"Are Mormons Christians" by Stephen Robinson

[Bill the Cat]

Having read a portion of the book, I found this paragraph telling of the level of misunderstanding on Robinson's part...

Yet even among conservative Protestants the doctrine of deification is still occasionally found. Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network says: "I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I'm in covenant relation. I am a little god. Critics begone." Robert Tilton, a Texas evangelist, says that man is "a God kind of creature. Originally you were designed to be as a god in this world. Man was designed or created by God to be the god of this world.'' Kenneth Copeland, also of Texas, tells his listeners, "You don't have a god in you. You are one!" He writes that "man had total authority to rule as a god over every living creature on earth."

Crouch, Tilton, and Copeland?? :ahem: Surely Robinson can't be that ignorant of the "terrible three's" heresies, can he?

[Rayado]

Yeah, I don't think we got that memo.

[The Plain Jane]

What a horrible misrepensation!

[Piebald]

I am a little god. Critics begone.


*Bursts into flames*

[Jin-Roh]

*Bursts into flames*
:lol:
That's some serious ignorance on Robinson's part.

[Philosophickle]

TBNites are conservative Protestants?

[Jin-Roh]

TBNites are conservative Protestants?
No.

[The Plain Jane]

TBNites are conservative Protestants?
Certainly not!

[Trout]

Greetings Bill, Elder Trout here:

I'm not suprised you don't agree with those quotes Bill, most modern Christians don't. But that wasn't always the case, there are many passages in the Bible that would indicate that Copeland and Crouch are correct.

The Bible tells us that God is the father of our spirits. "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits, and live?" More than this, the Bible tells us we are the offspring of our Heavenly Father. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." Our physical bodies are the offspring of our mortal parents, and God is the Father of our spirits. Therefore, our spirits are the offspring of God in the very same sense that our bodies are the offspring of our earthly parents. The book of Acts goes on to tell us that since we are the offspring of God, God must be some type of being which we are similar to.

Then there are the very words of Christ in John 10:

Jesus answered them. Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods'! If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So it seems Copeland and Crouch aren't that far off the mark after all.

[Jin-Roh]

Trout, I believe this is the second time I"ve seen you play devil's advocate. Are there no LDS here who would speak for themselves?

[The Plain Jane]

Trout, I believe this is the second time I"ve seen you play devil's advocate. Are there no LDS here who would speak for themselves?

:rofl:

[Bill the Cat]

Greetings Bill, Elder Trout here:

I'm not suprised you don't agree with those quotes Bill, most modern Christians don't. But that wasn't always the case, there are many passages in the Bible that would indicate that Copeland and Crouch are correct.

The Bible tells us that God is the father of our spirits. "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits, and live?" More than this, the Bible tells us we are the offspring of our Heavenly Father. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." Our physical bodies are the offspring of our mortal parents, and God is the Father of our spirits. Therefore, our spirits are the offspring of God in the very same sense that our bodies are the offspring of our earthly parents. The book of Acts goes on to tell us that since we are the offspring of God, God must be some type of being which we are similar to.

Then there are the very words of Christ in John 10:

Jesus answered them. Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods'! If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So it seems Copeland and Crouch aren't that far off the mark after all.

I'll spank this tomorrow... but good to see you back Trout!

[Trout]

I'll spank this tomorrow... but good to see you back Trout!

Greetings there Bill, Elder Trout here,

I'd suggest that you cut down your coffee intake now, because when you want to join the LDS church you'll have to quit cold-turkey.

Just a thought.

[Bill the Cat]

Greetings there Bill, Elder Trout here,

I'd suggest that you cut down your coffee intake now, because when you want to join the LDS church you'll have to quit cold-turkey.

Just a thought.
Coffee is one of the most disgusting things EVER!! :yack:

[The Plain Jane]

Coffee is one of the most disgusting things EVER!! :yack:

Quite the contrary, it is a most excellent beverage.

[Jin-Roh]

I'm actually kinda frustrated that I haven't gone a day without coffee for the last couple of weeks. Stupid college. I don't want to have an ulcer in addition to student loans when I get out.

[Bill the Cat]

Greetings Bill, Elder Trout here:

Outer darkness must have been interesting... you have gerbil hair on your name tag... :hrm:



I'm not suprised you don't agree with those quotes Bill, most modern Christians don't. But that wasn't always the case, there are many passages in the Bible that would indicate that Copeland and Crouch are correct.

Not when taken contextually.


The Bible tells us that God is the father of our spirits.

Which He is because He created them. Just as He breathed into Adam's nostrils. He created it from nothing.


"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits, and live?"

Sure... God created them, thus He is the Father of all spirits.


More than this, the Bible tells us we are the offspring of our Heavenly Father. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." Our physical bodies are the offspring of our mortal parents, and God is the Father of our spirits. Therefore, our spirits are the offspring of God in the very same sense that our bodies are the offspring of our earthly parents.

Sorry, that is a logical fallacy of vague similarities. It also doesn't help you at all. FIrst of all, like begets like. Mormons believe God the Father has a body of flesh and bone, thus would produce a child of flesh and bone. Additionally, the natural mother and father produce a child with flesh and bone, so everyone has two bodies of flesh and bone if the Mormon view is consistent.

God is the Father of our Spirits in that He generated it. It proceeded forth from a creative act, as explained in the only passage in the Bible where it is clearly stated


Genesis 2:7
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


Notice God didn't squash a "heavenly body of flesh and bone" into the molded man. It is the breath of life, the spirit of life that makes one's body alive, and that came from the breath of God, a creative act. No one other than Jesus is ever said to have come from heaven into the world.


The book of Acts goes on to tell us that since we are the offspring of God, God must be some type of being which we are similar to.

No it doesn't. The Bible is clear that we are the creatures and He is the creator and never the twain shall meet. We are a created being of flesh and blood infused with a spirit, the breath of life. He is not a man, never was.


Then there are the very words of Christ in John 10:

Jesus answered them. Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods'! If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


This in no way supports Mormon deification, as Jesus said "ye ARE gods" not ye will BECOME gods". There is Biblical precedent for calling human judges "gods" (Exodus 22:8, 9; Judges 5:8,9). The judges were "gods" in the sense that the "word of God came" to them as a Divine commission to perform a duty on earth that ultimately belongs only to God. The judges, then, parallel Jesus - though to a lesser degree; for He received a Divine commission par excellence and every work He does is that of the Father


So it seems Copeland and Crouch aren't that far off the mark after all.

Oh, they most certainly are. All are nuts... with salt and all.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Greetings Bill, Elder Trout here:

I'm not suprised you don't agree with those quotes Bill, most modern Christians don't. But that wasn't always the case, there are many passages in the Bible that would indicate that Copeland and Crouch are correct.

I think I'll jump in here elder Trout and see what I can say.


The Bible tells us that God is the father of our spirits. "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits, and live?"

hmmmm. But does not Hebrews 1 tell us what the spirits refer to? It has referred to angels. Man is seen as both having flesh and having a soul in Scripture.


More than this, the Bible tells us we are the offspring of our Heavenly Father. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

You see, this is where I think eisegesis is taking place. All Paul is affirming at that point is that there is one God who is the creator of all things. He's not setting forth a doctrine of man. In fact, we'd have a problem if we compare this with John 8:44 where some Jews are told "You are of your father the devil." Are we to say God is the devil then?


Our physical bodies are the offspring of our mortal parents, and God is the Father of our spirits.

hmmmm? So how do our souls get to be sinful then? Do sinful souls reside in the presence of the Father?


Therefore, our spirits are the offspring of God in the very same sense that our bodies are the offspring of our earthly parents. The book of Acts goes on to tell us that since we are the offspring of God, God must be some type of being which we are similar to.

This would be the analogy of intrinsic attribution. An apple is called healthy not because it's healthy in itself but because it produces health. Hot air makes clay hard though hot air is not hard in itself. That is extrinsic attribution. Intrinsic is where something passes on in what follows it that which resides in its nature.

So we are like God in that sense, but as Chesterton said, as soon as you admit something is like or similar to something else, you admit its different, seeing as God is infinite and an infinite cannot be transversed. I would also say that if we say God is like us entirely, we are speaking univocally of God or equivocally of God. We can only speak analogically of God vis a vis Thomas Aquinas.


Then there are the very words of Christ in John 10:

Jesus answered them. Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods'! If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So it seems Copeland and Crouch aren't that far off the mark after all.

Actually, Jesus pointed to a mocking psalm in which the judges at that time are said to be gods, not that they will become gods. Yet he says that they will die like mere men for their wickedness in judging falsely, and he, who judges rightly, is the sanctified one sent into the world.

Look forward to the dialogue Elder Trout.

[just Johnna]

Having read a portion of the book, I found this paragraph telling of the level of misunderstanding on Robinson's part...

Yet even among conservative Protestants the doctrine of deification is still occasionally found. Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network says: "I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I'm in covenant relation. I am a little god. Critics begone." Robert Tilton, a Texas evangelist, says that man is "a God kind of creature. Originally you were designed to be as a god in this world. Man was designed or created by God to be the god of this world.'' Kenneth Copeland, also of Texas, tells his listeners, "You don't have a god in you. You are one!" He writes that "man had total authority to rule as a god over every living creature on earth."

Crouch, Tilton, and Copeland?? :ahem: Surely Robinson can't be that ignorant of the "terrible three's" heresies, can he?

It's not fair. Trout can be Elder Trout, but I can't have a silly debater persona, because I'm already mormon.

Hasn't Elder Trout been around TWeb at all? His counter should have been:

Oh, are Crouch, Tilton and Copeland not Christian then? Is the Trinity Broadcasting Network a nonChristian organization? Is there some problem with Christianity in Texas?

And that's why I can't debate seriously.

