etc.) beyond the fact that the Christian professes belief in Jesus as Christ.



Tell me, what is the difference between a “religious point of view” and the “details of the belief”, this is truly a dodge. The Mormon view of God is radically different than the orthodox view taught in the Bible, the view that Webster’s uses to define Christianity. The attempt to redefine the term is pure deception. If you deny the doctrine of Christ, you deny the teachings of Christ.






Any particular Christian group can claim that the others aren't TRUE Christians, claim they're heretics for example, but it's contrary to the usage of the word to exclude them as Christians. For example, you can say Mormons aren't orthodox Christians, but you are mistaken if you deny that they are Christians.



I guess Webster’s got it wrong then when they defined the groups who comprised Christianity. Why don’t you drop them a line.






It is not the case that a Christian is defined as someone who holds to the correct beliefs concerning Jesus Christ.



This isn’t what the Bible says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God”. If you don’t confess that Christ is the one true God you have redefined the term and preach of another Jesus. The orthodox view of God is what defines Christianity. If you don’t buy the definition you shouldn’t attempt to mislead and suggest you are following the teachings, by calling yourself a Christian.






If you go the misguided route of claiming that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't hold to your particular view of the teachings of Jesus then what stops someone else from denying that you're a theist based on the claim that your beliefs about God don't match theirs?



Again, you should point out to Webster’s how misguided they are, I’m sure they would appreciate hearing your point of view. If you deny who Christ is then you are not following His teachings.



Regarding theists, your argument makes no sense. The definition of the term theist stops someone from denying I am a theist.



theism

One entry found for theism.


Top of Form





Bottom of Form


Main Entry: the·ism (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?theism01.wav=theism'))
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world



It would seem based on the definition as long as you claimed belief in any god you would be covered within the usage of the word. Amazing how clear things can be when you stick to the standard definitions instead of attempting to re-write or redefine the terms.





Good to hear from you John Powell,



Paul

[norwegen]

JOHN MORMON:
The answer is "yes."Wonderful.

Will you tell me what a Christian is?

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm sorry for the delay. I had some connectivity problems. It's frustrating when someone begins a thread but doesn't stick around much.


DEE DEE WARREN:
Utility is not always the end all and be all. Further I was more specifically answering your portion about the Christian not the "theist" part. However, it doesn't matter either way. Depending upon what aspect we are focusing on, I would deny that there are any true theists than those who are Christians as I would define Christian since one cannot believe in something which does not exist and false gods do not exist except perhaps as demons - but demons are not God.


JOHN MORMON:
I suppose it's ok to say all non-Dee Dee versions of Christianity, all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. aren't "true" theists because they don't believe in the true God. However, don't you include them in the group of theists? You aren't serious about increasing the ranks of nontheists that way are you?

POWELL:
:b_evil:

JOHN MORMON:
Furthermore, don't you include in the group of Christians those who don't hold to the correct views of Christ? It would seem that you include among the class of Christian those who share with you a range of beliefs provided they don't deviate beyond some marks.

Following that, it would seem you should only include among theists those who have a concept of God close enough to yours. Perhaps Jews would be close enough, but Muslims and Hindus would be too different.

Do you consider Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus to be theists? If you do, then you would seem to be inconsistent.

I recommend terms like "Orthodox Christian" and "Judeo-Christian Theist" or "Trinitarian Theist" to accomplish those tasks.


DEE DEE WARREN:
And I wouldn't argue utility for that begs your own question John.


JOHN MORMON:
The purpose of words is to communicate.


DEE DEE WARREN:
By your expansion of the word "Christian" I can argue that you have destroyed utility by unwarranted expansion - that snake has two heads and you aren't holding it in the middle.


JOHN MORMON:
It seems to me the purpose should be one of helping to identify the beliefs of the person. We call them Theist to distinguish them from Atheist, Agnostic, whatever. That says nothing about what brand of theism they are. We call them Christian (Theist) to further identify them, but that says nothing about what brand of Christian they are. We call them Baptist (Christian Theist) or even Southern Baptist (Christian Theist) to help identify them. The sublabeling could continue that way.


DEE DEE WARREN:
Mormons are not Christian just like they are not Muslim. How dare you say they are not Muslim John. You are destroying the utility of the word. Or are you going to argue that there are specific beliefs to be a Muslim? Mininums? Says who? You?


JOHN MORMON:
What defines a Muslim is whether or not she accepts Mohammed as God's prophet (and presumably whether or not she accepts the Koran as God's word). Differences beyond that require further subdivisions such as Sunni Muslim, Shiite Muslim, etc.

Would we be inclined to agree with the Sunnis that only Sunnis are Muslims, that we have to call Shiites something else? I don't think so. We acknowledge that Sunnis and Shiites have their differences, but we group them together as Muslims because they share a belief in Mohammed as God's prophet and the Koran as God's word.

Put yourself in the shoes of a new Muslim to the neighborhood being told that (Baptist) neighbor is Christian and that (Presbyterian) neighbor is Christian and so on but that (Mormon) neighbor isn't Christian, but is Mormon, because her belief in Jesus differs from that of the Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists, etc.

Mormons justifiably call themselves Christian because they satisfy the definition. They profess a belief in Jesus as Christ and accept the New Testament as God's word.

John Powell

[John Powell]

RYOKAN:
At heart, its an idiotic semantical battle.It all just depends on how you define Christian, and their [there] is no compelling reason to accept any definition as the "right" one over any others.


JOHN MORMON:
With rare exceptions, the definitions published in standard dictionaries or in technical textbooks should be preferred over others.


RYOKAN:
Generally, I think when other Christian groups deny the Christianity of Mormonism, they are trying to a. label it as heresy, and b. deny the hope of salvation for mormonisms adherents, unlike other (in the users mind) wrong headed but still not heretical point of view.


JOHN MORMON:
They can do that by using labels like "Nonorthodox Christian" or "Unsaved Christian" or "Heretical Christian".


RYOKAN:
But, as not John Mormon, but John Powell, why do you care what mainstream Christianity thinks about Mormonism?


POWELL:
As a student of world religions, I find it useful to group Mormons with Christians.


RYOKAN:
Its not like the Mormons are being oppressed any more than any other small religious group, or some large ones like Catholicism. Differences of opinion are inevitable.


JOHN MORMON:
Refusing to include Mormons among Christians tends to produce in Mormons the impression that their critics are unreasonable. Their critics read the dictionary, "profess a belief in Jesus as Christ" but conclude "although Mormons do this they aren't Christian."

John Powell

[John Powell]

Hitch:
Monothisistic Trinitarianism is required ,along with the Virgin Birth, and the bodily resurrection from the dead. Mormon mythology fails on the first two.


JOHN MORMON:
Then why doesn't the American Heritage Dictionary definition say as much?


Hitch:
But why would any mormon,except a jackmormon, want to be considered among the christian sects when Joseph tolds us all the sects are abominable?

JOHN MORMON:
The name of the church was to emphasize that we believe that Jesus is the Christ. We profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ. We are Christians. We aren't Trinitarian Christians. We aren't Infant Baptism Christians. That doesn't matter. We are Mormon Christians.

John Powell

[John Powell]

PaulT:
John Powell aka John Mormon,

Thanks for delving into this mystery,


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess belief in Jesus as Christ, so they are Christians.

John Powell


PaulT:
Christianity is defined by Webster’s as comprised of those groups who profess beliefs in certain doctrines. One of the key doctrines is the doctrine of Christ better known as who Christ is. The plain fact is that Mormonism professes a belief in a different Jesus than the Christ of the Bible, which is why Webster’s does not count them among the members of Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
What leads you to think Webster's excludes Mormons from being Christian? What is Webster's definition for "Christian"?



JOHN MORMON:
Modern usage of the word is intended to distinguish those religions which profess belief in Jesus as Christ and, say, those who profess Mohammed as God's prophet, or who profess Moses as God's prophet, but not the New Testament as God's word, etc.


PaulT:
Webster’s modern definition of Christianity excludes the Mormons.


JOHN MORMON:
So you say.


PaulT:
When one denies who the Bible proclaims Christ to be then they deny Christ.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons accept the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament as God's word. Whether their interpretation of the Bible is the same as yours is irrelevant. Ask them the question "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?" If they say "yes" then count them as a Christian.


PaulT:
I could be wrong, but I think Islam recognizes Jesus Christ as a prophet from God but deny He is God, in a similar fashion as do the Mormons.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but not as the Christ. So, they aren't Christian.

Mormons believe that Jesus is God, but isn't the same person as God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. Trinitarian Christians agree up to that point.


PaulT:
I also think Islam recognizes the Bible, while they too have their own book. I haven’t seen many Islamic’s attempting to co-opt the Christian title.


JOHN MORMON:
I'm not sure their attitude about the Bible. Everyone concerned seems satisfied that Muslims aren't Christian.



POWELL:
The purpose is to give the hearer some basis for understanding the religious point of view of the person. It does not give the details of the belief (such as infant baptism, saved by works, etc.) beyond the fact that the Christian professes belief in Jesus as Christ.


PaulT:
Tell me, what is the difference between a “religious point of view” and the “details of the belief”, this is truly a dodge.


JOHN MORMON:
"Religious point of view" is what the person religously believes. "Details of the belief" are the specific features that might distinguish that belief from the beliefs of others. For example, all Christians share the religious point of view that Jesus is the Christ. That is the defining attribute. However, the details of this belief are different for different Christians. For example, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but is a different person. Mormon Theists, on the other hand, believe Jesus is of the same Godhead as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, but is a different personage.


PaulT:
The Mormon view of God is radically different than the orthodox view taught in the Bible, the view that Webster’s uses to define Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
Then call them "Unorthodox Christians."


PaulT:
The attempt to redefine the term is pure deception. If you deny the doctrine of Christ, you deny the teachings of Christ.


JOHN MORMON:
I'm using the American Heritage Dictionary definition. I'm not "redefining" the term. Mormons do not "deny the doctrine of Christ." They deny your interpretation of the doctrine of Christ.

You appear to be inconsistent. You include as Christian those who "deny the doctrine of Christ" as you understand it, yes?



POWELL:
Any particular Christian group can claim that the others aren't TRUE Christians, claim they're heretics for example, but it's contrary to the usage of the word to exclude them as Christians. For example, you can say Mormons aren't orthodox Christians, but you are mistaken if you deny that they are Christians.


PaulT:
I guess Webster’s got it wrong then when they defined the groups who comprised Christianity. Why don’t you drop them a line.


JOHN MORMON:
Have you considered the possibility that Webster's treated Mormons as Protestant?

What is Webster's definition for "Protestant."



JOHN MORMON:
It is not the case that a Christian is defined as someone who holds to the correct beliefs concerning Jesus Christ.


PaulT:
This isn’t what the Bible says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God”.


JOHN MORMON:
Does the Bible say or clearly imply that such a person is not Christian?

Are you saying that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. aren't theists because they don't have God because they do not abide the doctrine of Christ?


PaulT:
If you don’t confess that Christ is the one true God you have redefined the term and preach of another Jesus.


JOHN MORMON:
Then a Mormon can claim that unless you confess that Jesus is the Son of God rather than the God who is His Father then you preach another Jesus than the Bible.

The purpose of labels like theist, Christian, Baptist, Mormon, etc. is to give broad groupings which allow for finer subdivisions.


PaulT:
The orthodox view of God is what defines Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
No. The orthodox view of Christianity is what defines Orthodox Christianity.


PaulT:
If you don’t buy the definition you shouldn’t attempt to mislead and suggest you are following the teachings, by calling yourself a Christian.


JOHN MORMON:
I am using the American Heritage Dictionary definition for Christian. Why don't you too?



JOHN MORMON:
If you go the misguided route of claiming that Mormons aren't Christians because they don't hold to your particular view of the teachings of Jesus then what stops someone else from denying that you're a theist based on the claim that your beliefs about God don't match theirs?


PaulT:
Again, you should point out to Webster’s how misguided they are, I’m sure they would appreciate hearing your point of view. If you deny who Christ is then you are not following His teachings.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ. That's all the American Heritage Dictionary requires.


PaulT:
Regarding theists, your argument makes no sense. The definition of the term theist stops someone from denying I am a theist.

theism

One entry found for theism.

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world


PaulT:
It would seem based on the definition as long as you claimed belief in any god you would be covered within the usage of the word. Amazing how clear things can be when you stick to the standard definitions instead of attempting to re-write or redefine the terms.


JOHN MORMON:
No, Paul. Following your tendency, the mere profession that they believe in God or gods isn't good enough. They must believe in the orthodox God. Otherwise they aren't theist. Only certain Trinitarian Christians are theists by that argument.


PaulT:
Good to hear from you John Powell,

Paul


POWELL:
Likewise.

John Powell

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The answer is "yes."


NORWEGEN:
Wonderful.

Will you tell me what a Christian is?


JOHN MORMON:
Gladly. It's someone who professes the belief that Jesus is Christ. Look it up in the American Heritage Dictionary.

It is not defined to be someone who has the correct beliefs concerning Jesus other than that Jesus is Christ.

John Powell

[Hitch]

Mormons justifiably call themselves Christian because they satisfy the definition. They profess a belief in Jesus as Christ and accept the New Testament as God's word.
Yawn,, another out and out lie. No NT or OT author allows for the mormon mythological pantheon.

Polytheism is pagan antichristian and mormon.

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
The details beyond "Jesus is the Christ" are irrelevant to the definition.

If you are going exclude Mormons from being Christians because their beliefs about Jesus (other than that He is the Christ) don't match yours then what stops others from excluding you from being a Christian because your beliefs about the virgin birth or whatever don't match theirs or excluding you from being a theist because your views about God don't match theirs?

John PowellThe Messiah, is the only begotton Son of the Father.

Sniveling liars and heretics often use christian wording to hide their filth.



It is not defined to be someone who has the correct beliefs concerning Jesus other than that Jesus is Christ.

John Powell Christ is the only begotton Som of the Father. Now liars thieves ,and child molesters will say this is how mormons define Christ but the lying mormons like to make decent people forget their insistence on many multiples of gods. So the Jesus of mormonsim is no more a diety than Jesus the gardener

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons justifiably call themselves Christian because they satisfy the definition. They profess a belief in Jesus as Christ and accept the New Testament as God's word.


HITCH:
Yawn,, another out and out lie. No NT or OT author allows for the mormon mythological pantheon.


JOHN MORMON:
That, Hitch, is controversial. What is not controversial is whether or not Mormons profess a belief that Jesus is Christ.


HITCH:
Polytheism is pagan antichristian and mormon.


JOHN MORMON:
That is also controversial.



JOHN MORMON:
The details beyond "Jesus is the Christ" are irrelevant to the definition.

If you are going exclude Mormons from being Christians because their beliefs about Jesus (other than that He is the Christ) don't match yours then what stops others from excluding you from being a Christian because your beliefs about the virgin birth or whatever don't match theirs or excluding you from being a theist because your views about God don't match theirs?

John Powell


HITCH:
The Messiah, is the only begotton Son of the Father.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons will agree to that statement.


HITCH:
Sniveling liars and heretics often use christian wording to hide their filth.


JOHN MORMON:
Whether their beliefs about Jesus are filth or not is controversial. What is not controversial is whether or not they profess a belief that Jesus is Christ. So, it should not be controversial whether or not Mormons are Christian.



JOHN MORMON:
It is not defined to be someone who has the correct beliefs concerning Jesus other than that Jesus is Christ.


HITCH:
John Powell Christ is the only begotton Som of the Father. Now liars thieves ,and child molesters will say this is how mormons define Christ but the lying mormons like to make decent people forget their insistence on many multiples of gods. So the Jesus of mormonsim is no more a diety than Jesus the gardener

John Powell


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons consider Jesus to be a deity, to be God or a God.

John Powell

[PaulT]

John Powell aka John Mormon,




JOHN MORMON:

What leads you to think Webster's excludes Mormons from being Christian? What is Webster's definition for "Christian"?





Webster’s doesn’t list Mormons as one of the groups that make up Christianity.






JOHN MORMON:

Mormons accept the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament as God's word. Whether their interpretation of the Bible is the same as yours is irrelevant. Ask them the question "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?" If they say "yes" then count them as a Christian.



It is Webster’s not I that does not include Mormons within the bounds of Christianity.






Mormons believe that Jesus is God, but isn't the same person as God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. Trinitarian Christians agree up to that point.



Like your 1st pass at stating the Mormon view of creation, I think this isn’t quite accurate. The Christian perspective on Christ is that He is God, the Creator of all including “intelligences” and as such men are His created beings. Like you acknowledged, the Mormon god is not near as powerful as the Christian God. Again, if you limit Christ’s powers, you are worshipping a different Christ, which is why Webster’s probably didn’t include Mormonism within the confines of Christianity.






JOHN MORMON:

"Religious point of view" is what the person religously believes. "Details of the belief" are the specific features that might distinguish that belief from the beliefs of others. For example, all Christians share the religious point of view that Jesus is the Christ. That is the defining attribute. However, the details of this belief are different for different Christians. For example, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but is a different person. Mormon Theists, on the other hand, believe Jesus is of the same Godhead as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, but is a different personage.



Exactly, Mormons believe in a different Jesus Christ than what is taught in the Bible. which is why they are not Christians. The Mormon Christ does not have the same attributes as God. The Mormon Christ was a created being, not the creator. Why try to confuse the issue by claiming you’re following the same God as Christians.






JOHN MORMON:

Then call them "Unorthodox Christians."





I don’t find that definition listed in the dictionary.






JOHN MORMON:

I'm using the American Heritage Dictionary definition. I'm not "redefining" the term. Mormons do not "deny the doctrine of Christ." They deny your interpretation of the doctrine of Christ.



You appear to be inconsistent. You include as Christian those who "deny the doctrine of Christ" as you understand it, yes?





As you’ve already pointed out Mormons believe in another Christ, not the Christ of the Bible. The Mormon Christ does not have the same attributes as the followers of Christ who the Dictionary lists as comprising Christianity. What does your Dictionary say Christianity is made up of, does it list out the groups? No, I would not include folks under the label of Christian if they denied the doctrine of Christ.






JOHN MORMON:

Have you considered the possibility that Webster's treated Mormons as Protestant?



What is Webster's definition for "Protestant."





Yes, I didn’t see Mormonism listed.






JOHN MORMON:

Does the Bible say or clearly imply that such a person is not Christian?





The Scripture I provided sounded clear to me, I would say the Bible clearly says that if you do not abide in the doctrine of Christ you are not of God therefore not a Christian.






Are you saying that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. aren't theists because they don't have God because they do not abide the doctrine of Christ?



No, the term theist does not define which God someone believes in just that they believe in a god. The groups you mentioned are theists, they just Don’t believe in the God of the Bible which is why they aren’t Christians, nor listed as apart of Christianity.






JOHN MORMON:

Then a Mormon can claim that unless you confess that Jesus is the Son of God rather than the God who is His Father then you preach another Jesus than the Bible.





I would suspect that a Mormon can claim just about anything, the issue is that the dictionary doesn’t list them within the confines of Christianity. I suspect the reason for this is that the Mormons have a radically different view of who God is. Heck you even admitted that they believe in a Christ with different attributes, why are you belaboring the point?








JOHN MORMON:

No. The orthodox view of Christianity is what defines Orthodox Christianity.

John Powell



I don’t find the term Orthodox Christianity within the dictionary. Webster’s only lists Christianity and the definition excludes Mormonism.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

I am using the American Heritage Dictionary definition for Christian. Why don't you too?



What is the American Heritage definition of Christianity? Webster’s suits me fine.






JOHN MORMON:

Mormons profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ. That's all the American Heritage Dictionary requires.



As you’ve already admitted, Mormons profess belief in a Christ who has fundamentally different attributes than what is spelled out in the doctrine of Christ. Therefore Mormons believe in a different Christ. Did you consider that the American Heritage was contemplating within its definition the Christ of historic Christianity or the Mormon Christ? Because they are 2 entirely different persons I would think this would have some weight into the definition.






JOHN MORMON:

No, Paul. Following your tendency, the mere profession that they believe in God or gods isn't good enough. They must believe in the orthodox God. Otherwise they aren't theist. Only certain Trinitarian Christians are theists by that argument.





John, this is incorrect. My tendency, which would be consistent with the definition of the term, would be to say that they are a theist but not a Christian because they don’t profess faith in the God of the Bible.



Paul

[John Powell]

PaulT:
John Powell aka John Mormon,


JOHN MORMON:
What leads you to think Webster's excludes Mormons from being Christian? What is Webster's definition for "Christian"?


PaulT:
Webster’s doesn’t list Mormons as one of the groups that make up Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
Show me. Please post Webster's definition for Christian.



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons accept the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament as God's word. Whether their interpretation of the Bible is the same as yours is irrelevant. Ask them the question "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?" If they say "yes" then count them as a Christian.


PaulT:
It is Webster’s not I that does not include Mormons within the bounds of Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
Please post Webster's definition for "Christian."



POWELL:
Mormons believe that Jesus is God, but isn't the same person as God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. Trinitarian Christians agree up to that point.


PaulT:
Like your 1st pass at stating the Mormon view of creation, I think this isn’t quite accurate. The Christian perspective on Christ is that He is God, the Creator of all including “intelligences” and as such men are His created beings. Like you acknowledged, the Mormon god is not near as powerful as the Christian God. Again, if you limit Christ’s powers, you are worshipping a different Christ, which is why Webster’s probably didn’t include Mormonism within the confines of Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
I think it's Mormon Doctrine that God is an omnibeing. My personal view was that God was not.

Whether Webster's definition of "Christian" includes or excludes Mormons is at present controversial. Let's see what Webster's says.



JOHN MORMON:
"Religious point of view" is what the person religously believes. "Details of the belief" are the specific features that might distinguish that belief from the beliefs of others. For example, all Christians share the religious point of view that Jesus is the Christ. That is the defining attribute. However, the details of this belief are different for different Christians. For example, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but is a different person. Mormon Theists, on the other hand, believe Jesus is of the same Godhead as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, but is a different personage.


PaulT:
Exactly, Mormons believe in a different Jesus Christ than what is taught in the Bible. which is why they are not Christians.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe in the Jesus Christ taught in the Bible.

Do you believe that George W. Bush is president of the U.S? If it turns out that your beliefs about him differ from those of his mother or his wife or children or closest associates then should we reject your claim? For example, if you believe that the name of his father is different from what is correct then do we say it's false that you believe GWB is president or do we just say you're mistaken about who his father was?


PaulT:
The Mormon Christ does not have the same attributes as God. The Mormon Christ was a created being, not the creator. Why try to confuse the issue by claiming you’re following the same God as Christians.


JOHN MORMON:
Then claim that Mormons aren't "Orthodox Christians." They aren't "Trinitarian Christians."



JOHN MORMON:
Then call them "Unorthodox Christians."


PaulT:
I don’t find that definition listed in the dictionary.


JOHN MORMON:
Then look up "orthodox" apply the negation and combine it with the definition of "Christian." Does the dictionary have to define every combination of defined words?



JOHN MORMON:
I'm using the American Heritage Dictionary definition. I'm not "redefining" the term. Mormons do not "deny the doctrine of Christ." They deny your interpretation of the doctrine of Christ.

. . .

You appear to be inconsistent. You include as Christian those who "deny the doctrine of Christ" as you understand it, yes?


PaulT:
As you’ve already pointed out Mormons believe in another Christ, not the Christ of the Bible.


JOHN MORMON:
I haven't pointed that out. Mormons believe in the Jesus Christ referred to in the New Testament.


PaulT:
The Mormon Christ does not have the same attributes as the followers of Christ who the Dictionary lists as comprising Christianity. What does your Dictionary say Christianity is made up of, does it list out the groups? No, I would not include folks under the label of Christian if they denied the doctrine of Christ.


JOHN MORMON:

American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com
Christianity
n.

1. The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Christians as a group; Christendom.
3. The state or fact of being a Christian.
4. pl. Chris·ti·an·i·ties A particular form or sect of the Christian religion: the Christianities of antiquity.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons satisfy definition 3 so they should be grouped under Christianity.



JOHN MORMON:
Have you considered the possibility that Webster's treated Mormons as Protestant?

What is Webster's definition for "Protestant."


PaulT:
Yes, I didn’t see Mormonism listed.


JOHN MORMON:
Did Webster's list "Baptist" or "Episcopalian" or "Methodist" or "Lutheran"?



JOHN MORMON:
Does the Bible say or clearly imply that such a person is not Christian?


PaulT:
The Scripture I provided sounded clear to me, I would say the Bible clearly says that if you do not abide in the doctrine of Christ you are not of God therefore not a Christian.


JOHN MORMON:
I think we could justifiably say it's referring to the "true Christian," the "true follower of Christ." We use the word "Christian" to include more than just those who have the correct beliefs.



JOHN MORMON:
Are you saying that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. aren't theists because they don't have God because they do not abide the doctrine of Christ?


PaulT:
No, the term theist does not define which God someone believes in just that they believe in a god. The groups you mentioned are theists, they just Don’t believe in the God of the Bible which is why they aren’t Christians, nor listed as apart of Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
But, Paul, one of the meanings of "atheist" is "without God." So, if a person is "without God" as that passage claims then doesn't that mean they are an "atheist"?



JOHN MORMON:
Then a Mormon can claim that unless you confess that Jesus is the Son of God rather than the God who is His Father then you preach another Jesus than the Bible.


PaulT:
I would suspect that a Mormon can claim just about anything, the issue is that the dictionary doesn’t list them within the confines of Christianity. I suspect the reason for this is that the Mormons have a radically different view of who God is. Heck you even admitted that they believe in a Christ with different attributes, why are you belaboring the point?


JOHN MORMON:
I admit that Mormons have beliefs concerning Jesus that differ from those of orthodox Christians. I don't admit that they differ from the correct beliefs.



JOHN MORMON:
No. The orthodox view of Christianity is what defines Orthodox Christianity.

John Powell


PaulT:
I don’t find the term Orthodox Christianity within the dictionary.


JOHN MORMON:
Do you find the phrase "I don't find the term Orthodox Christianity within the dictionary" within the dictionary? If you don't then how do you know what that phrase means? That's silly. Look up "orthodox" and combine it with the definition of "Christianity." That's the basic way to arrive at the definition of "orthodox Christianity."


PaulT:
Webster’s only lists Christianity and the definition excludes Mormonism.


JOHN MORMON:
I'm waiting for you to show this rather than just asserting it.



JOHN MORMON:
I am using the American Heritage Dictionary definition for Christian. Why don't you too?


PaulT:
What is the American Heritage definition of Christianity? Webster’s suits me fine.


JOHN MORMON:
American English users are justified in using the American Heritage Dictionary.



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ. That's all the American Heritage Dictionary requires.


PaulT:
As you’ve already admitted, Mormons profess belief in a Christ who has fundamentally different attributes than what is spelled out in the doctrine of Christ.


JOHN MORMON:
Where did I admit that? I didn't.


PaulT:
Therefore Mormons believe in a different Christ. Did you consider that the American Heritage was contemplating within its definition the Christ of historic Christianity or the Mormon Christ?


JOHN MORMON:
I suspect that the AHD was careful on this issue to include all groups that ought to be included. If the AHD disagrees with Webster's then that would be unfortunate. Whether they disagree is currently unclear. Post Webster's definition for "Christian" so we compare it with the AHD definition I posted for "Christian."


PaulT:
Because they are 2 entirely different persons I would think this would have some weight into the definition.


JOHN MORMON:
The Jesus of Mormonism is the one spoken of in the New Testament.



JOHN MORMON:
No, Paul. Following your tendency, the mere profession that they believe in God or gods isn't good enough. They must believe in the orthodox God. Otherwise they aren't theist. Only certain Trinitarian Christians are theists by that argument.


PaulT:
John, this is incorrect. My tendency, which would be consistent with the definition of the term, would be to say that they are a theist but not a Christian because they don’t profess faith in the God of the Bible.

Paul


JOHN MORMON:
You exclude persons from being Christian who believe in Jesus as Christ because their beliefs about Jesus differ from yours. So, to be consistent, you should exclude persons from being Theist who believe in God because their beliefs about God differ from yours. You don't see the parallel?

Hey, Paul, does the Mormon intellectual you have some confidence in, McMurrin, think Mormons are Christian?

John Powell

[PaulT]

John,



So quick to respond, a little unusual for you,




JOHN MORMON:

Show me. Please post Webster's definition for Christian.

John Powell



Sure,



Main Entry: 1Chris·tian (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?christ07.wav=Christian'))
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christ) b (1) : DISCIPLE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/disciple+)2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christ) separating from the Disciples of Christ (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christ) in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress



Which is further defined down the page, I mean they explain what they view as the teachings of Christ.



Main Entry: Chris·tian·i·ty (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?christ09.wav=Christianity'))
Pronunciation: "kris-chE-'a-n&-tE, "krish-, -'cha-n&-, "kris-tE-'a-
Function: noun
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christ) , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2 : conformity to the Christian (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christian) religion
3 : CHRISTENDOM (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/christendom+)2



But the definition for Christianity from the dictionary you recommended even goes further

christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christianity), Christian religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian%20religion)] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christendom), Christianity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christianity)]

Understand what the dictionaries define as the teachings of Christ kind of sheds a little light on the matter, wouldn’t you say?


JOHN MORMON:

I think it's Mormon Doctrine that God is an omnibeing. My personal view was that God was not. Whether Webster's definition of "Christian" includes or excludes Mormons is at present controversial. Let's see what Webster's says.



Well it doesn’t appear there is much to speculate about regarding the definition of the terms. In your quote above you say Mormons view their god as an omnibeing, meaning I guess multiple gods. However, the definition from the source book you cited says Christianity is based on a monotheistic view of God. End of story, Mormons aren’t Christians.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Mormons believe in the Jesus Christ taught in the Bible.

ohn Powell



John you are really confusing. How on the one hand you state Mormons believe their god is an omnibeing while at the same time provide a definition that says Christians are monotheistic then say Mormons believe in Christ as taught in the Bible. It won’t work, Mormons confess of another different Christ than is taught in the Bible which is why both Webster’s and the Dictionary you referred me to unequivocally leave Mormonism out of the sphere of Christianity.




JOHN MORMON:

Do you believe that George W. Bush is president of the U.S? If it turns out that your beliefs about him differ from those of his mother or his wife or children or closest associates then should we reject your claim? For example, if you believe that the name of his father is different from what is correct then do we say it's false that you believe GWB is president or do we just say you're mistaken about who his father was?



John, great illustration, over the past couple of years I’ve heard of President Bush in a couple different venues. While the folks at SC think theirs is the real President Bush I know different because the real President Bush has different attributes than the one who carried the football and won the Heisman. Get it, it is the attributes that define the person, all those folks at SC while being good folks and all are followers of the wrong President Bush as they call him.



The Bible claims Christ is God, the creator, the Mormons beg to differ. Their view is that Christ doesn’t have the attributes to accomplish this, therefore he is a different Christ than the one Christians follow.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Then claim that Mormons aren't "Orthodox Christians." They aren't "Trinitarian Christians."John Powell



According to your source Mormons aren’t apart of Christianity so in the base analysis why add Orthodox, why not just call them Mormons because that is what they are?






JOHN MORMON:

I haven't pointed that out. Mormons believe in the Jesus Christ referred to in the New Testament. John Powell

Gee John, this, “However, the details of this belief are different for different Christians. For example, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but is a different person. Mormon Theists, on the other hand, believe Jesus is of the same Godhead as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, but is a different personage.”, sure sounded like you did. If the Bible claims Christ has certain attributes, accomplished certain things and the Mormons claim He didn’t then they are speaking of a different person. Remember the attributes define the person.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:



American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Christianity

n.



1. The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. Christians as a group; Christendom.

3. The state or fact of being a Christian.

4. pl. Chris·ti·an·i·ties A particular form or sect of the Christian religion: the Christianities of antiquity.





JOHN MORMON:

Mormons satisfy definition 3 so they should be grouped under Christianity.

John Powell



John I see that you left out the definition of Christianity which defines what it means in #3, being a Christian.



christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christianity), Christian religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian%20religion)] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christendom), Christianity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christianity)]

I don’t think Mormons qualify, thank you, I truly appreciate when the opponent helps make the case. If Mormons are not a Christian religion how in the world can you define them as being Christian.




JOHN MORMON:

Did Webster's list "Baptist" or "Episcopalian" or "Methodist" or "Lutheran"?

John Powell



I don’t know, but I believe all those groups you’ve listed above conform with







christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christianity), Christian religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian%20religion)] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christendom), Christianity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christianity)]

which is something I don’t think you can say about Mormonism.






JOHN MORMON:

I think we could justifiably say it's referring to the "true Christian," the "true follower of Christ." We use the word "Christian" to include more than just those who have the correct beliefs. John Powell



The point is that those who deny the attributes of who Christ really is are the ones attempting to co-opt the label. The secular dictionaries beg to differ. If your Christ has different attributes then he is not the same Christ as taught in the Bible.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

But, Paul, one of the meanings of "atheist" is "without God." So, if a person is "without God" as that passage claims then doesn't that mean they are an "atheist"?

John Powell



The definition I have for atheist is simply one who denies the existence of God.

However theists believe in a god or gods. What is your point?




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

I admit that Mormons have beliefs concerning Jesus that differ from those of orthodox Christians. I don't admit that they differ from the correct beliefs.

John Powell



Again, I thank you for the definition of Christianity you have provided because it clearly shows that Mormons, based on what you have provided are not within the confines of Christianity. If you differ with Christendom on who Christ is, then you are following a different Christ, not the one of the Bible. Remember the attributes define the person.






JOHN MORMON:

Do you find the phrase "I don't find the term Orthodox Christianity within the dictionary" within the dictionary? If you don't then how do you know what that phrase means? That's silly. Look up "orthodox" and combine it with the definition of "Christianity." That's the basic way to arrive at the definition of "orthodox Christianity."

John Powell



I don’t need to the definition from your source states what the teachings of Christianity, ergo Christ’s teachings are. Thanks, again, you’ve helped prove my argument.




JOHN MORMON:

I'm waiting for you to show this rather than just asserting it.

John Powell



Well I will let the audience decide if I’ve proven my case or just asserted it, but personally, I think with the help of your source material I have unequivocally shown that the dictionaries define folks who believe in a Monotheistic God not an omnibeing as comprising the sphere of Christianity. Those folks who buy into a different concept are outside the sphere and therefore not Christian.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

American English users are justified in using the American Heritage Dictionary.

John Powell



I agree, the AHD gave a much more comprehensive definition for what it takes to comply with being a Christian. What was that definition you gave,

christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christianity), Christian religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian%20religion)] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christendom), Christianity (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christianity)]

Thanks for the heads-up.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Where did I admit that? I didn't.

John Powell



Gee John, this, “However, the details of this belief are different for different Christians. For example, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but is a different person. Mormon Theists, on the other hand, believe Jesus is of the same Godhead as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, but is a different personage.”, sure sounded like you did. If the Bible claims Christ has certain attributes, accomplished certain things and the Mormons claim He didn’t then they are speaking of a different person. Remember the attributes define the person.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

I suspect that the AHD was careful on this issue to include all groups that ought to be included. If the AHD disagrees with Webster's then that would be unfortunate. Whether they disagree is currently unclear. Post Webster's definition for "Christian" so we compare it with the AHD definition I posted for "Christian."