I don't have Stephen Robinson's book, but I will tell you this. I used to see people like Bennie Hine on t.v. and think that was what other people heard in church every week. Your christianity looks very unpasteurized out there. Why would I leave the pure doctrine of Christ, to gamble with what's out there in nonMormon Christianity? I know what teaching will be served in my church, wherever saints gather anywhere in the world, just like I know what food will be served at a chain restaurant like Olive Garden.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

It's not fair. Trout can be Elder Trout, but I can't have a silly debater persona, because I'm already mormon.

Hasn't Elder Trout been around TWeb at all? His counter should have been:



And that's why I can't debate seriously.

These people claim Christianity, but their statements are outside of Christianity. When you want to see what Christianity teaches, let me make a suggestion. TO THE SOURCES! Go look at Scripture first and see what is taught. Then, it is valid to go to authorities that are recognized by the majority at least in the field as authoritative. Just because someone has a TV show does not mean they are an authority.


I don't have Stephen Robinson's book, but I will tell you this. I used to see people like Bennie Hine on t.v. and think that was what other people heard in church every week. Your christianity looks very unpasteurized out there. Why would I leave the pure doctrine of Christ, to gamble with what's out there in nonMormon Christianity? I know what teaching will be served in my church, wherever saints gather anywhere in the world, just like I know what food will be served at a chain restaurant like Olive Garden.

But is it what is heard in the church every week? Now I have a couple of questions regarding your claims here.

First off, you speak of nonMormon Christianity. Are you stating at this point that we worship the same God? The Mormon doctrine is that God has not eternally been God but "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." How can we have different sects of the same religion when we entirely worship a different God?

Secondly, you may know what is being taught in your church, but that is not the relevant question. The question is, what is true? If that which is outside of Mormonism is true, is it not worth checking out?

[Bill the Cat]

It's not fair. Trout can be Elder Trout, but I can't have a silly debater persona, because I'm already mormon.

I am already a silly debate persona, so :nsm:

:teeth:


Hasn't Elder Trout been around TWeb at all? His counter should have been:

Oh, are Crouch, Tilton and Copeland not Christian then?

No. They are heretics


Is the Trinity Broadcasting Network a nonChristian organization?

It is a Prosperity Gospel proponent, so no.


Is there some problem with Christianity in Texas?[/COLOR]

No, just in those churches.


And that's why I can't debate seriously.

And why I can... I, like Paul, have no problem dropping names and calling out false teachings.


I don't have Stephen Robinson's book, but I will tell you this. I used to see people like Bennie Hine on t.v. and think that was what other people heard in church every week.

That is common, unfortunately. The Crouches, Tilton, Bennie Hinn, T.D. Jakes Creflo Dollar, and others like them have made a name for themselves at the expense of proper doctrine. They do not represent traditional Christianity. They teach things that the Apostle Paul would have exposed, and so we must. But unfortunately, most American Christians are too ignorant of theology to be able to see a false doctrine.


Your christianity looks very unpasteurized out there.

Again, unfortunate. That is why we must be careful as to who we follow and who we listen to. Complacency will lead to all manner of false teachings.


Why would I leave the pure doctrine of Christ,

Because, unfortunately, you don't have it. The pure doctrine of Christ is laid out in the Bible and the Early Church.


to gamble with what's out there in nonMormon Christianity?

Because you should seek the true Gospel. Discern what is true and what is not and follow the truth. Learn the truth and accept that God did not let His church fail - ever.


I know what teaching will be served in my church, wherever saints gather anywhere in the world, just like I know what food will be served at a chain restaurant like Olive Garden.

I know a chef at the Olive Garden. I was horrified at the stories he told me about things that happened in the kitchen that were unseen by the customer. And I'm a military cook... Consistent doctrine does not mean that it is correct, just consistent.

[Jin-Roh]

I don't have Stephen Robinson's book, but I will tell you this. I used to see people like Bennie Hine on t.v. and think that was what other people heard in church every week. Your christianity looks very unpasteurized out there. Why would I leave the pure doctrine of Christ, to gamble with what's out there in nonMormon Christianity? I know what teaching will be served in my church, wherever saints gather anywhere in the world, just like I know what food will be served at a chain restaurant like Olive Garden.

Johnna, most of us know what to expect when we go to one church or another and have no problem avoiding the TBN types. For instance, I know what to expect when I walk into several types of Churchs. If I go to church that is part of the Evangellical Lutheran Church of America, I know what to expect. Likewise, if I go to a Catholic Church I know what to expect. The same goes with Baptists, Calvary Chapels, and pretty much anything else.

You seem to think that being nonMormon means going to a church and getting some random, unpredictable, theology. This isn't the case since Christians have generally banded around similiar approaches to scripture, worship, polity etc. There is no "gambling" when it comes to attending Churches as outside the LDS world.

[just Johnna]

But is it what is heard in the church every week? Now I have a couple of questions regarding your claims here.

First off, you speak of nonMormon Christianity. Are you stating at this point that we worship the same God?Yes. However, I think your understanding of God is a bit off.

What God do you think Jewish people worship? Same or different than yours?

When you say I'm not Christian, I only think you're being ridiculous. I think you're taking a rhetorical pose. I'm not claiming communion with you when I say I'm Christian. You don't want me to worship Jesus Christ the way I do.


The Mormon doctrine is that God has not eternally been God... A better aimed complaint would be: Why is it that some mormons believe God has not eternally been God?
...but "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."You seem so sweet and naive to me, that you have no idea of the many ways that couplet has been understood.
How can we have different sects of the same religion when we entirely worship a different God?Different sects or not, I'm not willing to give up calling myself Christian. I love to read the Bible because I love Jesus Christ and I identify with the people who love him there.


Secondly, you may know what is being taught in your church, but that is not the relevant question. The question is, what is true? If that which is outside of Mormonism is true, is it not worth checking out?You have caught me being snarky. Of course truth value trumps predictability or consistency.

[just Johnna]

I am already a silly debate persona, so :nsm:

:teeth:
Too-shay! :bow:




Because you should seek the true Gospel. Discern what is true and what is not and follow the truth. Learn the truth and accept that God did not let His church fail - ever.

Or did he? Because the one thing I know is that, what happens when me and my people gather to worship and follow God, he is there. He is there, BtC. And he is there when I'm grumpy and not expecting it. So, why is that? Why would I leave that? Why would I mess with that at all?

The Apostasy, I don't understand.


I know a chef at the Olive Garden. I was horrified at the stories he told me about things that happened in the kitchen that were unseen by the customer. And I'm a military cook... Consistent doctrine does not mean that it is correct, just consistent.Yeah, and the things I learned working for a ski hill caterer one year. irl I'm a food snob and have successfully avoided Olive Garden and Pizza Hut et alii. for years.

There's this Lutheran church which provides free space where my daughter goes to Preschool. In the last year or two, I feel a certain attraction to that Lutheran congregation. Years ago my husband wanted to go to Jazz Mass there, but I shot it down because (or shot down my going with him, and surprisingly he didn't just go on himself) because, uh--where would our children be? Because I certainly wasn't going to take them along. What, instead of real church? After real church? And I wasn't familiar with the place or any of the people then. Anyhow, recently they got a new pastor, which I believe is what led to the fact their service on local access cable t.v., a couple weeks ago, and I saw it, and it just seemed all so well-intended and wrong and nothing more than that, I felt somehow shot down and betrayed. I don't know what exactly I was expecting.

And I can't just go play musical church. It's not a game.

[just Johnna]

Johnna, most of us know what to expect when we go to one church or another and have no problem avoiding the TBN types. For instance, I know what to expect when I walk into several types of Churchs. If I go to church that is part of the Evangellical Lutheran Church of America, I know what to expect. Likewise, if I go to a Catholic Church I know what to expect. The same goes with Baptists, Calvary Chapels, and pretty much anything else.

You seem to think that being nonMormon means going to a church and getting some random, unpredictable, theology. This isn't the case since Christians have generally banded around similiar approaches to scripture, worship, polity etc. There is no "gambling" when it comes to attending Churches as outside the LDS world.
I could be mean and pretend to misunderstand you. I would say: "Similar approaches to scripture--like whether or not bless homosexual unions? worship--like whether or not musical instruments are allowed? Women speaking? Dancing? polity--run by ordained-for-life celibate priesthood or not?"

But I was actually trying to convey something quite specific. I'm not sure I can put it in words.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yes. However, I think your understanding of God is a bit off.

How far off? Am I a non-Christian?


What God do you think Jewish people worship? Same or different than yours?

They worship a monad. I don't. That's not a tiny difference. They have not accepted the revelation revealed in Christ.


When you say I'm not Christian, I only think you're being ridiculous. I think you're taking a rhetorical pose. I'm not claiming communion with you when I say I'm Christian. You don't want me to worship Jesus Christ the way I do.

psssh. This isn't about worship styles. This is about the god who is being worshipped. If we do not worship the same god, then we cannot be of the same faith.


A better aimed complaint would be: Why is it that some mormons believe God has not eternally been God? You seem so sweet and naive to me, that you have no idea of the many ways that couplet has been understood. Different sects or not, I'm not willing to give up calling myself Christian. I love to read the Bible because I love Jesus Christ and I identify with the people who love him there.

How that couplet has been understood is irrelevant to its meaning. What is relevant is how Lorenzo Snow took it to be. Do you see the doctrine of eternal progression in the early writings of Mormonism?

Let us look at some quotes of Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man.... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see. ...He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did..." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305-306).

And from Bruce McConkie

"God is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme." (Mormon doctrine,p.250)

Are they both wrong?


You have caught me being snarky. Of course truth value trumps predictability or consistency.

Then pursue it first.

[just Johnna]

They worship a monad. I don't. That's not a tiny difference. They have not accepted the revelation revealed in Christ.I believe God the Father has a body like God the Son has a body. You don't. That's not a tiny difference. However, I believe that practicing Jews, and you, and me, are worshipping the same God.


How that couplet has been understood is irrelevant to its meaning. What is relevant is how Lorenzo Snow took it to be. Do you see the doctrine of eternal progression in the early writings of Mormonism?

Let us look at some quotes of Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man.... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see. ...He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did..." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305-306).Yes, dwelt on an earth, same as Jesus Christ. Who was God before the world was created, before he took on flesh.