John Powell

Actually, I think the AHD goes a step further than Webster’s by defining Christianity as a monotheistic religion, something that would exclude Mormons and prove my point. Webster’s only provides the groups within the Christian sphere




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

The Jesus of Mormonism is the one spoken of in the New Testament.

John Powell



Not according to the AHD, which says He was monotheistic. You’ve stated the Mormon view of God is omnibeing which is fundamentally different than monotheism, ergo Mormons are not Christians.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

You exclude persons from being Christian who believe in Jesus as Christ because their beliefs about Jesus differ from yours. So, to be consistent, you should exclude persons from being Theist who believe in God because their beliefs about God differ from yours. You don't see the parallel?

John Powell



Help me out here, the term theist does not define a specific deity, however the term Christian does, a fact which is not left unnoticed by the secular dictionaries. My point is that according to the dictionaries the teachings of Christ are represented by groups who comprise Christianity. Your source went one step further in defining a key Christian doctrine, ie a monotheistic view of God. I’m not excluding anyone, the dictionaries are. The Mormons have excluded themselves because they deny the monotheistic view of God.




JOHN MORMON:

Hey, Paul, does the Mormon intellectual you have some confidence in, McMurrin, think Mormons are Christian? John Powell



I don’t know. I think he passed from the scene prior to the Mormon attempt to redefine the terms. He might have been from the old school of Mormon’s, you know the ones who were proud to be called Mormon.



Paul

[norwegen]

JOHN MORMON:
Gladly. It's someone who professes the belief that Jesus is Christ. Look it up in the American Heritage Dictionary.

It is not defined to be someone who has the correct beliefs concerning Jesus other than that Jesus is Christ.

John PowellThat definition is a good place to start. What would you say the Bible says a Christian is? Christians like to derive as much meaning as they can from the Scriptures themselves.

Here's another standard dictionary definition of Christian:Christian an adherent of Christianity

"Christian." Webster's New Explorer Dictionary. 1st ed. 1999.The degree to which people 'adhere' to Christianity and consider themselves Christian is varied and personal. Simply believing that Jesus is Christ is a somewhat loose adherence.

But, more than definitions, beliefs and practices may say more about our faith. The books of the New Testament were in circulation and considered sacred before the church canonized them in the fourth century. One of those books includes a solemn warning against perversion of the prophecy of Revelation (Rev. 22:18). Is The Doctrine and Covenants not such a perversion?

Also, what is this supposed apostasy that occurred after the death of the apsotles? Is it something besides a justification for The Book of Mormon?

I think Biblical (devout, born-again, whatever you wish to call them) Christians dismiss Mormonism as a Christian sect because it not only appears to end its adherence to the faith at the belief that Jesus is Christ, but also because it seems to disparage the Word of God.

[master_mormon]

That definition is a good place to start. What would you say the Bible says a Christian is? Christians like to derive as much meaning as they can from the Scriptures themselves.

Here's another standard dictionary definition of Christian:Christian an adherent of Christianity

"Christian." Webster's New Explorer Dictionary. 1st ed. 1999.The degree to which people 'adhere' to Christianity and consider themselves Christian is varied and personal. Simply believing that Jesus is Christ is a somewhat loose adherence.

But, more than definitions, beliefs and practices may say more about our faith. The books of the New Testament were in circulation and considered sacred before the church canonized them in the fourth century. One of those books includes a solemn warning against perversion of the prophecy of Revelation (Rev. 22:18). Is The Doctrine and Covenants not such a perversion?

Also, what is this supposed apostasy that occurred after the death of the apsotles? Is it something besides a justification for The Book of Mormon?

I think Biblical (devout, born-again, whatever you wish to call them) Christians dismiss Mormonism as a Christian sect because it not only appears to end its adherence to the faith at the belief that Jesus is Christ, but also because it seems to disparage the Word of God.

I think you should look again at how the New Testament texts where looked at in the first few centuries of Christianity. Though the New Testament books where in circulation, a number of the books where not seen as inspired. Even after Athanasius drew up the modern 27 book canon, his canon was not universally accepted throught all of christianity. Revelations and Hebrews where still debated as whether to be authentic. In addition, many other non-New Testament books like the Shepard of Hermas were circulated and accepted as being canonical at least to the 2nd century christians.

The reality is when one looks at the definition of the word "christian" in any dictionary, its impossible to exclude the LDS faith from what the defintions actually say. THere is always at least one definition that can apply to the LDS faith which includes it to be christian. Yes it is true that the LDS faith has some great distinctions in its teaching as other christian faiths do but those distinctions 1) don't disqualify it from being Christian by definition 2) differences in doctrine are common among other non-LDS christian churches for example the Baptists (who are christians) don't have the same doctrines as the Catholics (who are christian).

Remember what the LDS claims to be. LDS claims that it is a restoration of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles from the 1st century. LDS believe that through time as a result of the apostasy, doctrines where corrupted and changed. So the LDS model EXPECTS differences between its teachings and the teachings of modern christian churches today. To compare what LDS believe and what evangelical christians today teach and note differences is not important as that is what the LDS view expects. If i where an evangelical christian and I wanted to disprove the LDS faith, the best thing I could do is note nothing in the teachings of 2nd century christianity that reflects LDS views on anything. That however becomes a minefield for people as 1) there are teachings within 2nd century christianity that parallel LDS teachings and these teachings do not exist in any major way in modern day christianity and 2) there are many teachings that the 2nd century christians had that are not represented in modern christianity today.

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
That, Hitch, is controversial. What is not controversial is whether or not Mormons profess a belief that Jesus is Christ.



JOHN MORMON:
That is also controversial.



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons will agree to that statement.



JOHN MORMON:
Whether their beliefs about Jesus are filth or not is controversial. What is not controversial is whether or not they profess a belief that Jesus is Christ. So, it should not be controversial whether or not Mormons are Christian.



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons consider Jesus to be a deity, to be God or a God.

John Powell Yawn,,, and polythieism is antichrristian. Mormons are polytheistic.

[norwegen]

I think you should look again at how the New Testament texts where looked at in the first few centuries of Christianity. Though the New Testament books where in circulation, a number of the books where not seen as inspired. Even after Athanasius drew up the modern 27 book canon, his canon was not universally accepted throught all of christianity. Revelations and Hebrews where still debated as whether to be authentic. In addition, many other non-New Testament books like the Shepard of Hermas were circulated and accepted as being canonical at least to the 2nd century christians.Lovely, but what's your response to my point - that The Doctrine and Covenants is an addition to the canon?
The reality is when one looks at the definition of the word "christian" in any dictionary, its impossible to exclude the LDS faith from what the defintions actually say. THere is always at least one definition that can apply to the LDS faith which includes it to be christian. Yes it is true that the LDS faith has some great distinctions in its teaching as other christian faiths do but those distinctions 1) don't disqualify it from being Christian by definition 2) differences in doctrine are common among other non-LDS christian churches for example the Baptists (who are christians) don't have the same doctrines as the Catholics (who are christian).Again, a dictionary definition as opposed to a Biblical definition.
Remember what the LDS claims to be. LDS claims that it is a restoration of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles from the 1st century.When were these teachings lost or perverted/misconstrued? Why did they have to be restored?
LDS believe that through time as a result of the apostasy, doctrines where corrupted and changed.What apostasy? The doctrines were corrupted and changed as a result of what apostasy?

And then, what did the Mormons do to restore these doctrines? Did they use copies of the original manuscripts? Was 'the truth' revealed to Joseph Smith in a dream? What?

[John Powell]

PaulT:
John,

So quick to respond, a little unusual for you,


JOHN MORMON:
Show me. Please post Webster's definition for Christian.

John Powell


PaulT:
Sure,

WEBSTER'S:
Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress



JOHN MORMON:
According to Webster's Dictionary, a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." So if someone says "I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but I don't believe Jesus ever claimed to be any more divine than anyone else" then should they be counted as Christian?

I think they loosely say equivalent things, but I don't think the Webster's definition is as good as the American Heritage definition.


PaulT:
Which is further defined down the page, I mean they explain what they view as the teachings of Christ.

WEBSTER'S:
Main Entry: Chris·tian·i·ty
Pronunciation: "kris-chE-'a-n&-tE, "krish-, -'cha-n&-, "kris-tE-'a-
Function: noun
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2 : conformity to the Christian religion
3 : CHRISTENDOM 2



JOHN MORMON:
The debate here was not specifically whether Mormons are part of Christianity, but it could be argued they should be. Do you wish to concede that Mormons are Christians but they aren't part of Christianity?

Have you considered the possibility that Webster's groups Mormons with Protestants?


PaulT:
But the definition for Christianity from the dictionary you recommended even goes further

American Heritage Dictionary:
christianity
n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity, Christian religion] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom, Christianity]


PaulT:
Understand what the dictionaries define as the teachings of Christ kind of sheds a little light on the matter, wouldn’t you say?


JOHN MORMON:
Do you concede that Mormons are Christians but then you claim that they aren't part of Christianity?



JOHN MORMON:
I think it's Mormon Doctrine that God is an omnibeing. My personal view was that God was not. Whether Webster's definition of "Christian" includes or excludes Mormons is at present controversial. Let's see what Webster's says.


PaulT:
Well it doesn’t appear there is much to speculate about regarding the definition of the terms.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ so, according to the Webster's definition, they are Christians.


PaulT:
In your quote above you say Mormons view their god as an omnibeing, meaning I guess multiple gods.


JOHN MORMON:
No. It means they view Elohim as an omnibeing.


PaulT:
However, the definition from the source book you cited says Christianity is based on a monotheistic view of God. End of story, Mormons aren’t Christians.


JOHN MORMON:
Although the first definition might not include Mormons as Christians, the second definition includes them. If you hold to the foolish position that one must satisfy every definition in the dictionary to be included then perhaps you can tell me whether or not you are the hero in Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress."



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe in the Jesus Christ taught in the Bible.


PaulT:
John you are really confusing. How on the one hand you state Mormons believe their god is an omnibeing while at the same time provide a definition that says Christians are monotheistic then say Mormons believe in Christ as taught in the Bible.


JOHN MORMON:
The issue here concerns whether Mormons satisfy the definition for Christian. The issue is not their particular views on God.


PaulT:
It won’t work, Mormons confess of another different Christ than is taught in the Bible which is why both Webster’s and the Dictionary you referred me to unequivocally leave Mormonism out of the sphere of Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
On the contrary. Mormons satisfy the conditions of both dictionaries to be included in the category of Christian.



JOHN MORMON:
Do you believe that George W. Bush is president of the U.S? If it turns out that your beliefs about him differ from those of his mother or his wife or children or closest associates then should we reject your claim? For example, if you believe that the name of his father is different from what is correct then do we say it's false that you believe GWB is president or do we just say you're mistaken about who his father was?


PaulT:
John, great illustration, over the past couple of years I’ve heard of President Bush in a couple different venues. While the folks at SC think theirs is the real President Bush I know different because the real President Bush has different attributes than the one who carried the football and won the Heisman. Get it, it is the attributes that define the person, all those folks at SC while being good folks and all are followers of the wrong President Bush as they call him.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, your words seem consistent, but that puts you in an awkward situation. For example, I seriously doubt that a newspaper would make claims like "Mormons don't believe George W. Bush is president of the U.S." based on your kind of criterion. But I guess you would. Do you know how unreasonable that makes you appear?


PaulT:
The Bible claims Christ is God, the creator, the Mormons beg to differ. Their view is that Christ doesn’t have the attributes to accomplish this, therefore he is a different Christ than the one Christians follow.


JOHN MORMON:
On the contrary, Mormons affirm that Jesus is the creator.



JOHN MORMON:
Then claim that Mormons aren't "Orthodox Christians." They aren't "Trinitarian Christians."


PaulT:
According to your source Mormons aren’t apart [a part] of Christianity so in the base analysis why add Orthodox, why not just call them Mormons because that is what they are?


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons satisfy definition 2 of the AHD for "Christianity."

The controversy is not whether or not they are Mormons, but whether or not they are Christians.



JOHN MORMON:
I haven't pointed that out. Mormons believe in the Jesus Christ referred to in the New Testament.


PaulT:
Gee John, this, “However, the details of this belief are different for different Christians. For example, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but is a different person. Mormon Theists, on the other hand, believe Jesus is of the same Godhead as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, but is a different personage.”, sure sounded like you did.


JOHN MORMON:
I acknowledge that Mormon beliefs differ from the beliefs of Mainstream Christians. Whether Mormon beliefs are Biblical beliefs is controversial.


PaulT:
If the Bible claims Christ has certain attributes, accomplished certain things and the Mormons claim He didn’t then they are speaking of a different person. Remember the attributes define the person.


JOHN MORMON:
Then why don't you exclude from being theist all the nonTrinitarian Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc since they don't believe in God? Remember you believe that "the attributes define the person."



JOHN MORMON:

American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com

Christianity

n.

1. The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. Christians as a group; Christendom.

3. The state or fact of being a Christian.

4. pl. Chris·ti·an·i·ties A particular form or sect of the Christian religion: the Christianities of antiquity.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons satisfy definition 3 so they should be grouped under Christianity.


PaulT:
John I see that you left out the definition of Christianity which defines what it means in #3, being a Christian.

christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity, Christian religion] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom, Christianity]


PaulT:
I don’t think Mormons qualify, thank you, I truly appreciate when the opponent helps make the case. If Mormons are not a Christian religion how in the world can you define them as being Christian.


JOHN MORMON:
Look at definition 2: "the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history . . ."



JOHN MORMON:
Did Webster's list "Baptist" or "Episcopalian" or "Methodist" or "Lutheran"?


PaulT:
I don’t know, but I believe all those groups you’ve listed above conform with

christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity, Christian religion] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom, Christianity]

'
PaulT:
which is something I don’t think you can say about Mormonism.


JOHN MORMON:
I do say that. The controversial thing is whether I'm justified in doing so.



JOHN MORMON:
I think we could justifiably say it's referring to the "true Christian," the "true follower of Christ." We use the word "Christian" to include more than just those who have the correct beliefs.


PaulT:
The point is that those who deny the attributes of who Christ really is are the ones attempting to co-opt the label. The secular dictionaries beg to differ. If your Christ has different attributes then he is not the same Christ as taught in the Bible.


JOHN MORMON:
Then how do you deal with the theist definition problem? Are you prepared to exclude nontrinitarian Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. from being theists because the attributes they give to God aren't the correct ones so they don't believe in God?

It would seem that if you are going to exclude Mormons from being Christians because the attributes they give to Jesus are mistaken then you should exclude Mormons from being theists because the attributes they give to God are mistaken.



JOHN MORMON:
But, Paul, one of the meanings of "atheist" is "without God." So, if a person is "without God" as that passage claims then doesn't that mean they are an "atheist"?


PaulT:
The definition I have for atheist is simply one who denies the existence of God.


JOHN MORMON:
That's a good definition for "strong atheist."


PaulT:
However theists believe in a god or gods. What is your point?


JOHN MORMON:
Remember you believe that "the attributes define the person." So, if they have the wrong attributes for God then they don't believe in God. In fact, they deny the existence of your God, so apparently by that reasoning nonTrinitarians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are "strong atheists."



JOHN MORMON:
I admit that Mormons have beliefs concerning Jesus that differ from those of orthodox Christians. I don't admit that they differ from the correct beliefs.


PaulT:
Again, I thank you for the definition of Christianity you have provided because it clearly shows that Mormons, based on what you have provided are not within the confines of Christianity. If you differ with Christendom on who Christ is, then you are following a different Christ, not the one of the Bible. Remember the attributes define the person.


JOHN MORMON:
Then it would seem that you should exclude nonTrinitarians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. from being theists because the attributes of their God aren't the right ones so they don't believe in God.



JOHN MORMON:
Do you find the phrase "I don't find the term Orthodox Christianity within the dictionary" within the dictionary? If you don't then how do you know what that phrase means? That's silly. Look up "orthodox" and combine it with the definition of "Christianity." That's the basic way to arrive at the definition of "orthodox Christianity."


PaulT:
I don’t need to the definition from your source states what the teachings of Christianity, ergo Christ’s teachings are. Thanks, again, you’ve helped prove my argument.


JOHN MORMON:
Nobody here has "proved" their side correct.



JOHN MORMON:
I'm waiting for you to show this rather than just asserting it.


PaulT:
Well I will let the audience decide if I’ve proven my case or just asserted it, but personally, I think with the help of your source material I have unequivocally shown that the dictionaries define folks who believe in a Monotheistic God not an omnibeing as comprising the sphere of Christianity. Those folks who buy into a different concept are outside the sphere and therefore not Christian.


JOHN MORMON:
Rather I think what you will have demonstrated is your misguided tendency to sometimes think that if something does not match ONE of the definitions in the dictionary then it doesn't satisfy any of them.



JOHN MORMON:
American English users are justified in using the American Heritage Dictionary.


PaulT:
I agree, the AHD gave a much more comprehensive definition for what it takes to comply with being a Christian. What was that definition you gave,

christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity, Christian religion] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom, Christianity]


PaulT:
Thanks for the heads-up.


JOHN MORMON:
Here's another "heads up." Notice that if Mormons satisfy the AHD definition 1 for "Christian" which I claim they do then they satisfy the AHD definition 2 for "Christianity."



JOHN MORMON:
Where did I admit that? I didn't.


PaulT:
Gee John, this, “However, the details of this belief are different for different Christians. For example, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is the same God as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but is a different person. Mormon Theists, on the other hand, believe Jesus is of the same Godhead as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, but is a different personage.”, sure sounded like you did. If the Bible claims Christ has certain attributes, accomplished certain things and the Mormons claim He didn’t then they are speaking of a different person. Remember the attributes define the person.


JOHN MORMON:
I admit that Mormon beliefs about some religious issues differ from those of other Christians. What I don't admit is that those beliefs are contrary to the Bible.



JOHN MORMON:
I suspect that the AHD was careful on this issue to include all groups that ought to be included. If the AHD disagrees with Webster's then that would be unfortunate. Whether they disagree is currently unclear. Post Webster's definition for "Christian" so we compare it with the AHD definition I posted for "Christian."


PaulT:
Actually, I think the AHD goes a step further than Webster’s by defining Christianity as a monotheistic religion, something that would exclude Mormons and prove my point. Webster’s only provides the groups within the Christian sphere


JOHN MORMON:
Heads up. The AHD definition 2 includes in Christianity all Christians regardless of their views on the nature of God.



JOHN MORMON:
The Jesus of Mormonism is the one spoken of in the New Testament.


PaulT:
Not according to the AHD, which says He was monotheistic. You’ve stated the Mormon view of God is omnibeing which is fundamentally different than monotheism, ergo Mormons are not Christians.


JOHN MORMON:
Huh? You don't believe God is an omnibeing?



JOHN MORMON:
You exclude persons from being Christian who believe in Jesus as Christ because their beliefs about Jesus differ from yours. So, to be consistent, you should exclude persons from being Theist who believe in God because their beliefs about God differ from yours. You don't see the parallel?


PaulT:
Help me out here, the term theist does not define a specific deity, however the term Christian does, a fact which is not left unnoticed by the secular dictionaries.


JOHN MORMON:
Where does the definition for "Christian" include the stipulation that such persons believe in a monotheistic God?


PaulT:
My point is that according to the dictionaries the teachings of Christ are represented by groups who comprise Christianity. Your source went one step further in defining a key Christian doctrine, ie a monotheistic view of God. I’m not excluding anyone, the dictionaries are. The Mormons have excluded themselves because they deny the monotheistic view of God.


JOHN MORMON:
The AHD definition 1 for "Christianity" includes the stipulation of belief in a monotheistic God. The AHD definition for "Christian" gave no such stipulation. Furthermore, the AHD definition 2 for "Christianity" makes no such stipulation. Mormons satisfy AHD 2 for "Christianity" if they satisfy one of the AHD definitions for "Christian."



JOHN MORMON:
Hey, Paul, does the Mormon intellectual you have some confidence in, McMurrin, think Mormons are Christian? John Powell


PaulT:
I don’t know. I think he passed from the scene prior to the Mormon attempt to redefine the terms. He might have been from the old school of Mormon’s, you know the ones who were proud to be called Mormon.

Paul


JOHN MORMON:
Oh. If you google then you might learn what he thought. Perhaps you don't care.

John Powell

[John Powell]

NORWEGEN:
That definition is a good place to start. . .


POWELL:
Since Master Mormon is responding in depth, I will let him carry the torch of Mormonism with you, if that's ok with you.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Hitch:
Yawn,,, and polythieism is antichrristian. Mormons are polytheistic.


JOHN MORMON:
Trinitarianism is monotheism based on a technicality. It's not monotheism like Judaism and Islam are monotheism. Trinitarianism is tripersonism.

The important controversial point is what the Bible writers believed.

John Powell

[technomage]

Mormons profess belief in Jesus as Christ, so they are Christians.

Okay.


Are they Catholic Christians? No.
Are they Eastern Orthodox Christians? No.
Are they Protestant Christians? No.

Eh ... I'm not to sure about the last. I would list them as a Protestant off-shoot, as their theology seems to stem from mainstream Protestant teaching.

But beyond that--yeah, Mormons are Christian.

[Bill the Cat]

JOHN MORMON:
According to Webster's Dictionary, a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." So if someone says "I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but I don't believe Jesus ever claimed to be any more divine than anyone else" then should they be counted as Christian?

I think they loosely say equivalent things, but I don't think the Webster's definition is as good as the American Heritage definition.



JOHN MORMON:
The debate here was not specifically whether Mormons are part of Christianity, but it could be argued they should be. Do you wish to concede that Mormons are Christians but they aren't part of Christianity?

Have you considered the possibility that Webster's groups Mormons with Protestants?



JOHN MORMON:
Do you concede that Mormons are Christians but then you claim that they aren't part of Christianity?



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ so, according to the Webster's definition, they are Christians.



JOHN MORMON:
No. It means they view Elohim as an omnibeing.



JOHN MORMON:
Although the first definition might not include Mormons as Christians, the second definition includes them. If you hold to the foolish position that one must satisfy every definition in the dictionary to be included then perhaps you can tell me whether or not you are the hero in Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress."



JOHN MORMON:
The issue here concerns whether Mormons satisfy the definition for Christian. The issue is not their particular views on God.



JOHN MORMON:
On the contrary. Mormons satisfy the conditions of both dictionaries to be included in the category of Christian.



JOHN MORMON:
Well, your words seem consistent, but that puts you in an awkward situation. For example, I seriously doubt that a newspaper would make claims like "Mormons don't believe George W. Bush is president of the U.S." based on your kind of criterion. But I guess you would. Do you know how unreasonable that makes you appear?



JOHN MORMON:
On the contrary, Mormons affirm that Jesus is the creator.



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons satisfy definition 2 of the AHD for "Christianity."

The controversy is not whether or not they are Mormons, but whether or not they are Christians.



JOHN MORMON:
I acknowledge that Mormon beliefs differ from the beliefs of Mainstream Christians. Whether Mormon beliefs are Biblical beliefs is controversial.



JOHN MORMON:
Then why don't you exclude from being theist all the nonTrinitarian Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc since they don't believe in God? Remember you believe that "the attributes define the person."



JOHN MORMON:
Look at definition 2: "the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history . . ."



JOHN MORMON:
I do say that. The controversial thing is whether I'm justified in doing so.



JOHN MORMON:
Then how do you deal with the theist definition problem? Are you prepared to exclude nontrinitarian Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. from being theists because the attributes they give to God aren't the correct ones so they don't believe in God?

It would seem that if you are going to exclude Mormons from being Christians because the attributes they give to Jesus are mistaken then you should exclude Mormons from being theists because the attributes they give to God are mistaken.



JOHN MORMON:
That's a good definition for "strong atheist."



JOHN MORMON:
Remember you believe that "the attributes define the person." So, if they have the wrong attributes for God then they don't believe in God. In fact, they deny the existence of your God, so apparently by that reasoning nonTrinitarians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are "strong atheists."



JOHN MORMON:
Then it would seem that you should exclude nonTrinitarians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. from being theists because the attributes of their God aren't the right ones so they don't believe in God.



JOHN MORMON:
Nobody here has "proved" their side correct.



JOHN MORMON:
Rather I think what you will have demonstrated is your misguided tendency to sometimes think that if something does not match ONE of the definitions in the dictionary then it doesn't satisfy any of them.



JOHN MORMON:
Here's another "heads up." Notice that if Mormons satisfy the AHD definition 1 for "Christian" which I claim they do then they satisfy the AHD definition 2 for "Christianity."



JOHN MORMON:
I admit that Mormon beliefs about some religious issues differ from those of other Christians. What I don't admit is that those beliefs are contrary to the Bible.



JOHN MORMON:
Heads up. The AHD definition 2 includes in Christianity all Christians regardless of their views on the nature of God.



JOHN MORMON:
Huh? You don't believe God is an omnibeing?



JOHN MORMON:
Where does the definition for "Christian" include the stipulation that such persons believe in a monotheistic God?



JOHN MORMON:
The AHD definition 1 for "Christianity" includes the stipulation of belief in a monotheistic God. The AHD definition for "Christian" gave no such stipulation. Furthermore, the AHD definition 2 for "Christianity" makes no such stipulation. Mormons satisfy AHD 2 for "Christianity" if they satisfy one of the AHD definitions for "Christian."



JOHN MORMON:
Oh. If you google then you might learn what he thought. Perhaps you don't care.

John Powell
Hey John,

I think you set up a false dilemma. Theists believe in "A" God. That is a human definition. However, truth and error is what separates them. Christian and non-Christian is a spiritual term which depicts who is and isn't inheriting eternal life. There are not multiple categories of "saved" like there are theists.

As far as the issue at hand,the Gnostics claimed to follow "Jesus", but introduced radically different ideas of Him and His person, very similar to the Mormon belief of a progression of gods (aeons). They were decried as heretics by the early church, and some of the later epistles in the Bible. Desire to be Christian must fall in line with what the Bible says, not man.

In relation to Biblical truth, Mormons are in error. There is no compromise. Either Mormons eject their wrong teachings about Christ, God, the Church, and other necessary issues, they will remain outside of the spiritual definition of Christian.

[John Powell]

Bill the Cat:
Hey John,

I think you set up a false dilemma. Theists believe in "A" God. That is a human definition. However, truth and error is what separates them. Christian and non-Christian is a spiritual term which depicts who is and isn't inheriting eternal life. There are not multiple categories of "saved" like there are theists.


JOHN MORMON:
The definition of Christian is a human definition too. If you wish to distinguish "spiritual Christians" from "nonspiritual Christians" then be my guest. You can even claim that Mormons aren't "true Christians" because of your view on the matter. What I don't see justified is excluding Mormons from being "Christian."


Bill the Cat:
As far as the issue at hand,the Gnostics claimed to follow "Jesus", but introduced radically different ideas of Him and His person, very similar to the Mormon belief of a progression of gods (aeons). They were decried as heretics by the early church, and some of the later epistles in the Bible. Desire to be Christian must fall in line with what the Bible says, not man.


JOHN MORMON:
I suppose the Gnostics were Christian Heretics.

POWELL:
If God wishes to come down in a big way and define what a Christian is then the world is all ears. I'm confident we'll pretty much all go along.


Bill the Cat:
In relation to Biblical truth, Mormons are in error. There is no compromise. Either Mormons eject their wrong teachings about Christ, God, the Church, and other necessary issues, they will remain outside of the spiritual definition of Christian.


JOHN MORMON:
Then to be consistent, I think you should exclude Mormons from being theists because the definition of "believer in God" is a spiritual definition, a Biblical definition.

John Powell

[Hitch]

Okay.



Eh ... I'm not to sure about the last. I would list them as a Protestant off-shoot, as their theology seems to stem from mainstream Protestant teaching.

But beyond that--yeah, Mormons are Christian. Im surprized to see you falling for that Cup. Especially since mormons teach that they alone are the true church (christians). The inclusion implied here is just one of the thousands of lies and deceits wich form the practices and pillars of mormon mythology.

Take care

H

[John Powell]

A Cup of Mystery:
Okay.

. . .

Eh ... I'm not to sure about the last. I would list them as a Protestant off-shoot, as their theology seems to stem from mainstream Protestant teaching.

But beyond that--yeah, Mormons are Christian.


JOHN MORMON:
Good point. Whether or not Mormons are Protestant is controversial and has some relevance to the debate because Webster's may have considered Mormons to be Protestant.

John Powell

[technomage]

Im surprized to see you falling for that Cup. Especially since mormons teach that they alone are the true church (christians). The inclusion implied here is just one of the thousands of lies and deceits wich form the practices and pillars of mormon mythology.

Hitch, the distinction being made here is between "Christians and non-Christians," not between "True Christians and False Christians," or "Christians and Heretics." Under that distinction, then yes--Mormons are Christians.

Now, to be sure, I have several grave difficulties with Mormon doctrines, and I do not consider them to be an accurate understanding of God. But I also cannot--and will not--make a false distinction to satisfy my own partisan feelings on the subject, else I would be just as guilty of teaching that we "alone are the true church." Teaching that in and of itself is not the problem--the problem comes in withwhether or not that teaching is accurate.

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
Good point. Whether or not Mormons are Protestant is controversial and has some relevance to the debate because Webster's may have considered Mormons to be Protestant.

John Powell LOL Even when you deny the obvious and bet the farm on webster ,you lose;


God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Hell, as biblicly defined ,contrary to mormon filth, is forever, have a nice time.

H

[Bill the Cat]

JOHN MORMON:
The definition of Christian is a human definition too. If you wish to distinguish "spiritual Christians" from "nonspiritual Christians" then be my guest. You can even claim that Mormons aren't "true Christians" because of your view on the matter. What I don't see justified is excluding Mormons from being "Christian."

Of course you don't. Its like the kid who wants to be part of the group and tells his friends he is part of the group, but he is not, in reality, part of it except in his own mind and the minds of those who believe him.




JOHN MORMON:
I suppose the Gnostics were Christian Heretics.


Nope. They were heretics who were anathemized by Paul and others. They were considered outside the Church with the pagans.



POWELL:
If God wishes to come down in a big way and define what a Christian is then the world is all ears. I'm confident we'll pretty much all go along.


He did that in the first century.



JOHN MORMON:
Then to be consistent, I think you should exclude Mormons from being theists because the definition of "believer in God" is a spiritual definition, a Biblical definition.

No, John. It is a man made distinction. People are either His (Christian) or not. From God's standpoint, and the Biblical record, those who are not His are not Christians and it doesn't matter what else they believe. They all have the same fate. Unless Mormonism reforms, like the Worldwide Church of God did, by rejecting the heretical teachings of polytheism, their fate is the same as well. No matter how bad the kid wants into the group...

[Hitch]

Hitch, the distinction being made here is between "Christians and non-Christians," not between "True Christians and False Christians," or "Christians and Heretics." Under that distinction, then yes--Mormons are Christians.

Now, to be sure, I have several grave difficulties with Mormon doctrines, and I do not consider them to be an accurate understanding of God. But I also cannot--and will not--make a false distinction to satisfy my own partisan feelings on the subject, else I would be just as guilty of teaching that we "alone are the true church." Teaching that in and of itself is not the problem--the problem comes in withwhether or not that teaching is accurate.
Well Cup you wouldnt allow such subjectivty into your daily commerce. If you went to the store an bought a pound of butter, only to find out later the store defines a pound as equal in wieght to a penny, you would cry fraud. And fraud is what this is about.
The abomination of unequal wieghts and measurtes apllies here. The mormon uses common christian terms, which he knows are seperately defined as per mormon doctrine.

Take care

H

[technomage]

Well Cup you wouldnt allow such subjectivty into your daily commerce.

Hitch, it's not a matter of "subjectivity"--it's a matter of proper context. Within the context John is speaking of (man-made definitions), he is most certainly correct: Mormonism is an off-shoot branch of Christianity, most probably Protestant Christianity. When we speak in a secular or sociological context, that is how things are discussed.

Now, you're speaking in a spiritual context--well and good. The big disadvantage with a spiritual context, however, is that you have to already agree with the beliefs for them to be "authoritative" as a definition. John, as an atheist, is not going to accept your definition as accurate, because he is not looking at things from the same context you are--nor are you going to agree with his definition, for the same reason.

Context affects the definitions, Hitch--and we cannot assume that the people we speak with "automatically" understand the words we use in the same context we understand them.

[John Powell]

A Cup of Mystery:
. . . John, as an atheist, is not going to accept your definition as accurate, because he is not looking at things from the same context you are--nor are you going to agree with his definition, for the same reason. . .


JOHN MORMON:
Who is calling me an atheist? I object. By definition, I'm speaking from the perspective of a hypothetical Mormon.

John Powell

[technomage]

JOHN MORMON:
Who is calling me an atheist? I object. By definition, I'm speaking from the perspective of a hypothetical Mormon.

John Powell

Sorry--I missed that memo. :hehe:

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry--I missed that memo. :hehe:
Yup Justin. John is a former Mormon who has the OK to post here in Mormonism if he keeps his responses as "John Mormon". He is a special case.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
The definition of Christian is a human definition too. If you wish to distinguish "spiritual Christians" from "nonspiritual Christians" then be my guest. You can even claim that Mormons aren't "true Christians" because of your view on the matter. What I don't see justified is excluding Mormons from being "Christian."


Bill The Cat:
Of course you don't. Its like the kid who wants to be part of the group and tells his friends he is part of the group, but he is not, in reality, part of it except in his own mind and the minds of those who believe him.


JOHN MORMON:
It's more like the person who claims to believe in God, but isn't a theist because he doesn't believe in the correct God.



JOHN MORMON:
I suppose the Gnostics were Christian Heretics.


Bill the Cat:
Nope. They were heretics who were anathemized by Paul and others. They were considered outside the Church with the pagans.


JOHN MORMON:
Was Marcion a Christian Heretic? http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9312349

How about Montanus? http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053483?query=montanus&ct=



POWELL:
If God wishes to come down in a big way and define what a Christian is then the world is all ears. I'm confident we'll pretty much all go along.


Bill The Cat:
He did that in the first century.


JOHN MORMON:
Wouldn't it be nice if He'd do it in our time or at least raise up modern prophets to do it for Him?



JOHN MORMON:
Then to be consistent, I think you should exclude Mormons from being theists because the definition of "believer in God" is a spiritual definition, a Biblical definition.


Bill the Cat:
No, John. It is a man made distinction. People are either His (Christian) or not. From God's standpoint, and the Biblical record, those who are not His are not Christians and it doesn't matter what else they believe. They all have the same fate. Unless Mormonism reforms, like the Worldwide Church of God did, by rejecting the heretical teachings of polytheism, their fate is the same as well. No matter how bad the kid wants into the group...