And from Bruce McConkie

"God is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme." (Mormon doctrine,p.250)
Yes, an exalted man who has always been God.

btw, like many practicing Mormon, I've had no reason to bother to have any books by McConkie in my house. So, you're quoting something that I don't use for clarification or guidance in my life.

And, you left out a better source. Pearl of Great Price gives ones of God's titles as "Man of Holiness."


Are they both wrong?

They're both right.

whoops, now my kids are late for school

[Bill the Cat]

Too-shay! :bow:

I aims ta' please!





Or did he?

The Bible says He did, so I am confident that He said that the gates of hades would not prevail against His Church. He takes care of His Bride as He always has.


Because the one thing I know is that, what happens when me and my people gather to worship and follow God, he is there. He is there, BtC. And he is there when I'm grumpy and not expecting it. So, why is that? Why would I leave that? Why would I mess with that at all?

Unfortunately, Muslims say that, Christians say that, Jehovah's Witnesses say that, Gnostics said that, Branch Davidians said that... so is God with all of them? I look for doctrinal truth when I look for a church. The few times I have left were because of gross doctrinal error, outright unrepented sin, and a few personal reasons too complicated for discussion.



The Apostasy, I don't understand.


Why do you think that there was an Apostasy at all? Is it because it is necessary in order to justify the "restoration" by Joseph?



Yeah, and the things I learned working for a ski hill caterer one year. irl I'm a food snob and have successfully avoided Olive Garden and Pizza Hut et alii. for years.

Yup. Being a cook, I see all kinds of grossness. I try to stop them, but not all places follow the code I do. I usually avoid eating out as a result.


There's this Lutheran church which provides free space where my daughter goes to Preschool. In the last year or two, I feel a certain attraction to that Lutheran congregation. Years ago my husband wanted to go to Jazz Mass there, but I shot it down because (or shot down my going with him, and surprisingly he didn't just go on himself) because, uh--where would our children be? Because I certainly wasn't going to take them along. What, instead of real church? After real church? And I wasn't familiar with the place or any of the people then. Anyhow, recently they got a new pastor, which I believe is what led to the fact their service on local access cable t.v., a couple weeks ago, and I saw it, and it just seemed all so well-intended and wrong and nothing more than that, I felt somehow shot down and betrayed. I don't know what exactly I was expecting.

And I can't just go play musical church. It's not a game.

True. But without experiencing the doctrines espoused, there is no real way to judge what church to attend from a charismatic's standpoint. I have attended 5 churches in 15 years, and my reasons above for leaving them. I am finally at a sound church. There are some minor issues, but we are addressing these now that I have the Pastor's ear and he knows that I am not trying to be divisive. Again, a consistent doctrine does not mean that the doctrines are correct.

P.S. I thought you were a college kid for some reason... :nsm:

Great talking to you again!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I believe God the Father has a body like God the Son has a body. You don't. That's not a tiny difference. However, I believe that practicing Jews, and you, and me, are worshipping the same God.

Oh my. If we were worshipping the same God, would not that God be identical? Your God is not identical to mine. I would say that the Son has a body but the Son is not a body. There is a difference. The Son is bodliess by nature just like God is. In fact, I believe there are a number of philosophical problems with making God material and placing him entirely within time.


Yes, dwelt on an earth, same as Jesus Christ. Who was God before the world was created, before he took on flesh.

Could you give me a time reference? If he was on Earth the same as Christ before the world was created, then we should have seen a time when God the Father was on this Earth prior to the incarnation of Christ. When was this?



Yes, an exalted man who has always been God.

Very well. Who exalted him?


btw, like many practicing Mormon, I've had no reason to bother to have any books by McConkie in my house. So, you're quoting something that I don't use for clarification or guidance in my life.

Very well. I just figured an apostle had authority.


And, you left out a better source. Pearl of Great Price gives ones of God's titles as "Man of Holiness."

Thank you.




They're both right.

whoops, now my kids are late for school

Then how could I be misunderstanding the Lorenzo Snow couplet?

[Trout]

Sister Johnna! Elder Trout here.

Very nice to see you.

I appreciate your input, these Evangelicals are a real pill sometimes.

Bill and Nick, the Bible clearly says that there are many Gods. But because you have your pet doctrines to protect, you have to contour the text of scripture to fit your misconceptions. Here's a few examples, I've cited them before but I think this is a good spot to re-state them:

Genesis 1:26
And God said, let us make man in our image.

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

Genesis 11:7
Let us go down, and there confound their language.

Exodus 12:12
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.

Exodus 15:11
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?

Exodus 18:11
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.

Exodus 20:3, 5
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

Exodus 22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 22:28
Thou shalt not revile the gods.

Exodus 23:13
Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

Exodus 23:24
Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

Exodus 23:32
Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.

Exodus 34:14
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 6:14-15
Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords.

Numbers 33:4
Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments.

Joshua 24:14
Fear the Lord ... and put away the gods which your fathers served.

Judges 11:24
Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?

1 Samuel 6:5
Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods.

1 Samuel 28:13
And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:25
The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 82:1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods.

Psalm 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods.

Psalm 86:8
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord.

Psalm 96:4
For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 97:7
Worship him, all ye gods.

Psalm 136:2
O give thanks unto the God of gods.

Jeremiah 1:16
I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods.

Jeremiah 10:11
The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

Jeremiah 25:6
And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.

Zephaniah 2:11
The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth.

John 10:33-34
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Now as far as deification goes, it's clearly an idea taught by the early church, as Athanasius summarized, "God was made man that we might be made God" (On the Incarnation of the Logos 54).

So while you seek to relegate deification to the scrap heap, you do so in clear violation of scripture and the teachings of some early church fathers.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Sister Johnna! Elder Trout here.

Very nice to see you.

I appreciate your input, these Evangelicals are a real pill sometimes.

Bill and Nick, the Bible clearly says that there are many Gods. But because you have your pet doctrines to protect, you have to contour the text of scripture to fit your misconceptions. Here's a few examples, I've cited them before but I think this is a good spot to re-state them:

Genesis 1:26
And God said, let us make man in our image.

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

Genesis 11:7
Let us go down, and there confound their language.

Exodus 12:12
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.

Exodus 15:11
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?

Exodus 18:11
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.

Exodus 20:3, 5
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

Exodus 22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 22:28
Thou shalt not revile the gods.

Exodus 23:13
Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

Exodus 23:24
Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

Exodus 23:32
Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.

Exodus 34:14
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 6:14-15
Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords.

Numbers 33:4
Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments.

Joshua 24:14
Fear the Lord ... and put away the gods which your fathers served.

Judges 11:24
Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?

1 Samuel 6:5
Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods.

1 Samuel 28:13
And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:25
The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 82:1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods.

Psalm 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods.

Psalm 86:8
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord.

Psalm 96:4
For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 97:7
Worship him, all ye gods.

Psalm 136:2
O give thanks unto the God of gods.

Jeremiah 1:16
I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods.

Jeremiah 10:11
The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

Jeremiah 25:6
And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.

Zephaniah 2:11
The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth.

John 10:33-34
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Now as far as deification goes, it's clearly an idea taught by the early church, as Athanasius summarized, "God was made man that we might be made God" (On the Incarnation of the Logos 54).

So while you seek to relegate deification to the scrap heap, you do so in clear violation of scripture and the teachings of some early church fathers.

Hiya Elder Trout!

First off, in many of these passages, I see a Trinity involved with dialogue amongst the persons of the Trinity. To say that there are many gods does not follow from such passages.

Secondly, terminology like God of gods is a superlative in the Hebrew way of thinking. We would say "best of the best." It is not ascribing existence to such gods. (Such could be demons impersonating as gods, but not gods by nature as is seen in Psalm 82 and in Paul's writing about those who are by nature not gods.)

Thirdly, when it speaks of defeating false gods, it is speaking in terms of an honor exchange. YHWH vs. Molech for instance. It is not saying Molech really exists, but is describing this much the way we could read the Iliad today.

As for Athanasius, I would prefer to spend some time reading him and get back to that point.

As for a positive point, let us be sure 1 Corinthians was written to Christians. What does it say in 1 Cor. 8?

"For to US (The Christians) there is but ONE God."

Are you included in this us?

[Trout]

Hiya Elder Trout!

First off, in many of these passages, I see a Trinity involved with dialogue amongst the persons of the Trinity. To say that there are many gods does not follow from such passages.

Sure it can, shed your preconceptions and read the Bible for the first time, Nick.




"For to US (The Christians) there is but ONE God."

Are you included in this us?

I like that passage, it states the LDS belief perfectly, while there may be many Gods, to us there is but one.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Sure it can, shed your preconceptions and read the Bible for the first time, Nick.

The reading does not follow. I need to be given a reason that somehow makes the linguistic studies from those who know the languages wrong.





I like that passage, it states the LDS belief perfectly, while there may be many Gods, to us there is but one.

You never answered. Are you included in the US where there is one God, or the outsiders, where there are many?

[Trout]

The reading does not follow. I need to be given a reason that somehow makes the linguistic studies from those who know the languages wrong.

Are you speaking in tongues? I didn't understand what you tried to say?



You never answered. Are you included in the US where there is one God, or the outsiders, where there are many?

I did answer Nick. That passage clearly states that there is one God for us.

Do you know that the ancient Hebrews were Henotheists? that's why God issued commands like, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me" God is making it clear that even though there are other existant Gods, there is only one God for us.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Are you speaking in tongues? I didn't understand what you tried to say?

Just recommending you check authorities on Hebrew and Greek for meanings of terminology.




I did answer Nick. That passage clearly states that there is one God for us.

Do you know that the ancient Hebrews were Henotheists? that's why God issued commands like, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me" God is making it clear that even though there are other existant Gods, there is only one God for us.

I would ask if we live in reality or not. Is there really one God or are we fooling ourselves? Now you say for you there is one God, but you are at the same time saying there are many gods.