JOHN MORMON:
Then distinguish "God's Christians" from those who aren't. I can accept many modifiers to "Christian" which accomplish what you desire. It is the lack of a modifier that I challenge.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Hitch:
LOL Even when you deny the obvious and bet the farm on webster ,you lose;

God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Hell, as biblicly defined ,contrary to mormon filth, is forever, have a nice time.

H


JOHN MORMON:
Then, Hitch, it would seem that you should exclude Mormons from being theists because they don't believe in the God that you believe in. They believe in "filth" as you call it.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

JOHN MORMON:
It's more like the person who claims to believe in God, but isn't a theist because he doesn't believe in the correct God.


From a salvational standpoint, they are not. They are no better off than the Phillistines who worshipped Ba'al or Ashtoreth.



JOHN MORMON:
Was Marcion a Christian Heretic? http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9312349

How about Montanus? http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053483?query=montanus&ct=


Read Irenaeus. He says they are just heretics and calls them tools of the serpent. I'll trust him over Britannica if you don't mind.



JOHN MORMON:
Wouldn't it be nice if He'd do it in our time or at least raise up modern prophets to do it for Him?


It would be nice if he returned. But we don't need prophets. Apostles are the ones who gave doctrinal clarification. Prophets spoke of the future coming of Christ. We have all we need now. He will return and bring righteous judgement on the Earth with Him.



JOHN MORMON:
Then distinguish "God's Christians" from those who aren't. I can accept many modifiers to "Christian" which accomplish what you desire. It is the lack of a modifier that I challenge.

John Powell

Challenge it all you like. We are in the group. God sets the requirements. His Word determines who is in and who is out.His word says those that preach another Christ are anathema. They are imposters.

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
Then, Hitch, it would seem that you should exclude Mormons from being theists because they don't believe in the God that you believe in. They believe in "filth" as you call it.

John Powell You said it.

[master_mormon]

Lovely, but what's your response to my point - that The Doctrine and Covenants is an addition to the canon?Again, a dictionary definition as opposed to a Biblical definition.When were these teachings lost or perverted/misconstrued? Why did they have to be restored?What apostasy? The doctrines were corrupted and changed as a result of what apostasy?

And then, what did the Mormons do to restore these doctrines? Did they use copies of the original manuscripts? Was 'the truth' revealed to Joseph Smith in a dream? What?

I guess one could consider the D&C an addition to the canon. Nothing wrong with that. Original christianity had no official canon let alone a concept of a closed canon. Jesus said man was to live by every word that proceeds forth from God. He did not limit it to just a certain collection of books decided hundreds of years later to be in a certain canon.

I personally am more concerned about the dictionary definition of the word christian. The word "christian" is only used 3 times in the Bible and the no passage in the bible defines what the term means. What is more important for me is not that we are called christians but that we are called "saints" The word Christian was first used by the non-christians in reference to the believers of Christ in the 1st century. Sort of like the word "mormon" was used by the non-LDS in reference to the saints in the 19th century. The Mormons original called themselves saints (and still prefer to be called that today) just like the early believers called themselves "saints" originally and not christian.

The whole point is looking at the dictionary definition of the word christian, its impossible to exclude us from being christian. The only way one can exclude us is to either make up their own personal definitions or used their own particular interpretation of Bible passages to perhaps exclude us but remember LDS could do the same thing.

People have to remember that christianity is more like a rainbow than a solid color. It has a spectum of different groups that hold to different beliefs in regards to what they believe the teachings of Jesus and the apostles where. There are the catholics, the eastern orthodox, the groups in protestantism, the LDS, the JW, ect. When someone tells me they are a christian it really does not tell me what flavor of christianity they hold to. I could simply decide they are JW or SDA if they are not more specific.

In regards to the other comments lets just simply say that LDS believe lost doctrines and practices where restored through revelation through Joseph Smith

[Hitch]

Hitch, it's not a matter of "subjectivity"--it's a matter of proper context. Within the context John is speaking of (man-made definitions), he is most certainly correct: Mormonism is an off-shoot branch of Christianity, most probably Protestant Christianity. When we speak in a secular or sociological context, that is how things are discussed.

Now, you're speaking in a spiritual context--well and good. The big disadvantage with a spiritual context, however, is that you have to already agree with the beliefs for them to be "authoritative" as a definition. John, as an atheist, is not going to accept your definition as accurate, because he is not looking at things from the same context you are--nor are you going to agree with his definition, for the same reason.

Context affects the definitions, Hitch--and we cannot assume that the people we speak with "automatically" understand the words we use in the same context we understand them. Well Cup you could just as well say Islam is a branch of christianity. Every Muslim will afirm that Jesus Christ was an historical figure sent by God to Israel.

Just make sure you're not standing too close when you tell them.

[Hitch]

I guess one could consider the D&C an addition to the canon. Nothing wrong with that. Original christianity had no official canon let alone a concept of a closed canon. Jesus said man was to live by every word that proceeds forth from God. He did not limit it to just a certain collection of books decided hundreds of years later to be in a certain canon.

I personally am more concerned about the dictionary definition of the word christian. The word "christian" is only used 3 times in the Bible and the no passage in the bible defines what the term means. What is more important for me is not that we are called christians but that we are called "saints" The word Christian was first used by the non-christians in reference to the believers of Christ in the 1st century. Sort of like the word "mormon" was used by the non-LDS in reference to the saints in the 19th century. The Mormons original called themselves saints (and still prefer to be called that today) just like the early believers called themselves "saints" originally and not christian.

The whole point is looking at the dictionary definition of the word christian, its impossible to exclude us from being christian. The only way one can exclude us is to either make up their own personal definitions or used their own particular interpretation of Bible passages to perhaps exclude us but remember LDS could do the same thing.

People have to remember that christianity is more like a rainbow than a solid color. It has a spectum of different groups that hold to different beliefs in regards to what they believe the teachings of Jesus and the apostles where. There are the catholics, the eastern orthodox, the groups in protestantism, the LDS, the JW, ect. When someone tells me they are a christian it really does not tell me what flavor of christianity they hold to. I could simply decide they are JW or SDA if they are not more specific.

In regards to the other comments lets just simply say that LDS believe lost doctrines and practices where restored through revelation through Joseph Smith LOL No doubt you refer to polygamy and official racism?
Oh yeah,, they 'lost' those again...

[technomage]

Well Cup you could just as well say Islam is a branch of christianity. Every Muslim will afirm that Jesus Christ was an historical figure sent by God to Israel.

Just make sure you're not standing too close when you tell them.

Oh, why not--they profess that Jesus was muslim--meaning, of course, that he was submissive to God, not that he was a follower of Muhammad.

You see, Hitch, you make a perfectly wonderful argument ... but your argument is based on Christian beliefs. Now, I happen to share those beliefs, and like you I believe that Mormons got several things wrong along the way ... but if part of our purpose here on this earth is to "spread the Gospel," then it behooves us to do so effectively. And arguments based on beliefs that are not common to all parties are not effective.

If we wish to communicate with Mormons, we must come to a common definition: what is Christian. We can see that the world offers a definition where both Mormons and mainstream Christians qualify--and neither Mormon nor mainstream Christian would agree that this secular definition is accurate for our purposes. So we look to the Bible, and make further arguments based on standard.

But if we start the argument with "Mormons are counterfeit Christians" and "Mormon doctrine is filth," there is no basis for communication--the only "common ground" that will exist is the common ground of hostility and rejection. True enough, you will probably not be harrassed by more missionaries ... but by the same token, you will have lost any chance to spread the Gospel to the Mormons.

My name is not Fred Phelps, Hitch--I do not believe that I can spread the Gospel by telling people how much God "hates them."

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
It's more like the person who claims to believe in God, but isn't a theist because he doesn't believe in the correct God.


Bill the Cat:
From a salvational standpoint, they are not. They are no better off than the Phillistines [sic] who worshipped Ba'al or Ashtoreth.


JOHN MORMON:
Then call Mormons "Unsaved Christians" or whatever.

Be that as it may, in apparent inconsistency you will still group Mormons and Philistines as theists.



JOHN MORMON:
Was Marcion a Christian Heretic? . . .

How about Montanus? . . .


Bill the Cat:
Read Irenaeus. He says they are just heretics and calls them tools of the serpent. I'll trust him over Britannica if you don't mind.


JOHN MORMON:
Then don't expect to be asked to write anything scholarly for Brittanica or anyone else of their caliber. On the other hand, Brittanica would love to have an article contributed by Jesus, even if it was just about the proper definition of the word "Christian."



JOHN MORMON:
Wouldn't it be nice if He'd do it in our time or at least raise up modern prophets to do it for Him?


Bill the Cat:
It would be nice if he returned. But we don't need prophets. Apostles are the ones who gave doctrinal clarification. Prophets spoke of the future coming of Christ. We have all we need now. He will return and bring righteous judgement on the Earth with Him.


JOHN MORMON:
I suppose the Jews could have said something like that to the Christians.



JOHN MORMON:
Then distinguish "God's Christians" from those who aren't. I can accept many modifiers to "Christian" which accomplish what you desire. It is the lack of a modifier that I challenge.


Bill the Cat:
Challenge it all you like. We are in the group. God sets the requirements. His Word determines who is in and who is out.His word says those that preach another Christ are anathema. They are imposters.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, it was the Greek polytheists who applied the term "atheist" to the Christians so perhaps we should continue the practice. Surely, the Greeks could have argued that it was Zeus/Jupiter or one of the other others who set that requirement.

John Powell

[PaulT]

JOHN MORMON:

According to Webster's Dictionary, a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." So if someone says "I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but I don't believe Jesus ever claimed to be any more divine than anyone else" then should they be counted as Christian? John Powell



John the dictionary defines those who follow the teachings of Christ as comprising Christianity. The Mormons are counted, if you are not apart of Christianity, then you are not a Christian.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

The debate here was not specifically whether Mormons are part of Christianity, but it could be argued they should be. Do you wish to concede that Mormons are Christians but they aren't part of Christianity? John Powell



My point within is discussion has been that if you are not apart of Christianity then you don’t follow the teachings of Christ and are therefore not a Christian. Based on the definitions provided the Mormons are not apart of Christianity therefore do not follow the teachings of Christ and therefore are not Christians.




JOHN MORMON:

Have you considered the possibility that Webster's groups Mormons with Protestants? John Powell



Yes, they don’t list Mormonism as a Protestant religion.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Do you concede that Mormons are Christians but then you claim that they aren't part of Christianity? John Powell



No, Christianity is comprised of Christians; those outside the scope of Christianity are not Christians because they do not follow the teachings of Christ, irrespective of what they say, which it seems to me, is why Mormonism is not listed within the confines of Christianity.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Mormons profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ so, according to the Webster's definition, they are Christians. John Powell



Webster’s define those who follow the teachings of Christ as Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants, they leave Mormons out. Therefore, Mormons don’t follow the teachings of Christ and are therefore not Christians.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

No. It means they view Elohim as an omnibeing.

John Powell



Does that mean the Mormon view is that there are 3 distinct beings who are Elohim?




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Although the first definition might not include Mormons as Christians, the second definition includes them. If you hold to the foolish position that one must satisfy every definition in the dictionary to be included then perhaps you can tell me whether or not you are the hero in Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress."

John Powell



Get serious, the 2nd definition is predicated on the 1st, IOW, the group collectively agree with the teachings as defined in the 1st definition. I don’t understand your point regarding Bunyan, because he subscribed with the 1st definition of Christianity.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

The issue here concerns whether Mormons satisfy the definition for Christian. The issue is not their particular views on God.

John Powell



Their particular view of God is what defines them as Christian or not, see the AHD’s definition for Christianity. If you don’t profess that God and Christ have certain attributes then you are not following their teachings and therefore not a Christian.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Well, your words seem consistent, but that puts you in an awkward situation. For example, I seriously doubt that a newspaper would make claims like "Mormons don't believe George W. Bush is president of the U.S." based on your kind of criterion. But I guess you would. Do you know how unreasonable that makes you appear?

John Powell



How so, I know a lot of SC football fans who thought President Bush was the Heisman candidate. We know he wasn’t because of the different attributes between the running back and the actual President. My point is that the Mormons claim their Christ is the Christ of Christianity but don’t credit Christ with the attributes the Bible does, therefore they don’t know Christ.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

On the contrary, Mormons affirm that Jesus is the creator.

John Powell



Really, I thought the Mormon view was the Elohim created Jehovah or is it the other way around? Anyway, one created the other, the father created the son. If you are the created it is hard to be the creator.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Mormons satisfy definition 2 of the AHD for "Christianity."

The controversy is not whether or not they are Mormons, but whether or not they are Christians.



John Powell



Hardly, Mormons are not a collective group that is monotheistic in their view of God. Because Mormons do not follow the teachings of Christ as illustrated by the fact they are not apart of Christianity then they are not Christians.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

I acknowledge that Mormon beliefs differ from the beliefs of Mainstream Christians. Whether Mormon beliefs are Biblical beliefs is controversial.

John Powell



That’s not how Webster’s defines them;



Main Entry: Latter-day Saint
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized D
: a member of any of several religious bodies tracing their origin to Joseph Smith in 1830 and accepting the Book of Mormon as divine revelation : MORMON (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/mormon)



Don’t see anything about a fringe “Christian” sect. In fact this definition would tend to leave one with the concept that they follow Smith’s teachings more than Christ’s.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Then why don't you exclude from being theist all the nonTrinitarian Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc since they don't believe in God? Remember you believe that "the attributes define the person."

John Powell



John perhaps you’ve missed my point. I’m not suggesting Mormons are not theistic, just that they are not Christians. I don’t believe the dictionary considers theism and Christian as synonymous terms. Are you suggesting we should call Hindu’s Christians?



NonTrinitarian Christian, sounds like an oxymoron. Again, just because they are theists does not mean they are Christians. What is your point.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Look at definition 2: "the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history . . ."

John Powell



Yeah, so, a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ which is defined in definition #1 of Christianity. The collective body of Christians are those who proscribed to the teaching so defined in #1 from around the world, again, to the exclusion of Mormons, who the dictionary defines as following Joseph Smith.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

I do say that. The controversial thing is whether I'm justified in doing so.

John Powell



You’re ignoring the clear definitions.




JOHN MORMON:

Then how do you deal with the theist definition problem? Are you prepared to exclude nontrinitarian Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. from being theists because the attributes they give to God aren't the correct ones so they don't believe in God?



It would seem that if you are going to exclude Mormons from being Christians because the attributes they give to Jesus are mistaken then you should exclude Mormons from being theists because the attributes they give to God are mistaken.

John Powell



John, think about what you are asking, do Muslims call themselves Jews or visa versa? No, because the gods they believe in have different attributes, however they are both theists and call their god, God. The groups above believe in a god, but not in the God of the Bible as defined by Christianity, which is why they don’t attempt to co-opt the name Christian.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

That's a good definition for "strong atheist."

John Powell



The definition didn’t define strong or weak just the term atheist.






JOHN MORMON:

Remember you believe that "the attributes define the person." So, if they have the wrong attributes for God then they don't believe in God. In fact, they deny the existence of your God, so apparently by that reasoning nonTrinitarians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are "strong atheists."

John Powell



No, those you listed above don’t believe in THE God, this doesn’t preclude them from not believing in a god. Yes Mormons deny the attributes of Christ, which means they don’t follow His teachings which is why they are not Christians, but that does not mean the don’t maintain some type of belief about a god and in the case of Mormons gods.






JOHN MORMON:

Nobody here has "proved" their side correct.

John Powell



Like I said, I will let the audience decide.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Rather I think what you will have demonstrated is your misguided tendency to sometimes think that if something does not match ONE of the definitions in the dictionary then it doesn't satisfy any of them.

John Powell



John, this isn’t that difficult, you are the one that provided the definition that said:

christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity, Christian religion] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom, Christianity]

Your attempt at saying #2 includes the Mormons presupposes that the belief system of the Christians around the world is not defined #1. This argument doesn’t hold water for the mere fact the definition defines in #1 what those defined in #2 share in belief. If you don’t believe in #1 then you are not apart of #2 and therefore do not follow Christ’s teaching and the definition for the term Christian. An and/or proposition is not in the definition.


JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Here's another "heads up." Notice that if Mormons satisfy the AHD definition 1 for "Christian" which I claim they do then they satisfy the AHD definition 2 for "Christianity."

John Powell



Your problem is AHD definition #1 for Christianity defines AHD definition #1 for Christian, which then means Mormons are not with the sphere contemplated in AHD definition #2 of Christianity.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

I admit that Mormon beliefs about some religious issues differ from those of other Christians. What I don't admit is that those beliefs are contrary to the Bible.

John Powell



Great, but McMurrins statement is more accurate of the disparity between Mormon beliefs and Christian beliefs.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Heads up. The AHD definition 2 includes in Christianity all Christians regardless of their views on the nature of God.

John Powell



You are presupposing something not within the confines of the definition. The words “regardless of their views” is not in the definition and because Christian view has already been defined within the body of the definition then your presupposition is not called for. If fact what the definition of what Christianity believes and the scope of folks who it entails.




JOHN MORMON:JOHN MORMON:

Huh? You don't believe God is an omnibeing John Powell

Correct an omnibeing god is not a monotheistic view, which is why Mormons are not Christians.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Where does the definition for "Christian" include the stipulation that such persons believe in a monotheistic God?

John Powell



See #1 of Christianity for what the teaching of Christ are aka the Christian religion then go back to #1 of the definition of Christian. If you don’t buy off on #1 of Christianity then you’re not complying with #1 of Christian.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

The AHD definition 1 for "Christianity" includes the stipulation of belief in a monotheistic God. The AHD definition for "Christian" gave no such stipulation. Furthermore, the AHD definition 2 for "Christianity" makes no such stipulation. Mormons satisfy AHD 2 for "Christianity" if they satisfy one of the AHD definitions for "Christian."

John Powell



John AHD #1 for Christianity tells you what the basic Christian belief system is, ie what the teachings of Christ are aka the Christian religion #2 tells you the term Christianity can be used to describe those who hold to the basic belief system world wide.

christianity

n 1: a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity, Christian religion] 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom, Christianity]

There is no and/or proposition in the definition of Christianity. Christianity is the corporate body of Christians who proscribe to the beliefs and practices as minimally defined in #1 of Christianities definition. Therefore it is more than reasonable to infer that the authors of both definitions mean the teachings of Christ are one and the same as the Christian religion, which is minimally defined in #1 of Christianity.



You are assuming an and/or that is not within the confines of the definition. Heck the authors don't even define Later Day Saints as followers of Christ but rather followers of Smith.




JOHN MORMON:

JOHN MORMON:

Oh. If you google then you might learn what he thought. Perhaps you don't care.



John Powell



Thanks for the tip.



Paul

[Bill the Cat]

JOHN MORMON:
Then call Mormons "Unsaved Christians" or whatever.

Then everyone who is not Christian is an "unsaved Christian".


Be that as it may, in apparent inconsistency you will still group Mormons and Philistines as theists.

Only by the traditional meaning. In the end, both will stand before God and be cast away.


JOHN MORMON:
Then don't expect to be asked to write anything scholarly for Brittanica or anyone else of their caliber.

I really don't care to write for them. I fix computers and cook. If they want an article on my beef tips, I'd be glad to give them one.


On the other hand, Brittanica would love to have an article contributed by Jesus, even if it was just about the proper definition of the word "Christian."

Then they should publish the NT and the writings of some of the ECFs if they want that.


JOHN MORMON:
I suppose the Jews could have said something like that to the Christians.


They do. But that's neither here nor there.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, it was the Greek polytheists who applied the term "atheist" to the Christians so perhaps we should continue the practice. Surely, the Greeks could have argued that it was Zeus/Jupiter or one of the other others who set that requirement.


I frankly could care less what polytheists call me. What God calls me and what the Bible calls me is of eternal significance.

You yourself distinguishes between a strong atheist, an atheist, and an agnostic, do you not?

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Then call Mormons "Unsaved Christians" or whatever.


Bill the Cat:
Then everyone who is not Christian is an "unsaved Christian".


JOHN MORMON:
Of course not. Then every Christian who is unsaved is an unsaved Christian.



JOHN MORMON:
Be that as it may, in apparent inconsistency you will still group Mormons and Philistines as theists.


Bill the Cat:
Only by the traditional meaning. In the end, both will stand before God and be cast away.


JOHN MORMON:
Will God punish Mormons and Philistines for being atheists?



JOHN MORMON:
Then don't expect to be asked to write anything scholarly for Brittanica or anyone else of their caliber.


Bill the Cat:
I really don't care to write for them. I fix computers and cook. If they want an article on my beef tips, I'd be glad to give them one.


JOHN MORMON:
On the other hand, Brittanica would love to have an article contributed by Jesus, even if it was just about the proper definition of the word "Christian."


Bill the Cat:
Then they should publish the NT and the writings of some of the ECFs if they want that.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, those aren't exactly authored by Jesus personally now are they?



JOHN MORMON:
I suppose the Jews could have said something like that to the Christians.


Bill the Cat:
They do. But that's neither here nor there.


JOHN MORMON:
I guess it's not here but there.



JOHN MORMON:
Well, it was the Greek polytheists who applied the term "atheist" to the Christians so perhaps we should continue the practice. Surely, the Greeks could have argued that it was Zeus/Jupiter or one of the other others who set that requirement.


Bill the Cat:
I frankly could care less what polytheists call me. What God calls me and what the Bible calls me is of eternal significance.


POWELL:
How fun!

JOHN THE GREEK POLYTHEIST:
You should care because the Gods will hold you accountable, you atheist you!


BILL THE CAT:
You yourself distinguishes [sic] between a strong atheist, an atheist, and an agnostic, do you not?


POWELL:
Yes. I also combine those terms in creative ways.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes. I am working on statistics homework... :argh:


JOHN MORMON:
Of course not. Then every Christian who is unsaved is an unsaved Christian.


Everyone has the POTENTIAL to be a Christian, so technically, yes. However, they are still unsaved, so not Christians by default. Its like light and dark. The two are mutually exclusive. Something can't be both or neither.



JOHN MORMON:
Will God punish Mormons and Philistines for being atheists?


That's a silly question. He will punish them for being not Christian.



JOHN MORMON:
Well, those aren't exactly authored by Jesus personally now are they?

No, but the Holy Spirit, the third of the Trinity, authored the canonical stuff IMHO. And He led the others to write authoritatively for Him.



POWELL:
How fun!

JOHN THE GREEK POLYTHEIST:
You should care because the Gods will hold you accountable, you atheist you!


If I were trying to call myself a Greek, then perhaps you'd have a parallel, but I am not, so your example falls flat.

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
Then why doesn't the American Heritage Dictionary definition say as much?



JOHN MORMON:
The name of the church was to emphasize that we believe that Jesus is the Christ. We profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ. We are Christians. We aren't Trinitarian Christians. We aren't Infant Baptism Christians. That doesn't matter. We are Mormon Christians.

John PowellYou lie when you imply that the mormom christ is the same as the Biblical Christ

[John Powell]

Hitch:
You lie when you imply that the mormom christ is the same as the Biblical Christ


JOHN MORMON:
It would only be a lie if it were mistaken and the claimant said it in an effort to deceive you. Mormons are sincere in their beliefs.

You would more within your rights if you just claimed that I am mistaken when I imply such and such.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Bill the Cat:
Sorry for the spelling mistakes. I am working on statistics homework... :argh:

. . .

Everyone has the POTENTIAL to be a Christian, so technically, yes. However, they are still unsaved, so not Christians by default. Its like light and dark. The two are mutually exclusive. Something can't be both or neither.

. . .

That's a silly question. He will punish them for being not Christian.

. . .

No, but the Holy Spirit, the third of the Trinity, authored the canonical stuff IMHO. And He led the others to write authoritatively for Him.

. . .

If I were trying to call myself a Greek, then perhaps you'd have a parallel, but I am not, so your example falls flat.


JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps we've each said enough for now. The issue might come up again later.

John Powell

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
It would only be a lie if it were mistaken and the claimant said it in an effort to deceive you. Mormons are sincere in their beliefs.( So was Himmler,,and he hated the dark and loathsome people too,,was he a mormon? He sure was sincere. Not a sincere as a pumpkin patch ,,but pretty sincere.)

You would more within your rights if you just claimed that I am mistaken when I imply such and such.

John Powell
1 John 2:22 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.



Every mormon knows Christians are monotheistic and ever mormon know he is polytheistic and every mormon knows the difference. And every mormon who implies that his christ and the Biblical Christ are one in the same is a liar. Just like father Joey.

[norwegen]

I guess one could consider the D&C an addition to the canon. Nothing wrong with that. Original christianity had no official canon let alone a concept of a closed canon. Jesus said man was to live by every word that proceeds forth from God. He did not limit it to just a certain collection of books decided hundreds of years later to be in a certain canon.Then considering modern-day prophets, those who speak in tongues, and anyone else who claims to speak directly on God's behalf . . . can we be sure that the things they say don't proceed "forth from God?" Anything they say that God told them specifically must be as legitimate as the The Doctrine and Covenants, right?

Wrong. That's not Christian. Revering holy texts other than the Holy Bible is not something Christians do. Historically, the Holy Bible is Christianity's sole divinely-inspired text.
I personally am more concerned about the dictionary definition of the word christian.Well, per other exchanges in this thread, that seems to be the distinction, which renders my contribution insignificant.
People have to remember that christianity is more like a rainbow than a solid color. It has a spectum of different groups that hold to different beliefs in regards to what they believe the teachings of Jesus and the apostles where. There are the catholics, the eastern orthodox, the groups in protestantism, the LDS, the JW, ect. When someone tells me they are a christian it really does not tell me what flavor of christianity they hold to. I could simply decide they are JW or SDA if they are not more specific.Speaking of 'original Christianity' . . . I wouldn't consider it a rainbow. It's black and white; either you're saved or you're not saved. Christ as our salvation is the central message of the Gospels.
In regards to the other comments lets just simply say that LDS believe lost doctrines and practices where restored through revelation through Joseph Smith What lost doctrines and practices? This is what I've been asking you? I'm aware of Paul speaking to the Thessalonians of an eventual apostasy, but I don't know what apostasy you're speaking of. Where did the church fall away? And for how long?

As you haven't answered this question, I'm inclined to believe that some alleged apostasy was nothing more than the ramblings of a self-aggrandizing, self-proclaimed prophet who secretly practiced polygamy. That Mormons use three holy texts in addition to the Bible has no Biblical or historical warrant that I can see. And to say that the Bible is insufficient by itself is to disparage it. That's not Christian.

[PaulT]

Norwegen,

Quote: Originally posted by master_mormonI personally am more concerned about the dictionary definition of the word christian.

Norwegen:
Well, per other exchanges in this thread, that seems to be the distinction, which renders my contribution insignificant.



Norwegen, I’m not sure why you are caving in given the definition of Christianity provided by a Mormon apologists places Mormonism outside the scope and therefore not Christian. If Master_Mormon was truly concerned with what the dictionary has to say then he wouldn’t be trying to pass off his view as Christian.

Paul

[master_mormon]

Wrong. That's not Christian. Revering holy texts other than the Holy Bible is not something Christians do. Historically, the Holy Bible is Christianity's sole divinely-inspired text.

I wouldn't consider it a rainbow. It's black and white; either you're saved or you're not saved. Christ as our salvation is the central message of the Gospels.What lost doctrines and practices? This is what I've been asking you? I'm aware of Paul speaking to the Thessalonians of an eventual apostasy, but I don't know what apostasy you're speaking of. Where did the church fall away? And for how long?

That Mormons use three holy texts in addition to the Bible has no Biblical or historical warrant that I can see. And to say that the Bible is insufficient by itself is to disparage it. That's not Christian.

"Revering holy texts other than the Holy Bible is not something Christians do. Historically, the Holy Bible is Christianity's sole divinely-inspired text."

It is something Christians did do historically if you knew the history of christianity. It is a known fact that for the first 300 years of christianity, there was no Bible. Yes some canons where proposed but none of the canons written during that time matched the one that you use. The bible as you know it did not exist during those years. Are you suggesting that christianity began in the 4th century? The fact is historically the Bible was NOT christianity sole divine inspired texts. Even after Athanasius proposed the 27 book new testament canon in 367 A.D it was still not accepted univerally by all christians. There has never been one universal Bible that has been read or accepted by all christians. The Ethiopian Christian church for example has a 38 book new testament canon. Check your history as it does not support your position.

The issue of whether one is saved or not is not the issue. The issue was is that in christianity there are many different views. There is a wide variety of different versions of Christianity. When a man says that they are Catholic, one does not say "so in other words you are a baptist and a Lutherian. A Catholic is a Catholic. They are not a baptist.

The apostasy issue I will not bother to go in depth here as that really is not the focus of the thread.

"That Mormons use three holy texts in addition to the Bible has no Biblical or historical warrant that I can see." Show me Biblical or historical warrent for even a Bible canon from the 1st century to the beginning of the 4th century A.D. The fact is early christianity accepted books like the Shepard of Hermas as scripture in the 2nd century. The Mormons like the early christians did not have a closed canon nor did they define what ws considered scripture and what was not.


"And to say that the Bible is insufficient by itself is to disparage it. That's not Christian."

No christian prior to 350 A.D ever said anything about a Bible being sufficient or a collection of books being sufficient. If you can show me 1 christian from the 2nd or 3rd century that claimed that the collection of 66 books that match the collection you have in your bible was sufficient for christians, you will go a long way to prove to me that you are correct. The fact is nowhere in the bible does it say remotely anything like "these 66 books are sufficent". You claim that to say the Bible is insufficient is to disparage it. I say to claim that the bible is sufficient misrepresents it. Its no unchristian to say that the Bible is insufficient. That view is consistent with original christianity. Christianity from its origins never claimed such a thing.

[master_mormon]

That Mormons use three holy texts in addition to the Bible has no Biblical or historical warrant that I can see. And to say that the Bible is insufficient by itself is to disparage it. That's not Christian.

This might help you. Father A. James Bernstein "Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament," The Christian Activist, Vol. 9, Fall/Winter 1996, p. 1,4-7.

"[T]he early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation . . . contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal") books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon.

In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books - although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today.

When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament. . . .

[T]he first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) . . . Most [early Christian] churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. . . . During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical."

[John Powell]

Hitch:
1 John 2:22 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.


JOHN MORMON:
I suggest you revise your understanding of what constitutes being a liar and an antichrist unless you wish to bring justified social condemnation down upon yourself. Try being the attorney who calls the judge and his opponents liars and antichrists merely because they aren't Christian. Try buying and selling with people in your community whom you accuse of being liars and antichrists merely because they aren't Christian.

In fact, why don't you make a big deal right here and call me a liar again merely because (you think) I'm not a Christian?


Hitch:
Every mormon knows Christians are monotheistic and ever mormon know he is polytheistic and every mormon knows the difference. And every mormon who implies that his christ and the Biblical Christ are one in the same is a liar. Just like father Joey.


JOHN MORMON:
The issue is more complicated than that. It's odd to call trinitarians monotheists since they believe God is three persons. Mormons justify grouping themselves with the monotheists because they believe there's one "Godhead," one committee of Gods over all and one supreme personage named Elohim. Polytheists are typically characterized as having the Gods fighting each other, killing each other. Mormons don't believe in that kind of thing.

I suspect the Jews and Muslims think both trinitarians and Mormons should be excluded from the monotheist camp.

John Powell

[Dee Dee Warren]

John I just got back to this thread and experienced what happens quite a bit - it is three pages gone on from my comments - way too fast for me to keep up. Perhaps this weekend I will be able to go through and pick out the comments that pertain to mine and make a rejoinder. In cruising through I see that many of my points have already been ably argued by others to an extent. I will try to pick through however.

[John Powell]

Dee Dee Warren:
John I just got back to this thread and experienced what happens quite a bit - it is three pages gone on from my comments - way too fast for me to keep up. Perhaps this weekend I will be able to go through and pick out the comments that pertain to mine and make a rejoinder. In cruising through I see that many of my points have already been ably argued by others to an extent. I will try to pick through however.


POWELL:
I'd rather you not. Since getting kicked off Till's site for extended arguing with him, I have tried to make it a point to avoid extended arguing with the site owner.

Make your point, but don't expect much of a reply. It's one of the disadvantages of being the "judge." No privilege-seeking person wants to extensively argue with you.

John Powell

[norwegen]

"Revering holy texts other than the Holy Bible is not something Christians do. Historically, the Holy Bible is Christianity's sole divinely-inspired text."

It is something Christians did do historically if you knew the history of christianity. It is a known fact that for the first 300 years of christianity, there was no Bible. Yes some canons where proposed but none of the canons written during that time matched the one that you use. The bible as you know it did not exist during those years. Are you suggesting that christianity began in the 4th century? The fact is historically the Bible was NOT christianity sole divine inspired texts. Even after Athanasius proposed the 27 book new testament canon in 367 A.D it was still not accepted univerally by all christians. There has never been one universal Bible that has been read or accepted by all christians. The Ethiopian Christian church for example has a 38 book new testament canon. Check your history as it does not support your position.I'm not totally unaware of the Bible's history. I know that for 300 years, Christians had no Bible. But they had scriptures. For 200 years before the church canonized these scriptures, believers generally held similar views on the divine inspiration of the texts. In the third century, after a study conducted by Origen, the church divided the scriptures into three groups:
Accepted Books: these included the four Gospels and 13 letters of Paul we now have, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation.Questionable Books: the six other books that complete our New Testament.Unreliable Books: considered by the Christian community at large to be uninspired (though not altogether uninspiring); such writings incuded the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Egyptians, and the Gospel of Matthias.
Three books not even considered for an unreliable standing include The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Some people consider the Apocrypha inspired, and include it in their Bibles, but the fact is that all the books and letters that have been part of the Bible for nearly 17 centuries were considered for the canon and were written prior to 367 A.D. Joseph Smith's texts meet neither criterion. The Bible's history before its canonization is essentially irrelevent to this discussion; Christians consider the scriptures complete, and to add scripture to it is unChristian.

The Bible doesn't change, while the Mormon scriptures are open canons, which is another issue that separates Mormons from the larger Christian community. Even the Ethiopian Bible is canonized.


The issue of whether one is saved or not is not the issue. The issue was is that in christianity there are many different views. There is a wide variety of different versions of Christianity. When a man says that they are Catholic, one does not say "so in other words you are a baptist and a Lutherian. A Catholic is a Catholic. They are not a baptist.Yes, this is something already touched on (the secular definition and the Biblical definition). The world at large has broadened the definition of Christian considerably. So be it.


The apostasy issue I will not bother to go in depth here as that really is not the focus of the thread.The OP posits that Mormons are Christians. I think this 'apostasy' points to the contrary. Maybe others know about this apostasy, but I don't. If some grand apostasy actually did occur, did Mormonism really restore the church? Even with my scant understanding of Mormonism, I can see that it is considerably different than the early church.

Unless someone can convince me that the church fell away and that Mormonism restored it, I'm inclined to think that this great event was nothing more than an excuse to build a new religion and fasten it to Christianity's coat tails.