As for the Jews being henotheists, even if that was so, they did change their view upon further revelation that there is one God. When did that position change?

[Trout]

Just recommending you check authorities on Hebrew and Greek for meanings of terminology.

Nick . . . hello . . . the "authorities" you're speaking of come from the same school of Christianity as yourself, of course they want to preserve their pet doctrines. That's part of the reason Joseph Smith restored the church, it was defined out of existence by "authorities".



I would ask if we live in reality or not. Is there really one God or are we fooling ourselves?

You're being fooled, I don't know if you're being willfully malicious about it, but the Bible clearly references other Gods.



Now you say for you there is one God, but you are at the same time saying there are many gods.

Think about it this way Nick; There is one wife for me. That doesn't exclude others from being wives, it simply means that there is one wife for me.



As for the Jews being henotheists, even if that was so, they did change their view upon further revelation that there is one God. When did that position change?

They changed their position from one of worshipping many Gods to worshipping the God for us.

And I'm glad you mentioned further revelation, you know that it's important for God to speak to us. That's why the LDS church has a prophet. Does your church have a living prophet, Nick?

[Bill the Cat]

Sister Johnna! Elder Trout here.

Very nice to see you.

I appreciate your input, these Evangelicals are a real pill sometimes.

Bill and Nick, the Bible clearly says that there are many Gods. But because you have your pet doctrines to protect, you have to contour the text of scripture to fit your misconceptions. Here's a few examples, I've cited them before but I think this is a good spot to re-state them:

Genesis 1:26
And God said, let us make man in our image.

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

Genesis 11:7
Let us go down, and there confound their language.

Exodus 12:12
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.

Exodus 15:11
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?

Exodus 18:11
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.

Exodus 20:3, 5
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

Exodus 22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 22:28
Thou shalt not revile the gods.

Exodus 23:13
Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

Exodus 23:24
Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

Exodus 23:32
Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.

Exodus 34:14
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 6:14-15
Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords.

Numbers 33:4
Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments.

Joshua 24:14
Fear the Lord ... and put away the gods which your fathers served.

Judges 11:24
Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?

1 Samuel 6:5
Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods.

1 Samuel 28:13
And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:25
The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 82:1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods.

Psalm 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods.

Psalm 86:8
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord.

Psalm 96:4
For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 97:7
Worship him, all ye gods.

Psalm 136:2
O give thanks unto the God of gods.

Jeremiah 1:16
I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods.

Jeremiah 10:11
The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

Jeremiah 25:6
And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.

Zephaniah 2:11
The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth.

John 10:33-34
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?



Trout, trout trout... you have simply shown that there were other groups of Jews and heathens that believed in other gods, and even worshipped them, but let's look at what God Himself says, shall we?

Isaiah 43:10
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,"And My servant whom I have chosen,So that you may know and believe MeAnd understand that I am He Before Me there was no God formed,And there will be none after Me.

2 Samuel 22:32
" For who is God, besides the LORD? And who is a rock, besides our God?

Psalm 18:31
For who is God, but the LORD?And who is a rock, except our God,

Isaiah 44:8
'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?And you are My witnesses Is there any God besides Me,Or is there any other Rock?I know of none.'"




Now as far as deification goes, it's clearly an idea taught by the early church, as Athanasius summarized, "God was made man that we might be made God" (On the Incarnation of the Logos 54).

Theosis is taught, but not deification. Athanasius said about this quote "3. For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality" This is theosis, becomming immortal. It is not deification or eternal progression. Great cherrypicking though! :thumb:


So while you seek to relegate deification to the scrap heap, you do so in clear violation of scripture and the teachings of some early church fathers. :no: Now do you see that deification is not theosis?

[Trout]

Trout, trout trout... you have simply shown that there were other groups of Jews and heathens that believed in other gods, and even worshipped them, but let's look at what God Himself says, shall we?

Are you saying that God didn't really mean to say what He did in the quotes I chose? :no:

Of course God is telling His people that He is their God, of course He is. But it's also clear that there are others as my references PROVE!

Isaiah 43:10
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,"And My servant whom I have chosen,So that you may know and believe MeAnd understand that I am He Before Me there was no God formed,And there will be none after Me.

I'm glad you chose that verse, Bill. It clearly says that God was formed. And if He was formed, Who formed Him?



Isaiah 44:8
'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?And you are My witnesses Is there any God besides Me,Or is there any other Rock?I know of none.'"


Interesting that God said that there's no other Rock, not no other God.




Theosis is taught, but not deification.

You say tomato, I say deification, it's the same thing.

[Bill the Cat]

Are you saying that God didn't really mean to say what He did in the quotes I chose? :no:

No, he did say those things, but reconciling them with the other statements leads to only one conclusion... either there is only one God and the Jews were wrongly believing in false gods, or God is a liar.


Of course God is telling His people that He is their God, of course He is. But it's also clear that there are others as my references PROVE!

No, it is clear that other nations worship other gods, but those gods are false and the true God doesn't know them.



Isaiah 43:10
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,"And My servant whom I have chosen,So that you may know and believe MeAnd understand that I am He Before Me there was no God formed,And there will be none after Me.

I'm glad you chose that verse, Bill. It clearly says that God was formed. And if He was formed, Who formed Him?


No, it shows that there was no god formed before God existed and no god was made after God existed. Or are you suggesting that there is an unformed god above God contrary to this verse, 44:8, and the Shemah?



Isaiah 44:8
'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?And you are My witnesses Is there any God besides Me,Or is there any other Rock?I know of none.'"


Interesting that God said that there's no other Rock, not no other God.


No He asked two questions, answering both as no. C'mon, you aren't even trying... this is too easy...




You say tomato, I say deification, it's the same thing.


It is a substantially different thing. Theosis does not make man ontologically identical to God, only immortal at His sustainment. Deification makes man ontologically a god. So who sustains God's immortality? That unnamed immaginary unformed god? :ahem:

[Trout]

No, he did say those things, but reconciling them with the other statements leads to only one conclusion... either there is only one God and the Jews were wrongly believing in false gods, or God is a liar.

I just love how you Evangelicals support your odd theological positions with certain scripture and ignore other scripture. That's why the LDS church has a living prophet, so we don't have to wallow around in our preconceptions hiding from clear Biblical statements.



No, it is clear that other nations worship other gods, but those gods are false and the true God doesn't know them.

False or not, the Bible says they exist, Bill.



It is a substantially different thing. Theosis does not make man ontologically identical to God, only immortal at His sustainment. Deification makes man ontologically a god. So who sustains God's immortality? That unnamed immaginary unformed god? :ahem:

Whatever, if you think by using all those college words your going to intimidate me into thinking that your position is correct, you're flatly wrong.

I suppose you don't think CS Lewis is a Christian?


"The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and he is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose - He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said."

Look Bill, being joint heirs with Christ will certainly mean we will be like God, what's the big hairy deal?

[Bill the Cat]

I just love how you Evangelicals support your odd theological positions with certain scripture and ignore other scripture. That's why the LDS church has a living prophet, so we don't have to wallow around in our preconceptions hiding from clear Biblical statements.

:boring:

I am harmonizing the verses, you are ignoring them.




False or not, the Bible says they exist, Bill.

That's the best retort you can come up with? False, immaginary, fake, not real, or like Elijah said "on the toilet". They do not exist. Period. That's what a false god is. That's what God meant when He said "there is no other"




Whatever, if you think by using all those college words your going to intimidate me into thinking that your position is correct, you're flatly wrong.


No need. Scripture speaks for itself. There will be no other god formed after the Father, including us.


I suppose you don't think CS Lewis is a Christian?

:ahem: First time I've seen Lewis misused by Mormons. I bolded the relevant part.


"The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and he is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose - He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said."


Look Bill, being joint heirs with Christ will certainly mean we will be like God, what's the big hairy deal?

LIKE God, as in immortal, not God by nature. Our nature will never equal God's. We remain created, He remains uncreated.

And why do you continue to cherrypick responses. Answer point by point the way I do with you. Please give my answers the same respect that I give yours, and that is an answer for every point.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Nick . . . hello . . . the "authorities" you're speaking of come from the same school of Christianity as yourself, of course they want to preserve their pet doctrines. That's part of the reason Joseph Smith restored the church, it was defined out of existence by "authorities".

Really? I didn't name any authorities. Are you saying everyone who knows Hebrew and Greek is an evangelical Christian? How silly. The way to see what the word means is to see the language meaning in other texts as well and in sister languages of which there are several for Hebrew.

For Greek, we can turn to the writings of Aristotle and Plato and the other writings and watch the language shift from Attic to Koine and compare it to other Greek writings at the time. To depend it on the viewpoint of the authority is a genetic fallacy.

Also, this is pretty much saying "You should not use as evidence those who agree with you." This is in effect, stacking the deck in saying that if someone agrees with me, they are wrong. If you can point to Mormon authorities on biblical languages with real credentials, I'd be glad to see them.




You're being fooled, I don't know if you're being willfully malicious about it, but the Bible clearly references other Gods.

Only in a mocking sense, as Bill pointed out.




Think about it this way Nick; There is one wife for me. That doesn't exclude others from being wives, it simply means that there is one wife for me.

Except this is dealing with a Christianized Shema which is a statement of monotheism in the face of polytheism. I would suggest seeing the work by Richard Bauckham on this in a work like "God Crucified."




They changed their position from one of worshipping many Gods to worshipping the God for us.

There is a reason polytheism ceased essentially after the captivity....


And I'm glad you mentioned further revelation, you know that it's important for God to speak to us. That's why the LDS church has a prophet. Does your church have a living prophet, Nick?

And this a red herring that could be handled in another thread. Right now, we're on the topic of if Mormons belong in the group of people known as Christians.

[Hitch]

Why would any follower of Joey want to be counted among the 'christian' denominations?

Outside the priesthood handed down through Joey there is and can be no true church, only religious abominations.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Why would any follower of Joey want to be counted among the 'christian' denominations?

Outside the priesthood handed down through Joey there is and can be no true church, only religious abominations.

Especially since they were all considered apostate....

[Hitch]

The burners will be hottest for those falsely naming the name of Christ.

[Hitch]

Quote: Originally posted by Trout

And I'm glad you mentioned further revelation, you know that it's important for God to speak to us. That's why the LDS church has a prophet. Does your church have a living prophet, Nick?


It was niether prophet nor president that changed the LDS view of the 'dark and loathesome',,, it was the IRS.

[LDSTrue]

The burners will be hottest for those falsely naming the name of Christ.

Hitch; a word of advice, be ever so careful what you wish for!

Remember the Pharaoh in Egypt received exactly what he pronounced upon Israel. Your statement could easily turn around and bite you … !

Unless your real name is either Shadrach, Meshach, or Abed-nego, you could unwittingly be in jeopardy of being annihilated by the very thing you decree upon others.

LDSTrue!

[Krusader]

Mormons are not Christian - to get back to the theme of this thread. Their doctrines are not even good counterfeits of Christian doctrine. The problem is that potential converts never hear the true story of Mormonism - and this is why I believe the missionaries are deceitful workers, as Paul teaches in 2 Cor. 11:13:

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

The word "apostles" means messengers - and surely those nice young men calling themselves LDS "elders" are transforming themselves into "angels of light" that they may be appealing to the potential victim.

The sad part of this is that these missionaries will simply deny plain facts unless you have the documentation right in front of you. That's why I always keep handy a copy of Jospeh's King Follett discourse - because if you ask those missionaries about becoming gods, or the origin of the god they worship, they will plead ignorance until you confront them with the truth. Then they have a sudden recovery of memory.

So, are Mormons Christians? Not if by Christian you mean followers of Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. Not by a long shot folks.

Make you own copy of the King Follett discourse, and keep it handy; when the missionaries claim ignorance, enlighten them:

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Follett.html

[Alexander's Mom]

Noting that the ancient Hebrews were henotheists doesn't help your point Elder Trout (ET?). In LDS theology there is still only one god of this planet. If they were worshipping other gods they'd still be incorrect, in LDS theology.

[sonofyah]

Having read a portion of the book, I found this paragraph telling of the level of misunderstanding on Robinson's part...

Yet even among conservative Protestants the doctrine of deification is still occasionally found. Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network says: "I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I'm in covenant relation. I am a little god. Critics begone." Robert Tilton, a Texas evangelist, says that man is "a God kind of creature. Originally you were designed to be as a god in this world. Man was designed or created by God to be the god of this world.'' Kenneth Copeland, also of Texas, tells his listeners, "You don't have a god in you. You are one!" He writes that "man had total authority to rule as a god over every living creature on earth."

Crouch, Tilton, and Copeland?? :ahem: Surely Robinson can't be that ignorant of the "terrible three's" heresies, can he?


"I am a little god

This is not far from the truth being that Webster Dictionary defines a god as anything that is able to be worshiped. A man can be a god to anyone that will submit to him, worship and praise him or her. This is why the 5% nation of Islam proclaimed themselves to be gods also. Now when a man compares himself to the divine Elohim YHWH he would be making a statement that is not only error put ignorant, because the scriptures says "who can you compare him too"(Isa 40:18). Not only that YHWH never said his name was God or LORD. So to confirm the ignorant statement about being a god or "a little god" I have to agree.


"Are Mormons Christians"

I would have to say NO, and I will tell you why. Eph 4:4-5 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Adonai, one faith, One YHWH the Father of all who is above all and through all, and in you all. Its very obvious that a Morman and a Christian have different veiws because they have a totally different account of christianity then that of Paul, Yahshua, Kepha, Yaqoov...etc

[juttonn]

Interesting discussion. By the way, first post on theologyweb.com. As a Mormon I consider myself a Christian (when registering for this site so I could post, I was tempted to click the "Christian" category, but I went ahead and clicked the "Mormon" category for myself). Anyway, I'd like to address the main point of this thread as to whether Mormons are Christians.

It is clear that the Mormon view of God the Father and Jesus Christ is different from the view of most other Christians. But as to whether Mormons can be classified as Christians, we first need to define what a Christian is. I use the definition as one who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. I read the bible, accept Jesus as my savior, try to follow all his teachings, etc. I feel this qualifies me as a Christian. Many non-Mormon Christians feel that since the Mormon view of Jesus is different to their own, then Mormons cannot be Christians since they are worshiping a different being than them. This seems to me to be more a difference in definition of what "Christian" means than anything else. If being a Christian means that I have to believe what mainstream Protestant Christians do and worship Christ the same way they do, then I'm not a Christian. If it means I'm supposed to read His word, believe He suffered died for my sins, was resurrected, and for me to do my best everyday to follow Him, then I am a Christian.

As an analogy, let's say you have groups of people that say they follow the constitution. Group A believes the constitution was written by a bunch of guys in Philadelphia and is the best thing we have to govern ourselves. Group B believes the constitution was given to us by a supper-smart race of green aliens that gave it to use because they know that that document would be the very best thing for us to use to govern ourselves. Group A claims that group B cannot be constitution-followers because their belief in what the constitution is, and how it came to be, is so far from what they believe it is and where if came from that they are following something completely different. Group B says, "Hey, we have the same text, we read the same words, and try to live and govern by them the best we can, therefore, we are constitution-followers." Who is right? Who is wrong? It depends on what it means to be a "constitution-follower." In both groups their may be sub groups that interpret the constitution differently and believe more or less power should be in local governments or the national government, etc, etc. Now, in this analogy, if group B is supposed to be analogous to the Mormons, it doesn't really put us in a good light. Obviously, I'm not trying to make any comparisons other than both groups may be doing their best to follow the constitution, but they have a different idea as to the definition of the term, "Constitution follower."

When I'm doing my best to follow Christ, sometimes it bugs me when someone else, who doesn't know me, says I'm not a Christian. I had a guy I met at work ask me once if I had been saved. He looked surprised when I said that I was. He went on to tell me that I couldn't be saved and believe the things that I believed. He then went on to give me a laundry list of my beliefs (many of which were wrong or misconstrued). My response was that my personal salvation is a personal thing between me and my Savior. I have felt his saving grace remove sin from me and save me from the snares of Satan. I know what God has done for me. Then a basic stranger comes in and tells me that God hasn't saved me after God had told me He has.

As a follower of Jesus trying to live my life like he would want me to (WWJD), I call myself a Christian. Anyone else that is making the same good-faith effort and professes to be a Christian, I consider them Christians as well, even though all points of their believes may not be the same as mine. That's what being a Christian means to me. Those that say I'm not a Christian just a different definition of what it means to be a Christian.

[Sparko]

But you don't follow the same words and doctrines as Christians. And you add in a bunch of different documents that you call scripture and those overwrite what the bible says.

In your analogy it is as if the guys who believe the aliens gave them the constitution used the constitution to claim that they could become aliens one day and to prove it, they have special documents given to them by the aliens who disseminated them through a special ambassador. and finally, these alien constitutionalists claim that the Philadelphiate Constitutionalists have lost their way and no longer follow the constitution themselves and only the Alien Constitutionalists are the REAL followers.

This is what the LDS church claims: That the Christian church is apostate. So why would you want to identify yourself with an apostate religion?

[Scrawly]

Interesting discussion. By the way, first post on theologyweb.com. As a Mormon I consider myself a Christian (when registering for this site so I could post, I was tempted to click the "Christian" category, but I went ahead and clicked the "Mormon" category for myself). Anyway, I'd like to address the main point of this thread as to whether Mormons are Christians.

It is clear that the Mormon view of God the Father and Jesus Christ is different from the view of most other Christians. But as to whether Mormons can be classified as Christians, we first need to define what a Christian is. I use the definition as one who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. I read the bible, accept Jesus as my savior, try to follow all his teachings, etc. I feel this qualifies me as a Christian. Many non-Mormon Christians feel that since the Mormon view of Jesus is different to their own, then Mormons cannot be Christians since they are worshiping a different being than them. This seems to me to be more a difference in definition of what "Christian" means than anything else. If being a Christian means that I have to believe what mainstream Protestant Christians do and worship Christ the same way they do, then I'm not a Christian. If it means I'm supposed to read His word, believe He suffered died for my sins, was resurrected, and for me to do my best everyday to follow Him, then I am a Christian.

As an analogy, let's say you have groups of people that say they follow the constitution. Group A believes the constitution was written by a bunch of guys in Philadelphia and is the best thing we have to govern ourselves. Group B believes the constitution was given to us by a supper-smart race of green aliens that gave it to use because they know that that document would be the very best thing for us to use to govern ourselves. Group A claims that group B cannot be constitution-followers because their belief in what the constitution is, and how it came to be, is so far from what they believe it is and where if came from that they are following something completely different. Group B says, "Hey, we have the same text, we read the same words, and try to live and govern by them the best we can, therefore, we are constitution-followers." Who is right? Who is wrong? It depends on what it means to be a "constitution-follower." In both groups their may be sub groups that interpret the constitution differently and believe more or less power should be in local governments or the national government, etc, etc. Now, in this analogy, if group B is supposed to be analogous to the Mormons, it doesn't really put us in a good light. Obviously, I'm not trying to make any comparisons other than both groups may be doing their best to follow the constitution, but they have a different idea as to the definition of the term, "Constitution follower."

When I'm doing my best to follow Christ, sometimes it bugs me when someone else, who doesn't know me, says I'm not a Christian. I had a guy I met at work ask me once if I had been saved. He looked surprised when I said that I was. He went on to tell me that I couldn't be saved and believe the things that I believed. He then went on to give me a laundry list of my beliefs (many of which were wrong or misconstrued). My response was that my personal salvation is a personal thing between me and my Savior. I have felt his saving grace remove sin from me and save me from the snares of Satan. I know what God has done for me. Then a basic stranger comes in and tells me that God hasn't saved me after God had told me He has.