[Hitch]

I'm not totally unaware of the Bible's history. I know that for 300 years, Christians had no Bible. But they had scriptures. For 200 years before the church canonized these scriptures, believers generally held similar views on the divine inspiration of the texts. In the third century, after a study conducted by Origen, the church divided the scriptures into three groups:
Accepted Books: these included the four Gospels and 13 letters of Paul we now have, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation.Questionable Books: the six other books that complete our New Testament.Unreliable Books: considered by the Christian community at large to be uninspired (though not altogether uninspiring); such writings incuded the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Egyptians, and the Gospel of Matthias.
Three books not even considered for an unreliable standing include The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Some people consider the Apocrypha inspired, and include it in their Bibles, but the fact is that all the books and letters that have been part of the Bible for nearly 17 centuries were considered for the canon and were written prior to 367 A.D. Joseph Smith's texts meet neither criterion. The Bible's history before its canonization is essentially irrelevent to this discussion; Christians consider the scriptures complete, and to add scripture to it is unChristian.

The Bible doesn't change, while the Mormon scriptures are open canons, which is another issue that separates Mormons from the larger Christian community. Even the Ethiopian Bible is canonized.

Yes, this is something already touched on (the secular definition and the Biblical definition). The world at large has broadened the definition of Christian considerably. So be it.

The OP posits that Mormons are Christians. I think this 'apostasy' points to the contrary. Maybe others know about this apostasy, but I don't. If some grand apostasy actually did occur, did Mormonism really restore the church? Even with my scant understanding of Mormonism, I can see that it is considerably different than the early church.

Unless someone can convince me that the church fell away and that Mormonism restored it, I'm inclined to think that this great event was nothing more than an excuse to build a new religion and fasten it to Christianity's coat tails. Actually mormon mythology goes so far as to say until Joey came along there was no true church anywhaere on earth.

[Hitch]

JOHN MORMON:
I suggest you revise your understanding of what constitutes being a liar and an antichrist unless you wish to bring justified social condemnation down upon yourself. Try being the attorney who calls the judge and his opponents liars and antichrists merely because they aren't Christian. Try buying and selling with people in your community whom you accuse of being liars and antichrists merely because they aren't Christian.


This is a religions forun not a court of law. but I like they way you disparage the application of Scripture. A guy could think you were a mormon...



In fact, why don't you make a big deal right here and call me a liar again merely because (you think) I'm not a Christian?



JOHN MORMON:
The issue is more complicated than that. It's odd to call trinitarians monotheists since they believe God is three persons. Mormons justify grouping themselves with the monotheists because they believe there's one "Godhead," one committee of Gods over all and one supreme personage named Elohim. Polytheists are typically characterized as having the Gods fighting each other, killing each other. Mormons don't believe in that kind of thing.

I suspect the Jews and Muslims think both trinitarians and Mormons should be excluded from the monotheist camp.

John Powell Does some one care what your fellow antichrists think?

[Dee Dee Warren]

POWELL:
I'd rather you not. Since getting kicked off Till's site for extended arguing with him, I have tried to make it a point to avoid extended arguing with the site owner.

Make your point, but don't expect much of a reply. It's one of the disadvantages of being the "judge." No privilege-seeking person wants to extensively argue with you.

John Powell

John you disappoint me that you think so little of me and this site. I am not the "judge" in any thread I am participating in and don't chime in on such discussions unless there is a fundamental site philosophy at stake - I cannot make moderating decisions in any thread I am in - further all decisions are reviewed by staff and no decisions are made alone. Lastly - as the site has gotten so large I rarely if ever get involved in who gets kicked off (and as Jolonda proved it is a very difficult thing to do) - if you want to avoid ticking off the people who do regularly make those decisions it is my Admins you would want to avoid not me.

But that choice is yours - I know this site is better than that. I wish you knew it too, but I cannot argue you into that knowledge, I can only demonstrate it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

To the rest of the thread participants - you may leave me with nothing to say. Kudoes good job. Much better than I could have done.

[John Powell]

Dee Dee Warren:
John you disappoint me that you think so little of me and this site. I am not the "judge" in any thread I am participating in and don't chime in on such discussions unless there is a fundamental site philosophy at stake - I cannot make moderating decisions in any thread I am in - further all decisions are reviewed by staff and no decisions are made alone. Lastly - as the site has gotten so large I rarely if ever get involved in who gets kicked off (and as Jolonda proved it is a very difficult thing to do) - if you want to avoid ticking off the people who do regularly make those decisions it is my Admins you would want to avoid not me.

But that choice is yours - I know this site is better than that. I wish you knew it too, but I cannot argue you into that knowledge, I can only demonstrate it.


POWELL:
Farrell Till gave assurances that he didn't do and wouldn't do the things that ended up happening to me. It's not worth the risk. There are many well qualified atheists here very willing to go after you. I'll let them take the risks. There are too many other well qualified Christians on this forum I can argue with at much lower risk.

Perhaps you guessed it: I never volunteered for the military.

So, here you go:

:flowers:

John Powell

[Dee Dee Warren]

Again John I can't argue you out of your belief or suspicion. I don't know this but it sounds like Till is the sole aribiter of his list. That is his perogative, but that is not how things are done here. We have a committee approach to keep any of us of falling into the very human temptation of axing those who have challenged us. Just as an FYI - there are no other atheists here in this thread to challenge me for you have been given special permission to post in a theist-only area because you have demonstred that through your past experience as a Mormon you can argue as if you still were a Mormon.

PS: It's the avatar isn't it. It has given quite a scare to a few folks yesterday.

[John Powell]

Again John I can't argue you out of your belief or suspicion. I don't know this but it sounds like Till is the sole aribiter of his list. That is his perogative, but that is not how things are done here. We have a committee approach to keep any of us of falling into the very human temptation of axing those who have challenged us. Just as an FYI - there are no other atheists here in this thread to challenge me for you have been given special permission to post in a theist-only area because you have demonstred that through your past experience as a Mormon you can argue as if you still were a Mormon.

PS: It's the avatar isn't it. It has given quite a scare to a few folks yesterday.


POWELL:
Things are done more fairly here. It suggests that a committee is likely to produce a higher level of justice than an autocrat.

I haven't figured out yet what she's saying.

John Powell

[technomage]

I haven't figured out yet what she's saying.

She's saying that if you and she get into an argument, the worst she will do is put you on ignore for a while to put an end to the argument. Banning is for violating the rules, not for arguing with one of the owners.

Good thing, too, or $cir would have banned me long ago for making fun of his Apple obsession.

[Dee Dee Warren]

He is speaking of my avatar. He can't figure out what my avatar is saying.

As far as what I am saying, ACOM you are correct. When someone irks me badly, I place them on ignore. And if the subject of that person comes up in committee discussions I always preface my comments to staff - "I don't like/get along/understand (whatever) this person......." so that my bias is open for all to see and that those without such bias will take that in consideration when deliberating on the issues. I rarely continue is a really destructive debate relationship with anyone - I find it is better to all involved and to the community if I simply put such person on ignore for as long as is needed.

[technomage]

He is speaking of my avatar. He can't figure out what my avatar is saying.

Oh, that. I can't figure it out either, but it doesn't look polite. :egad:

[John Powell]

DEE DEE WARREN:
He is speaking of my avatar. He can't figure out what my avatar is saying.


POWELL:
Yea.

Remember when Kendemyer thought I was trying to argue with one of his dead sources when it was clear from the context of what I was responding to and my capitalized pronouns that I was speaking of God? I laughed so hard at the responses that I cried.

I'm usually extra clear, but on rare occasions I leave things a bit vague to those who don't know what's going on.


A Cup of Mystery:
Oh, that. I can't figure it out either, but it doesn't look polite. :egad:

POWELL:
Yep. It doesn't look polite.

John Powell

[master_mormon]

I'm not totally unaware of the Bible's history. I know that for 300 years, Christians had no Bible. But they had scriptures. For 200 years before the church canonized these scriptures, believers generally held similar views on the divine inspiration of the texts. In the third century, after a study conducted by Origen, the church divided the scriptures into three groups:

Accepted Books: these included the four Gospels and 13 letters of Paul we now have, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation.


Questionable Books: the six other books that complete our New Testament.


Unreliable Books: considered by the Christian community at large to be uninspired (though not altogether uninspiring); such writings incuded the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Egyptians, and the Gospel of Matthias.
Three books not even considered for an unreliable standing include The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Some people consider the Apocrypha inspired, and include it in their Bibles, but the fact is that all the books and letters that have been part of the Bible for nearly 17 centuries were considered for the canon and were written prior to 367 A.D. Joseph Smith's texts meet neither criterion. The Bible's history before its canonization is essentially irrelevent to this discussion; Christians consider the scriptures complete, and to add scripture to it is unChristian.

The Bible doesn't change, while the Mormon scriptures are open canons, which is another issue that separates Mormons from the larger Christian community. Even the Ethiopian Bible is canonized.

Yes, this is something already touched on (the secular definition and the Biblical definition). The world at large has broadened the definition of Christian considerably. So be it.

The OP posits that Mormons are Christians. I think this 'apostasy' points to the contrary. Maybe others know about this apostasy, but I don't. If some grand apostasy actually did occur, did Mormonism really restore the church? Even with my scant understanding of Mormonism, I can see that it is considerably different than the early church.

Unless someone can convince me that the church fell away and that Mormonism restored it, I'm inclined to think that this great event was nothing more than an excuse to build a new religion and fasten it to Christianity's coat tails.

"I'm not totally unaware of the Bible's history. I know that for 300 years, Christians had no Bible. But they had scriptures." This is true but then what where those scriptures. Those scriptures included texts not found in the modern canon and some texts in the modern canon where not viewed by many as scripture.

"For 200 years before the church canonized these scriptures, believers generally held similar views on the divine inspiration of the texts." What views? The church really did not canonize any scriptures for the first 350 years. Not 200. Even after 400 A.D. there was no universal canon that all christians accepted. Even to this day there is no universal canon.

In the third century, after a study conducted by Origen, the church divided the scriptures into three groups: Accepted Books: these included the four Gospels and 13 letters of Paul we now have, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. Questionable Books: the six other books that complete our New Testament. Unreliable Books: considered by the Christian community at large to be uninspired (though not altogether uninspiring); such writings incuded the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Egyptians, and the Gospel of Matthias.

This is false. There was no consensus even in the 3rd century as to what as accepted, questioned and unreliable. You put the book of revelation in the accepted category. That is completely false. Revelation was a book that many people dismissed as being accepted beyond the 4th century. What is probably most critical of all is that even if you statement is completely correct it only shows that original christianity did not have an official canon and for hundreds of years, Christians did not hold to an official canon. Why should we trust the views of 3rd and 4th century christians as to what was scripture over the 1st and 2nd century christians. After all, one would think the earlier christians would have a better grasp at what was truely scripture than later christians.

Three books not even considered for an unreliable standing include The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.

Very odd statement. Why would 3rd and 4th century christians consider books that had not be revealed to them? The D&C is latter day revelation, the Book of Mormon was written by people 10000 miles away and hide from the world generaly til the 1800s. The Pearl of Great price consists of a section of the JST (Book of Moses) some ancient Egyptian texts (Book of Abraham) and the Joseph Smith History and the JST Matt 24. These sources where not considered in any category so its irrelevant to the conversation.

Some people consider the Apocrypha inspired, and include it in their Bibles, but the fact is that all the books and letters that have been part of the Bible for nearly 17 centuries were considered for the canon and were written prior to 367 A.D.

Some people consider it inspired? Better check again. The catholics have it in their canon and they number about 1 billion today. Yes all the books considered in the canon where written prior to 367 A.D but not all the books where considered as part of the canon for 17 centuries. Revelation and Hebrews are two notable books that where contested for centuries after 367 A.D.

Joseph Smith's texts meet neither criterion. What criterion? The Book of Mormon claims to have been written from 600 B.C. to 420 A.D and the Book of Abraham from before that. I am fully aware that you believe those are 19th century creations but any honest textual critic does not examine a text from when they personally feel it came from but from which the text itself claims it is from. Also there is no passage in the any book in the Bible or any other ancient text outside the Bible that claims that all inspired texts that would ever be written had to be written prior to 367 A.D.

The Bible doesn't change, while the Mormon scriptures are open canons, which is another issue that separates Mormons from the larger Christian community. Even the Ethiopian Bible is canonized.

This is another statement that makes no sense. The text from the Bible where written in a time where there was no closed canon. They never speak of a closed canon. The Mormon view is exactly consistent with original christianity from the first century. 1st century Christianity had an open canon. Mormonism has an open canon. Your version of christianity has a closed canon. So who is closer to the original first century christianity on this issue? You that has a closed canon or the mormons who have a open canon in comparison to 1st century christianity that had an open canon. Not too hard. That is the whole point. Christianity at is origins did not have a doctrine of a closed canon. Its a false doctrine. Yes the Ethiopian canon is canonized but their canon is different than yours. It only shows that Christianity has never had a univeral canon of scripture.

Yes, this is something already touched on (the secular definition and the Biblical definition). The world at large has broadened the definition of Christian considerably. So be it.

Since there is no objective biblical definition of the word christian (the bible only uses the word 3 times) then all we are left with is the secular definition. If you can show me a passage in the Bible that says "a christian is blank" then I will reconsider. I however will not accept subjective definitions on what you think the Bible would consider a christian like (a christian must believe in the trinity) when nowhere in the Bible does it say that. Remember, LDS believe in the the Bible but where we differ is on INTERPRETATION of those scripture.

As to the rest of your post about the apostasy and all that, this thread is not about the apostasy and that is an issue in and of itself that is a long discussion.

[master_mormon]

"We are unable to reconstruct with confidence precisely which lists of books were considered authoritative by Jesus and his earliest followers." ("Harper's Bible Dictionary", Paul J. Achtemeier, ed., Harper & Row, 1985, p. 111)

"While Christians who were concerned with defining a New Testament canon analogous to the Old Testament canon, they were in no position, at least in the first few centuries, to say exactly what was in it. The Old Testament canon during this time was more a process than an achievement." (Grant, R. M. "The Formation of the New Testament" New York: Harper and Row, 1965 p. 51)

To the early Christians "the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the `Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as `Scripture'.'' (Metzger, Bruce "The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin and Significance" (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) p. 72)

The facts are clear and are demonstrated by the different canons that where used by various christians over history. To say that the modern bible canon (66 books used by most protestants today) is the one true canon and that its complete and closed is false.

Justin Martyr (about 100-165 A.D.) used the 4 Gospels, Acts, Paul letters, Hebrews and 1 Peter. (see H. G[rady] D[avis], ``Biblical Literature,'' Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 1977 ed.)

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) was ``practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered.'' (F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1974), p. 303). Clement considered the 4 Gospels above all other writing but considered Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews as being canonical. He also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel. (see Bruce Metzger, ed., The New Oxford Study Bible (New York: Oxford Press, 1977), p. 190). He accepted 1 Peter, 1st and 2 John and Jude as scripture. He was the first accept these books (other than 1 Peter) as scripture. (Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Canon, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), p. 213, 294)

Origen (185-254 A.D) stated that the books acknowledged by the Church generally where the the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen Pauline epistle, I Peter, I John, and Revelation. Books disputed by some churches where while disputed 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, and Jude. (Bruce Metzger, ed., The New Oxford Study Bible (New York: Oxford Press, 1977), p. 192-193) Origin also used the word "scripture" in reference to Barnabas, Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas scripture in at least some places.

Eusebius of Caesares: a Church historian, [A.D. 270-330] canon had him accepting 4 gospels, Acts, all of Paul's letters, 1 John, 1 Peter and 1 Clement. He considered Revelation to be questionable and did not view Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John as being scripture or canonical. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.15; 6.25.10)

The Muratorian Canon from the end of the 2nd century included the 4 gospels, Acts, 13 Paul letters, 1st and 2nd John, Jude, and Revelation. It also included the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. It omitted 1 and 2 Peter, James, 3 John, and Hebrews. (See Hennecke, Schneemelcher, and Wilson, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963-66), 1:42-45)

The Cheltenham Canon (around 300 A.D.) included the Modern New Testament books except James and Jude. (See: Frederick C. Grant, the Union Theological Seminary, New York, -The American Encyclopedia, vol 3, p. 651)

Gregory of Nazianzus rejected Revelation in his fourth-century canon list (Revelations ratified in 692 by the Trullan Synod). He said in regards to his canon "You have all. If there is any besides these, it is not among the genuine .'' (see Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, p. 313)

Codex Sinaiticus (late 4th century) added Shepard of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas to the New Testament Canon. (see Frederick C. Grant, the Union Theological Seminary, New York, -The American Encyclopedia, vol 3, p. 652)

Clermont Canon (6th Century)--Old Testament books from Genesis to Tobit, the Gospels, the letters of Paul, except Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians, & Hebrews were not included. The Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, & the Revelation of Peter, however, were included. (see Frederick C. Grant, the Union Theological Seminary, New York, -The American Encyclopedia, vol.3, p. 651)

D or Codex Claromontanus omits Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews, but includes the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter. The manuscript itself is a product of the sixth century, but most scholars believe the canon list originated in the Alexandrian church in the fourth century. (See Hennecke, Schneemelcher, and Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha 1:45-46)

Ethiopian Canon New Testament included Hermas, 1 Clement and 2 Clement, the Apostolic Constitutions resulting in 38 books together for its New Testament. (A. Du Toit, "Canon: New Testament", in Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993. Also Charlesworth, OT Pseudepigrapha, v. 1, Introduction, p. 23-24) Old Testament canon included the books of the Septuagint, Jubilees, 4 Edras, Ethopic Enoch, the Rest of the Words of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah and other books.