As a follower of Jesus trying to live my life like he would want me to (WWJD), I call myself a Christian. Anyone else that is making the same good-faith effort and professes to be a Christian, I consider them Christians as well, even though all points of their believes may not be the same as mine. That's what being a Christian means to me. Those that say I'm not a Christian just a different definition of what it means to be a Christian.

Hi Juttonn,

I think the real issue here is the matter of the gospel itself. I think it can be best summed up as: You have a false view of God, therefore, you believe a false gospel, and thus, you have a false/counterfeit salvation. Amongst other problematic doctrines, the gospel of Mormonism is a gospel of works that clearly contradicts the gospel of grace that Paul taught. The Mormon gospel falls into the category of a "different gospel" and accordingly falls under Paul's condemnation.

[Bill the Cat]

Interesting discussion. By the way, first post on theologyweb.com. As a Mormon I consider myself a Christian (when registering for this site so I could post, I was tempted to click the "Christian" category, but I went ahead and clicked the "Mormon" category for myself).

You would have been asked to change it by staff.


Anyway, I'd like to address the main point of this thread as to whether Mormons are Christians.

It is clear that the Mormon view of God the Father and Jesus Christ is different from the view of most other Christians. But as to whether Mormons can be classified as Christians, we first need to define what a Christian is. I use the definition as one who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Your definition is only partly correct. It was originally used to refer to followers of Jesus of Nazareth, not just His teachings. In the Ancient Near East, in order to follow a teacher, one would naturally follow their teachings, but the teachings themselves were secondary. That's why we are baptized into Christ, not into His teachings.

As such, since you hold a different view of Christ and the Father, then you do not follow the beliefs and teachings of Christ, as He taught and believed monotheism. Therefore, if you believe in more than one god, you are not a Christian, since a Christian follows the true Christ and all that He taught and believed.


I read the bible,

As do atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies, Arians, modalists, Marcionites, and other groups. It no more makes you a Christian than being in a garage makes you a car.


accept Jesus as my savior,

The MORMON Jesus, yes. However, false Christs can not save.


try to follow all his teachings, etc.

Including monotheism?


I feel this qualifies me as a Christian. Many non-Mormon Christians feel that since the Mormon view of Jesus is different to their own, then Mormons cannot be Christians since they are worshiping a different being than them. This seems to me to be more a difference in definition of what "Christian" means than anything else.



And the Bible gets to declare what a Christian is

Act 11:26 ... And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

A Disciple is a follower of a teacher, and what that teacher taught and believed.


If being a Christian means that I have to believe what mainstream Protestant Christians do and worship Christ the same way they do, then I'm not a Christian.

It doesn't.


If it means I'm supposed to read His word, believe He suffered died for my sins, was resurrected, and for me to do my best everyday to follow Him, then I am a Christian.

This is only a small part of it. You have to have the true "HE" in order to be saved. False "HE"'s do not save.




As an analogy, let's say you have groups of people that say they follow the constitution. Group A believes the constitution was written by a bunch of guys in Philadelphia and is the best thing we have to govern ourselves. Group B believes the constitution was given to us by a supper-smart race of green aliens that gave it to use because they know that that document would be the very best thing for us to use to govern ourselves. Group A claims that group B cannot be constitution-followers because their belief in what the constitution is, and how it came to be, is so far from what they believe it is and where if came from that they are following something completely different. Group B says, "Hey, we have the same text, we read the same words, and try to live and govern by them the best we can, therefore, we are constitution-followers." Who is right? Who is wrong? It depends on what it means to be a "constitution-follower." In both groups their may be sub groups that interpret the constitution differently and believe more or less power should be in local governments or the national government, etc, etc. Now, in this analogy, if group B is supposed to be analogous to the Mormons, it doesn't really put us in a good light. Obviously, I'm not trying to make any comparisons other than both groups may be doing their best to follow the constitution, but they have a different idea as to the definition of the term, "Constitution follower."


What an awful analogy!! I'll clean it up for you:

Group A believes the Constitution was written in 1787 by James Madison and 54 other men and contained the instructions on how to govern the United States of America. Group B believes the Constitution was written by 55 men in 1787 and it contains the instructions on how to make a cardboard cutout of a cannon. While both are documents, both are said to be written at the same time, when we look at the contents of the documents, they are clearly not describing the same thing. One is accurate and one is false.



When I'm doing my best to follow Christ, sometimes it bugs me when someone else, who doesn't know me, says I'm not a Christian.



The problem is that you are doing your best to follow the Christ you were taught about by Mormonism, which is a cardboard cannon.


I had a guy I met at work ask me once if I had been saved. He looked surprised when I said that I was. He went on to tell me that I couldn't be saved and believe the things that I believed. He then went on to give me a laundry list of my beliefs (many of which were wrong or misconstrued). My response was that my personal salvation is a personal thing between me and my Savior. I have felt his saving grace remove sin from me and save me from the snares of Satan. I know what God has done for me. Then a basic stranger comes in and tells me that God hasn't saved me after God had told me He has.


Salvation has nothing to do with how you feel about it. And your whole frame of reference is what the Mormon doctrines have molded it into. So, naturally, you think just like they have taught you. The problem is that they are wrong, so what they have taught you is wrong, and as a result, you are wrong.


As a follower of Jesus trying to live my life like he would want me to (WWJD), I call myself a Christian. Anyone else that is making the same good-faith effort and professes to be a Christian, I consider them Christians as well, even though all points of their believes may not be the same as mine. That's what being a Christian means to me. Those that say I'm not a Christian just a different definition of what it means to be a Christian.

I let the Bible define it, and let it say who is and isn't, and anything other than monotheism is false.

[juttonn]

But you don't follow the same words and doctrines as Christians. And you add in a bunch of different documents that you call scripture and those overwrite what the bible says.

I believe in and follow the bible. It is true that we have other books that are recognized as scripture, but none of those overwrite the bible. The addition of the Book of Mormon, for example, is analogous to the discovery of more letters written from Paul, or a Gospel of Peter recounting his testimony of the life of Jesus. If writings like these were found, authenticated, and recognized as scripture by the general Christian population, no would would remove current books in the bible to make room for them or feel that the new found writing overwrote any previously had writings. I've read the Book of Mormon and the Bible and find them in harmony. Of course you can find lots of scriptures from within the Bible, or between the the Book of Mormon and the Bible, or from within just the Book of Mormon, etc that would seem to contradict each other without the proper historical and cultural context.


In your analogy it is as if the guys who believe the aliens gave them the constitution used the constitution to claim that they could become aliens one day and to prove it, they have special documents given to them by the aliens who disseminated them through a special ambassador. and finally, these alien constitutionalists claim that the Philadelphiate Constitutionalists have lost their way and no longer follow the constitution themselves and only the Alien Constitutionalists are the REAL followers.

Okay, like I mentioned, the alien analogy isn't perfect. The LDS church does not claim that members of the LDS church are the only people who are successfully following Christ. Quite the opposite actually. In the alien analogy, all the people are following the constitution. Different people interpret parts differently and want to give more or less power to different branches of the government or local vs federal governments, but all are following the best they can, just some of them believe that the constitution has an alien origin.


This is what the LDS church claims: That the Christian church is apostate. So why would you want to identify yourself with an apostate religion?

First off, we need to define what is meant when the LDS church talks about a general apostasy. This refers to the loss of the priesthood authority. The LDS Church maintains that the constitution is an inspired document. That the reformers (like Martin Luther, etc) were inspired and led by the Holy Spirit. That the pilgrims, puritans, and other groups that settled America to escape religious persecution did so to better follow and worship Christ. In a recent worldwide general conference of the LDS church, one of the church leaders talked about John Wycliffe, who translated the bible into English. He was described by the church leader as a humble follower of Christ and a martyr who died trying to bring the word of God to more people. None of these people were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, yet all are revered by our church as followers of Christ, or Christians.

That is what I mean when I talk about a difference in definition. When I say I am Christian, I'm not claiming to be affiliated with any other religion to which I don't belong. I'm just trying to say that I'm a follower of Jesus Christ.

[ke7ejx]

I believe in and follow the bible. It is true that we have other books that are recognized as scripture, but none of those overwrite the bible. The addition of the Book of Mormon, for example, is analogous to the discovery of more letters written from Paul, or a Gospel of Peter recounting his testimony of the life of Jesus. If writings like these were found, authenticated, and recognized as scripture by the general Christian population, no would would remove current books in the bible to make room for them or feel that the new found writing overwrote any previously had writings. I've read the Book of Mormon and the Bible and find them in harmony. Of course you can find lots of scriptures from within the Bible, or between the the Book of Mormon and the Bible, or from within just the Book of Mormon, etc that would seem to contradict each other without the proper historical and cultural context.



Okay, like I mentioned, the alien analogy isn't perfect. The LDS church does not claim that members of the LDS church are the only people who are successfully following Christ. Quite the opposite actually. In the alien analogy, all the people are following the constitution. Different people interpret parts differently and want to give more or less power to different branches of the government or local vs federal governments, but all are following the best they can, just some of them believe that the constitution has an alien origin.



First off, we need to define what is meant when the LDS church talks about a general apostasy. This refers to the loss of the priesthood authority. The LDS Church maintains that the constitution is an inspired document. That the reformers (like Martin Luther, etc) were inspired and led by the Holy Spirit. That the pilgrims, puritans, and other groups that settled America to escape religious persecution did so to better follow and worship Christ. In a recent worldwide general conference of the LDS church, one of the church leaders talked about John Wycliffe, who translated the bible into English. He was described by the church leader as a humble follower of Christ and a martyr who died trying to bring the word of God to more people. None of these people were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, yet all are revered by our church as followers of Christ, or Christians.

That is what I mean when I talk about a difference in definition. When I say I am Christian, I'm not claiming to be affiliated with any other religion to which I don't belong. I'm just trying to say that I'm a follower of Jesus Christ.

A real pleasure to meet you! I'm always pleased to meet a fellow Latter-Day Saint! :hi:

[RBerman]

I believe in and follow the bible. It is true that we have other books that are recognized as scripture, but none of those overwrite the bible. The addition of the Book of Mormon, for example, is analogous to the discovery of more letters written from Paul, or a Gospel of Peter recounting his testimony of the life of Jesus. If writings like these were found, authenticated, and recognized as scripture by the general Christian population, no would would remove current books in the bible to make room for them or feel that the new found writing overwrote any previously had writings. I've read the Book of Mormon and the Bible and find them in harmony. Of course you can find lots of scriptures from within the Bible, or between the the Book of Mormon and the Bible, or from within just the Book of Mormon, etc that would seem to contradict each other without the proper historical and cultural context.

Just to clarify, do you believe that God the Father was ever a man who was born on some other planet and eventually attained godhood?


Okay, like I mentioned, the alien analogy isn't perfect. The LDS church does not claim that members of the LDS church are the only people who are successfully following Christ. Quite the opposite actually. In the alien analogy, all the people are following the constitution. Different people interpret parts differently and want to give more or less power to different branches of the government or local vs federal governments, but all are following the best they can, just some of them believe that the constitution has an alien origin.
First off, we need to define what is meant when the LDS church talks about a general apostasy. This refers to the loss of the priesthood authority. The LDS Church maintains that the constitution is an inspired document. That the reformers (like Martin Luther, etc) were inspired and led by the Holy Spirit. That the pilgrims, puritans, and other groups that settled America to escape religious persecution did so to better follow and worship Christ. In a recent worldwide general conference of the LDS church, one of the church leaders talked about John Wycliffe, who translated the bible into English. He was described by the church leader as a humble follower of Christ and a martyr who died trying to bring the word of God to more people. None of these people were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, yet all are revered by our church as followers of Christ, or Christians.

Are you a student of LDS history? The first couple of generations of LDS were quite separatist, considering themselves the only true Christians. More recent generations have modified this stance substantially, to the point where essentially no one is in danger of Hell anyway, regardless of what religion he follows.

As for the whole priesthood issue, that's a great example of how LDS take Biblical terms and totally redefine them. Can you tell me what the Bible says, for instance, about being a "priest according to the order of Melchizedek"? Or an "elder"? It's pretty easy to show that the usage of those terms by the LDS bears little resemblance to the original.

[Cow Poke]

A real pleasure to meet you! I'm always pleased to meet a fellow Latter-Day Saint! :hi:

Yes, because that always goes so well for you! :pot:


Ke :hug: CP :smile:

[Sparko]

I believe in and follow the bible. It is true that we have other books that are recognized as scripture, but none of those overwrite the bible. The addition of the Book of Mormon, for example, is analogous to the discovery of more letters written from Paul, or a Gospel of Peter recounting his testimony of the life of Jesus. If writings like these were found, authenticated, and recognized as scripture by the general Christian population, no would would remove current books in the bible to make room for them or feel that the new found writing overwrote any previously had writings. I've read the Book of Mormon and the Bible and find them in harmony. Of course you can find lots of scriptures from within the Bible, or between the the Book of Mormon and the Bible, or from within just the Book of Mormon, etc that would seem to contradict each other without the proper historical and cultural context.

This probably isn't the place to give a laundry list, but your scriptures, especially the D&C and the teachings of your prophets DO overwrite the bible. The bible teaches that there is only ONE God, YHWH, and there were no God's before him, besides him, nor will there be any after him. Yet your LDS teachings claim that there are at least 3 Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of this earth, that the Father had a God before him, and that there are infinite gods before him, and that you can become a god yourself one day. The bible teaches that Satan is a creature that God created, yet the LDS church teaches that Satan is Jesus' brother. and so on.

And I don't recall the bible saying that anyone except Jesus can save us or has anything to do with our salvation yet one of your prophets said:

Joseph Fielding Smith: [There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Doctrines of Salvation (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html#doctrine), vol. 1, p.190).






First off, we need to define what is meant when the LDS church talks about a general apostasy. This refers to the loss of the priesthood authority. The LDS Church maintains that the constitution is an inspired document. That the reformers (like Martin Luther, etc) were inspired and led by the Holy Spirit. That the pilgrims, puritans, and other groups that settled America to escape religious persecution did so to better follow and worship Christ. In a recent worldwide general conference of the LDS church, one of the church leaders talked about John Wycliffe, who translated the bible into English. He was described by the church leader as a humble follower of Christ and a martyr who died trying to bring the word of God to more people. None of these people were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, yet all are revered by our church as followers of Christ, or Christians.

Joseph Smith stated that God told him: "they [other churches] were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (from Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html#scripture) 1:19).

Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html#sermons) 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html#sermons) 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html#sermons) 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Journal of Discourses (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html#sermons), vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html#sermons) 10:230).

and a lot more of the same, found here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/onlytrue.html





That is what I mean when I talk about a difference in definition. When I say I am Christian, I'm not claiming to be affiliated with any other religion to which I don't belong. I'm just trying to say that I'm a follower of Jesus Christ.

But the mormon Jesus is not the same Jesus as the Jesus of Christianity. One of us is wrong.

and welcome to theologyweb, by the way. :thumb:

[One Bad Pig]

Are Mormons Christians? Meh.

Are Mormons heretics? Yes. Though Mormonism is nowhere near orthodox, there have historically been groups that make them look close by comparison.

[Daniel7:14]

It just so happens (fortunately?) that the topic of "Mormon" beliefs came to the forefront and I was "impressed" to find some of their beliefs are:

Jesus Christ was conceived by sexual intercourse between God and the Virgin Mary;
The Bible is filled with errors and is superseded by the book of Mormon, and the words of ALL the Mormon prophets;
God was once HUMAN...like us, dwelling on Earth, and "became God" through faith and good works -- just as we can do ourselves;
That the death and resurrection of Jesus secured - only the opportunity -- for us to attain salvation through -- our own good works --- that salvation is not by faith in Christ;
That Christ will reign from two places, Independence, Missouri (with the Law) and Jerusalem;

Lastly (on my post anyway), A prophecy from Joseph Smith: One day the U.S. Constitution will be "hanging" by a thread -- only to be "saved" by the Elders of the LDS Church.

I applaud your courage to place your beliefs on this site and permit those who are true converts to Jesus Christ to offer irrefutable proofs as to the errors found in them.

If you truly desire to know God and receive eternal life, the answer is found in the Holy Scriptures. You will realize that there are many "false Christs" in the world today, of which Mormonism is one.

Not harsh or unkind words, but words that offer life everlasting, in the presence of God and his holy angels.

[nrajeff]

Are there big differences in some doctrines between LDS and CURRENT mainstream Christendom? Yes.

Are there big differences in some doctrines between CURRENT mainstream Christendom and antenicene Christendom? Yes.

Do those facts necessarily make current mainstream Christians NON-Christian? No. Ditto the LDS.

Here's a question I feel needs to be answered by Cow Poke, Sparko, and BTC:

Are your minimum requirements for becoming a Christian identical to the ones used by antenicene Christendom?

P.S. --Hello to the new members of this sometime-battleground.

[Cow Poke]

Do those facts necessarily make current mainstream Christians NON-Christian? No. Ditto the LDS.

Gee, you answered that fast, didn't you? :smile:
Are apples and oranges both fruit? yes.
Are they both apples? no.
:shrug:


Here's a question I feel needs to be answered by Cow Poke, Sparko, and BTC:
Are your minimum requirements for becoming a Christian identical to the ones used by antenicene Christendom?

I don't claim to be an expert on the creeds or councils, so ... :shrug:

[One Bad Pig]

Are there big differences in some doctrines between LDS and CURRENT mainstream Christendom? Yes.

Are there big differences in some doctrines between CURRENT mainstream Christendom and antenicene Christendom? Yes.

Do those facts necessarily make current mainstream Christians NON-Christian? No. Ditto the LDS.
Any differences between current mainstream Christendom and antenicene Christendom pale to insignificance when both are compared to LDS theology.

[Bill the Cat]

Are there big differences in some doctrines between LDS and CURRENT mainstream Christendom? Yes.

Now, please answer... "Are there big differences in some doctrines between CURRENT LDS and antenicene Christendom?"


Are there big differences in some doctrines between CURRENT mainstream Christendom and antenicene Christendom? Yes.

That's too broad a term. "Mainstream Christendom" is not a monolithic entity, as "mainstream" runs the gamut from televangelists to Ravi Zaccharias.


Do those facts necessarily make current mainstream Christians NON-Christian? No. Ditto the LDS.

The ones you bring up don't, but then again, you ask the wrong questions to answer the real question at hand.


Here's a question I feel needs to be answered by Cow Poke, Sparko, and BTC:

Are your minimum requirements for becoming a Christian identical to the ones used by antenicene Christendom?

You keep bringing up this strawman of "minimum requirements", Jeff, and it is getting rather annoying. As I and the others have repeatedly said, it isn't what you lack in believing, it is what you DO believe that fails the Christian test. You believe in polytheism which immediately disqualifies you.

[nrajeff]

Any differences between current mainstream Christendom and antenicene Christendom pale to insignificance when both are compared to LDS theology.

---That sounds like a fun topic to explore:

In what significant ways does your favorite iteration of Christianity differ from the Christianity of, say, the Apostolic Era?

[nrajeff]

Now, please answer... "Are there big differences in some doctrines between CURRENT LDS and antenicene Christendom?"
----Of course.


That's too broad a term. "Mainstream Christendom" is not a monolithic entity, as "mainstream" runs the gamut from televangelists to Ravi Zaccharias.
---Okay, fine. I didn't want to force you to be politically incorrect or religiously judgmental by making you identify the members of the mainstream that you feel to be so NON-mainstream that it puts them outside the umbra of legitimate Christianity.