Sahidic Canon included The Shepherd (of Hermas), 1 Clement, and the Acts of Paul. (see C. S. C. Williams. "The History of the Text and Canon of the New Testament to Jerome." Ch. 2, The Cambridge History of the Bible . Vol. 2. p. 52)

The Georgian and Armenian churches followed the Syrian churches in not accepting the book of Revelation until the tenth and twelfth centuries, respectively. The Abyssinian Orthodox church has in its canon the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament, but adds the Synodos and Qalementos (both attributed to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (which includes a post-resurrection discourse of the Savior), and the Ethiopic Didascalia. To the Old Testament the Abyssinian canon adds the book of Enoch (cited as prophetic by the canonical book of Jude) and the Ascension of Isaiah."
In regards to the Shepard of Hermas and its views by Christians in the 2nd century

"Evidently at Naples, the Shepherd won, at least for a time, its struggle to be received among the canonical books of the New Testament." (Robert Milburn "Early Christian Art and Architecture", 1988, Un. of Calif., Press, Berkeley and L.A., p. 55)

The Shepherd of Hermas "was the most popular of books in the Christian community, i. e., from the second to the fifth centuries." [b](John P. Lundy "Monumental Christianity", Pub., in N.Y., J W Bouton, 1876, p. 196)

"The Shepherd of Hermas was one of the most popular Christian texts in the first centuries of the church. True, it did not make it into the final cut; that is, it was not included in the New Testament. But it was considered canonical by the influential second century church father Irenaeus. Tertullian, another prominent church father of the next generation considered it scripture until his own theology changed and he disagreed with it. The third-century theologian and compiler of the Hexapla, Origen, highly revered it, as did many other Christian leaders." (Carolyn Osiek, "The Shepherd of Hermas: An Early Tale that Almost Made it into the New Testament," Bible Review 10/5 (October 1994): p. 49)

So what is the whole point that I am making. Given the fact that the early christians could accept books that are not found in the 66 book bible modern bible that most protestants use today and reject books that are found in the modern bible canon and still be considered christians then, then christians today could also do it. If Christians in the 2nd century could accept the shepherd of Hermas as scripture or being canonical and still be considered christians then Mormons can accept the Book of Mormon and still be considered christians. If Christians in the 2nd century where not bound to a 66 book canon, then christians today are not bound by a 66 book canon.

[Krusader]

Master Mormon: I suppose, theoretically, if we found additional early writings linked to the Apostles, it could be canonized by today's Christians. However, you can't compare that theory to what happened in Mormonism. The Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price are not linked to any Apostles, nor have they been proven authentic. No carbon dating has been done on the plates of Nephi - nor do those plates even exist (in this world) to provide any proof that the BOM was anything more than the creation of its author, Joseph Smith.

You are quite mistaken in believing that Christians believe that all revelation has ceased. I'd bet there is a great deal more "revelation" going on in an Assembly of God Church meeting than anything you'd ever experience in a Mormon chapel.

Remember this, MM - revelation must be in accordance with existing revelation. God does not contradict Himself. He does not reveal, for instance, that there is only One God, and then go on to give additional revelations supporting polytheism.

Mormon revelations just don't pass the test!

[master_mormon]

Master Mormon: I suppose, theoretically, if we found additional early writings linked to the Apostles, it could be canonized by today's Christians. However, you can't compare that theory to what happened in Mormonism. The Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price are not linked to any Apostles, nor have they been proven authentic. No carbon dating has been done on the plates of Nephi - nor do those plates even exist (in this world) to provide any proof that the BOM was anything more than the creation of its author, Joseph Smith.

You are quite mistaken in believing that Christians believe that all revelation has ceased. I'd bet there is a great deal more "revelation" going on in an Assembly of God Church meeting than anything you'd ever experience in a Mormon chapel.

Remember this, MM - revelation must be in accordance with existing revelation. God does not contradict Himself. He does not reveal, for instance, that there is only One God, and then go on to give additional revelations supporting polytheism.

Mormon revelations just don't pass the test!

1. "The Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price are not linked to any Apostles, nor have they been proven authentic" It is true that they are not written by the New Testament apostles but so what. There is no requirement that suggest that the only scripture that could or would ever be written came from the apostles from the New Testament. I don't know what you mean by "proven" authentic.

2. No carbon dating has been done on the plates of Nephi - nor do those plates even exist (in this world) to provide any proof that the BOM was anything more than the creation of its author, Joseph Smith. Many could say the same about the Bible texts. Atheists would have a field day with this one. They could easily say "Were are the tablets with the 10 commandments on them. Why should anyone accept the 10 commandments is true when we have not seen them let alone have had them carbon dated."

3. "You are quite mistaken in believing that Christians believe that all revelation has ceased. I'd bet there is a great deal more "revelation" going on in an Assembly of God Church meeting than anything you'd ever experience in a Mormon chapel." Hey then why don't they canonize some of it? Relying completely on revelations 2000 years or more ago and nothing new is like a military general relying on World War 2 intelligence and practices in fighting a modern war. Yes many things might apply today as they did 2000 years ago but not everything and new information is always a good thing.

Finally, LDS don't see any contradictions. Oh and by the way, Jews consider the Christian constucts of God to be a form of polytheism. Its all about perspective

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
FYI, let me inform you two of a little physics so your words aren't quite so scientifically ignorant.


CRUSADER:
No carbon dating has been done on the plates of Nephi - nor do those plates even exist (in this world) to provide any proof that the BOM was anything more than the creation of its author, Joseph Smith.

MASTER_MORMON:
They [atheists] could easily say "Were [where] are the tablets with the 10 commandments on them. Why should anyone accept the 10 commandments is true when we have not seen them let alone have had them carbon dated."


JOHN MORMON:
If the plates were made of gold then how would CARBON dating help? It wouldn't. What you should say, Crusader, is something like "No scientific dating has been done" and what you should say, Master_Mormon, is something like "let alone had them scientifically dated." Carbon dating is often useful for dating organic material that was once part of a living organism that has been dead for thousands to 10s of thousands of years because after the organism dies then the nitrogen-14 resulting from the radioactive decay of carbon-14 won't be replaced by the organism with carbon.

Carbon dating would not be expected to provide a date when the tablets of Moses or the plates of Nephi were fashioned into writing surfaces.

Perhaps there's some way that carbon dating could be used to determine when the scratches were made if the writing utensils had an organic component (which is doubtful) and some of the organic material was still stuck to the surface.

John Powell

[norwegen]

The facts are clear and are demonstrated by the different canons that where used by various christians over history. To say that the modern bible canon (66 books used by most protestants today) is the one true canon and that its complete and closed is false.I seem to be wasting my time on someone who consistently confuses such fundamental words as where and were, but I'll try again, using a different approach. Let's talk about you, master_mormon.

Dollars to donuts says that the canon you use in conjunction with the Mormon scriptures is either the Catholic, the Protestant, or some other closed canon which includes the Book of Revelation. Why do you, then, master_mormon, revere these mormon texts? The canon you use is a defined group of scriptures in a single collection; it's closed. You're intentionally violating your Bible.
So what is the whole point that I am making. Given the fact that the early christians could accept books that are not found in the 66 book bible modern bible that most protestants use today and reject books that are found in the modern bible canon and still be considered christians then, then christians today could also do it. If Christians in the 2nd century could accept the shepherd of Hermas as scripture or being canonical and still be considered christians then Mormons can accept the Book of Mormon and still be considered christians. If Christians in the 2nd century where not bound to a 66 book canon, then christians today are not bound by a 66 book canon.Again, adding scripture to most of those canons you listed is contrary to that scripture, as well as to the body that canonized it.

LakeGeorgeMan's scriptures may not be so humorous, then; he might as well compile his little tidbits into a book of scripture and call himself a Christian (wouldn't that be ironic?).

[master_mormon]

JOHN MORMON:
FYI, let me inform you two of a little physics so your words aren't quite so scientifically ignorant.



JOHN MORMON:
If the plates were made of gold then how would CARBON dating help? It wouldn't. What you should say, Crusader, is something like "No scientific dating has been done" and what you should say, Master_Mormon, is something like "let alone had them scientifically dated." Carbon dating is often useful for dating organic material that was once part of a living organism that has been dead for thousands to 10s of thousands of years because after the organism dies then the nitrogen-14 resulting from the radioactive decay of carbon-14 won't be replaced by the organism with carbon.

Carbon dating would not be expected to provide a date when the tablets of Moses or the plates of Nephi were fashioned into writing surfaces.

Perhaps there's some way that carbon dating could be used to determine when the scratches were made if the writing utensils had an organic component (which is doubtful) and some of the organic material was still stuck to the surface.

John Powell

Very true. But even if carbon dating could be done in it it still was a silly arguement so I approached it from that angle. The general consensus that I have found is the plates where not made up pure gold. Joseph and others described it as having the appearance of gold but they never had it analyzed for its specific content. The plates where most likely an alloy of some sort.

Frankly if people in Jesus day saw him perform miracles and that did not convince them, seeing the plates today by people would not convince them. Especially since it would be in a text that could not be read as we don't know the Nephite language.

[PaulT]

Master_Mormon,



Frankly if people in Jesus day saw him perform miracles and that did not convince them, seeing the plates today by people would not convince them. Especially since it would be in a text that could not be read as we don't know the Nephite language.

Why do you presuppose a "seer" stone would not be provided as well?

Paul

[master_mormon]

Master_Mormon,



Why do you presuppose a "seer" stone would not be provided as well?

Paul

What good would it do? My I remind you of the issues that Oliver Cowdery had in his attempt to translate the plates. Why should God even bother with this matter. All God has to do is send angels down or come down himself and tell everyone the Book of Mormon is correct. God will try the faith of his people. We receive our witness after the trial of our faith. I am reminded what Jesus said to doubting Thomas after the resurrection. Thomas would not believe until he had proof. Jesus told him that those who did not require the proof where the ones that where blessed. Yes God could give the world all the proof it needed to know the Book of Mormon is true but it would come at a price. That being the world would be denied many blessings, including eternal ones, that those who did not require that proof but still believed will be entitled to. There is a price that one must pay when one will believe only when they are compelled to believe.

[PaulT]

Hello Master_Mormon,




What good would it do? My I remind you of the issues that Oliver Cowdery had in his attempt to translate the plates.



No, I wasn’t aware there was an issue, I thought the use of a “seer” stone was a fairly common practice in Smith’s day, why else would he suggest everyone should have one? What was the issue with Oliver?




All God has to do is send angels down or come down himself and tell everyone the Book of Mormon is correct. God will try the faith of his people. We receive our witness after the trial of our faith. I am reminded what Jesus said to doubting Thomas after the resurrection. Thomas would not believe until he had proof. Jesus told him that those who did not require the proof where the ones that where blessed. Yes God could give the world all the proof it needed to know the Book of Mormon is true but it would come at a price. That being the world would be denied many blessings, including eternal ones, that those who did not require that proof but still believed will be entitled to. There is a price that one must pay when one will believe only when they are compelled to believe.



Bud, what has this to do with plates written in “Nephite” language. Wouldn’t it make sense if somehow miraculously the plates materialized then as in Smith’s day a “seer” stone as well would appear enabling the translation? I think the only issue would be if the new stone had the same imperfections as the old one Smith used requiring so many corrections after the fact.



Paul

[master_mormon]

Hello Master_Mormon,

No, I wasn’t aware there was an issue, I thought the use of a “seer” stone was a fairly common practice in Smith’s day, why else would he suggest everyone should have one? What was the issue with Oliver?





Bud, what has this to do with plates written in “Nephite” language. Wouldn’t it make sense if somehow miraculously the plates materialized then as in Smith’s day a “seer” stone as well would appear enabling the translation? I think the only issue would be if the new stone had the same imperfections as the old one Smith used requiring so many corrections after the fact.



Paul


To be frank i have not looked at Joseph reference. My bet is that he probably was referring to the the white stones that the righteous will receive when they enter heaven. Those white stones have to have some purpose and not some decorative item and I am sure they are not given for the purpose to throw at things.

Anyways the point was that the plates where written in the Nephite language. So even if we had the plates nobody today would be able to translate them. So what purpose would it be that we have them? ONe also has to remember that the plates also came with a sealed portion that Joseph Smith was not allowed to translate let alone unseal. I personally believe that the sealed book in Revelation in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. Which if correct is another reason why we don't have the plates. Only Jesus himself is allowed to break those seals. Anyway we have what we have. I don't require to see the plates and thus will receive the blessing for beliving without being compelled to believe.

[PaulT]

Hello Master_Mormon,



Thank you for your response,




To be frank i have not looked at Joseph reference. My bet is that he probably was referring to the the white stones that the righteous will receive when they enter heaven. Those white stones have to have some purpose and not some decorative item and I am sure they are not given for the purpose to throw at things.





I appreciate your honesty, but I don’t believe Smith’s seer stone was white, or opaque. From what I gather, it was clear in nature, enabling him to read the converted text of the “gold” like plates. Apparently these “seer” stones were popular in Smith’s day for use in attempting to locate buried treasure.



The way I understand the accounts is that Smith would place the “seer” stone on top of the text of the plate and the English version would appear within the stone. The stone would not be moved to the next text until the correct rendition as appearing in the stone was written down for posterity. It doesn’t seem to make sense that “white” stones would suffice for this sort of activity. Please let me know if I am mischaracterizing the original process Smith employed.



What text are deriving your understanding that the righteous will be given stones when the get to heaven?






Anyways the point was that the plates where written in the Nephite language. So even if we had the plates nobody today would be able to translate them. So what purpose would it be that we have them?



Presumably for the very same purpose Smith’s god gave them to him.






Anyways the point was that the plates where written in the Nephite language. So even if we had the plates nobody today would be able to translate them. So what purpose would it be that we have them? ONe also has to remember that the plates also came with a sealed portion that Joseph Smith was not allowed to translate let alone unseal. I personally believe that the sealed book in Revelation in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. Which if correct is another reason why we don't have the plates. Only Jesus himself is allowed to break those seals. Anyway we have what we have. I don't require to see the plates and thus will receive the blessing for beliving without being compelled to believe.



Assuming your personal belief is wrong, perhaps a “New” prophet would be allowed to open the sealed book, wouldn’t he need the “seer” stone to decipher the text in a similar manner as Smith?



Paul

[abrobins]

Assuming your personal belief is wrong, perhaps a “New” prophet would be allowed to open the sealed book, wouldn’t he need the “seer” stone to decipher the text in a similar manner as Smith?

Paul

After working at the Kirtland Temple Historic Center this last summer and seeing the original transcripts (not the plates, but the printer's copy, vol. I and II) of the Book of Mormon, it may be possible to translate part of the Book of Mormon if it was found today. I seem to recall a section with the "characters" of the BoM. But, as was stated earlier and will seem to always hold true...(sig)

[PaulT]

Abrobins,




After working at the Kirtland Temple Historic Center this last summer and seeing the original transcripts (not the plates, but the printer's copy, vol. I and II) of the Book of Mormon, it may be possible to translate part of the Book of Mormon if it was found today. I seem to recall a section with the "characters" of the BoM. But, as was stated earlier and will seem to always hold true...(sig)



What would seem to always hold?

[master_mormon]

Hello Master_Mormon,



Assuming your personal belief is wrong, perhaps a “New” prophet would be allowed to open the sealed book, wouldn’t he need the “seer” stone to decipher the text in a similar manner as Smith?



Paul

Oh they could be wrong. There will come a time when the seal portion will be revealed or translated. How knows if it will be translated by a seer stone, the Urim and Thummin or some other means. I don't really care about the means of translation. The end product is all I care about

[Justhemessenger]

Maybe to clarify one or two things. I've read through the entire thread and there are a lot of definitions flying around. People say that to follow Christ is to be a Christian or, to follow Jesus is to be a Christian. Well, which Jesus is it? Jesus Himself said that there would be other Christ's and not to follow them. Paul admonishes us that if we are to recieve another gospel from him, an angel or anyone that they are to be accursed. This shows at least two things.

1. That a distinct and specific meaning was in the minds of the apostles and other believers of who and what Jesus was.

2. If anyone promoted a belief contrary to that, then they were anathama, accursed, not simply coming from another context or perspective.

LDS, JW's and mainline Christians/Catholics/Protestants all believe in Jesus. My question is which one? Because they are all different. If we are wrong on this question, then there are eternal consequenses. Lets take a quick look.

LDS: Jesus is one God of many Gods, the spirit brother of Lucifer. God was a man like you and me and became god. (please correct me if i'm wrong)

JW's: Jesus is 'a' god, not equal to God the Father and also Michael the arch angel.

Catholic/Protestant- Jesus: is the 2nd person of the trinity, God the Son, fully God and fully man, born of the virgin Mary, died on a cross and resurrected after 3 days.

I lump these two in one because while there are varying theologies, the essentials are there. This isn't exhaustive so I won't go into the particular items that make each one different. The main thing is that Catholics and Protestants all believe what I listed above.

These are quite different definitions and is not an either or arguement. There is one Jesus and many counterfeits. The Jesus of the bible is the 2nd person of a triune God which, refers to His eternal and immutable nature. Since this is His nature, to refer to Jesus as anything else is to take away from His nature and make Him something that He is not. Once this is accomplished you cease to have the Jesus of the Bible...hence, a different Jesus.

[PaulT]

Hello Justhemessenger,






There is one Jesus and many counterfeits. The Jesus of the bible is the 2nd person of a triune God which, refers to His eternal and immutable nature. Since this is His nature, to refer to Jesus as anything else is to take away from His nature and make Him something that He is not. Once this is accomplished you cease to have the Jesus of the Bible...hence, a different Jesus.



Well said…..



In Christ,

Paul

[A.AngelAnthony]

mormons are not Christians.