You keep bringing up this strawman of "minimum requirements", Jeff, and it is getting rather annoying.
--It annoys ME that you feel it to be a straw man. Suppose I was an Australian aborigine who grew up in my 'native' religion, and who has been totally isolated, free from any teachings of ANY of the many factions of Christendom, and you are a missionary for your church, evangelizing me for the very first time. So far, you have told me that there was a person named Jesus who lived and died about 2000 years ago in a faraway land, and this Jesus was actually deity, the son of the Creator of everything in my realm of understanding, and that this Jesus-god died for my sins, and that if I have faith that these things you have told me are true, then my sins will be erased and when I die I will live in happiness forever in heaven with this Jesus, His Father, and all people who believed these teachings before they died. I believe all the things you taught me.

Am I now a Christian? Have I met the minimum requirements for being a "new creation in Christ"?

Or are there additional requirements? Do you still need to put me through an intensive, exhaustive "deprogramming litmus test" regarding my native religion, to make sure that there's nothing I believe "in addition" to my new Christian beliefs, that would make me "non-Christian" even though I believe all you taught me?
Do I need to learn about OSAS? Do I need to read the Summa? Do I need to accept Trinitarianism? Do I need to read the Institutes? Do I need a divinity degree from your approved list of seminaries? Is that what went on in the 1st and 2nd centuries, when the apostles and other missionaries won converts from among the heathen nations? Or are you perchance adding to the original requirements? If so, by what precedent or authority?



You believe in polytheism which immediately disqualifies you.
--How about if I were an Arian? Or a Modalist? Would that have resulted in Peter or James or John kicking me out on my rear? "Beat it--your theology is not correct enough, even though you accept Jesus as the Son of God and as your personal Savior, you believe He atoned and died for your sins and was resurrected, and you have committed to follow His teachings! That's not good enough, because OUR requirements go beyond that!"

Funny how Paul taught that the basic heart of the gospel was just the good news that Jesus was the Son of God who died for people's sins, was resurrected, and afterwards was seen by many. Where in the New Testament are the accounts of further litmus tests in order to just be a new Christian?

[Bill the Cat]

----Of course.


---Okay, fine. I didn't want to force you to be politically incorrect or religiously judgmental by making you identify the members of the mainstream that you feel to be so NON-mainstream that it puts them outside the umbra of legitimate Christianity.


--It annoys ME that you feel it to be a straw man. Suppose I was an Australian aborigine who grew up in my 'native' religion, and who has been totally isolated, free from any teachings of ANY of the many factions of Christendom, and you are a missionary for your church, evangelizing me for the very first time. So far, you have told me that there was a person named Jesus who lived and died about 2000 years ago in a faraway land, and this Jesus was actually deity, the son of the Creator of everything in my realm of understanding, and that this Jesus-god died for my sins, and that if I have faith that these things you have told me are true, then my sins will be erased and when I die I will live in happiness forever in heaven with this Jesus, His Father, and all people who believed these teachings before they died. I believe all the things you taught me.

Am I now a Christian? Have I met the minimum requirements for being a "new creation in Christ"?

Or are there additional requirements? Do you still need to put me through an intensive, exhaustive "deprogramming litmus test" regarding my native religion, to make sure that there's nothing I believe "in addition" to my new Christian beliefs, that would make me "non-Christian" even though I believe all you taught me?
Do I need to learn about OSAS? Do I need to read the Summa? Do I need to accept Trinitarianism? Do I need to read the Institutes? Do I need a divinity degree from your approved list of seminaries? Is that what went on in the 1st and 2nd centuries, when the apostles and other missionaries won converts from among the heathen nations? Or are you perchance adding to the original requirements? If so, by what precedent or authority?



--How about if I were an Arian? Or a Modalist? Would that have resulted in Peter or James or John kicking me out on my rear? "Beat it--your theology is not correct enough, even though you accept Jesus as the Son of God and as your personal Savior, you believe He atoned and died for your sins and was resurrected, and you have committed to follow His teachings! That's not good enough, because OUR requirements go beyond that!"

Funny how Paul taught that the basic heart of the gospel was just the good news that Jesus was the Son of God who died for people's sins, was resurrected, and afterwards was seen by many. Where in the New Testament are the accounts of further litmus tests in order to just be a new Christian?

:argh: Did you even READ my post?

[nrajeff]

:argh: Did you even READ my post?

---Just tell yourself that I did not, if that makes it easier for you to avoid addressing my rebuttal.

[Bill the Cat]

---Just tell yourself that I did not, if that makes it easier for you to avoid addressing my rebuttal.

Your "rebuttal" was a non sequiter. I SPECIFICALLY said "As I and the others have repeatedly said, it isn't what you lack in believing, it is what you DO believe that fails the Christian test". You keep bringing up things that people lack in believing, like your "aborigine". And, yes. Peter and the other Apostles would have kicked Arians and modalists out. John kicked out people who denied that Jesus came in the flesh, and Paul kicked out people for teaching that the resurrection had passed. Just like I said above, not for LACK of belief in a particular doctrine, but an explicit denial of it and holding to a contrary one.

Now, please stop with the straw burning.

[One Bad Pig]

---That sounds like a fun topic to explore:

In what significant ways does your favorite iteration of Christianity differ from the Christianity of, say, the Apostolic Era?

Eastern Orthodoxy does not differ significantly from the Christianity of the Apostolic era.

[Daniel7:14]

I am not sure if anyone else noticed, didn't bother to address it, or...that it just doesn't matter at this point.
However: When it was indicated that according to their belief, God was once a man......(and I thought I saw)....on an Earth..., and became God due to his "good works". Is it being said that he was not necessarily on...THIS...EARTH...but from possibly another Earth? Not that the thread needs any more bizzare theology, but rather it was something I just wanted to clear up.

I do like the explanation of: It is not what we fail to "know" (where much is given, much is required), but rather that what we do "know", and hold fast to, in agreement with scripture, determines who we are

Bless.
Dan

[Sparko]

I am not sure if anyone else noticed, didn't bother to address it, or...that it just doesn't matter at this point.
However: When it was indicated that according to their belief, God was once a man......(and I thought I saw)....on an Earth..., and became God due to his "good works". Is it being said that he was not necessarily on...THIS...EARTH...but from possibly another Earth? Not that the thread needs any more bizzare theology, but rather it was something I just wanted to clear up.

I do like the explanation of: It is not what we fail to "know" (where much is given, much is required), but rather that what we do "know", and hold fast to, in agreement with scripture, determines who we are

Bless.
Dan

Yeah Dan, basically Joseph Smith and the other LDS prophets taught that God the Father was once a man on another planet, where he had his own God above him, and eventually the Father became a God himself and created this world, Earth. And one day, all of the good and faithful LDS will become Gods and have their own worlds too.


You can read some of it here: http://lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng



Some people are troubled over the statements of the prophet Joseph Smith…the matter that seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and a death and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries….the Prophet taught that our father had a father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him? -Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1: 10,12 as quoted at http://www.isca-apologetics.org/groza-atheists.pdf


LDS Apostle James Talmage wrote, "We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement - a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'" (emphasis added) (Articles of Faith James Talmadge, p. 430)

http://www.mormondoctrine.net/articles/God_became_God.htm

[RBerman]

Eastern Orthodoxy does not differ significantly from the Christianity of the Apostolic era.

Do you think that if Saint Peter wandered into an EO worship service, he would say, "Yep, just like we've always done it"?

[Catholicity]

Eastern Orthodoxy does not differ significantly from the Christianity of the Apostolic era.



Catholicism isn't a whole lot different either.

[One Bad Pig]

Do you think that if Saint Peter wandered into an EO worship service, he would say, "Yep, just like we've always done it"?
He would notice some differences, but the overall format would be the same. The Liturgy of the Word (the first half of the service, more or less) is still recognizably similar to Jewish synagogue worship, and the Eucharist is still offered based on the biblical formula and is the climax of the service.

[Daniel7:14]

Thanks Sparko for the answer, I visited the site you provided and found it to be very interesting!!!!!!

I had heard that the "new revelation" that Smith had been given, was the unadulterated word of God, word for word! That all others were filled with error and departed from the truth that God had wanted to be conveyed. Yet, I also understand that there have been over 300 "revisions" to the unadulterated word of God that was given to him.

If that is the case, then was Smith wrong to begin with, or are "current" day Mormons just as deceived as the rest of the world? They can't have it both ways, or can they?

Bless,

Dan

[Sparko]

Thanks Sparko for the answer, I visited the site you provided and found it to be very interesting!!!!!!

I had heard that the "new revelation" that Smith had been given, was the unadulterated word of God, word for word! That all others were filled with error and departed from the truth that God had wanted to be conveyed. Yet, I also understand that there have been over 300 "revisions" to the unadulterated word of God that was given to him.

If that is the case, then was Smith wrong to begin with, or are "current" day Mormons just as deceived as the rest of the world? They can't have it both ways, or can they?

Bless,

Dan

I have long ago stopped expecting Mormons to be logical.

[RBerman]

He would notice some differences, but the overall format would be the same. The Liturgy of the Word (the first half of the service, more or less) is still recognizably similar to Jewish synagogue worship, and the Eucharist is still offered based on the biblical formula and is the climax of the service.

Well, a Model T is "recognizably similar" to a Formula One racecar too, but no one would mistake the two. Anyway, this isn't the thread in which to pursue this further. Mormonism is a false religion. That doesn't prove that a specific person who identifies as a Mormon is not a Christian in the eyes of God, but it's a big red flag for our limited human discernment ability.

[OtherCheek]

Thanks Sparko for the answer, I visited the site you provided and found it to be very interesting!!!!!!

I had heard that the "new revelation" that Smith had been given, was the unadulterated word of God, word for word! That all others were filled with error and departed from the truth that God had wanted to be conveyed. Yet, I also understand that there have been over 300 "revisions" to the unadulterated word of God that was given to him.

If that is the case, then was Smith wrong to begin with, or are "current" day Mormons just as deceived as the rest of the world? They can't have it both ways, or can they?

Bless,

Dan

In the LDS Faith, there is something that takes a higher precedence than "text". That is why you may be confused that there are (perhaps 2-3) significant revisions in the Book of Mormon. That "thing" that holds a higher precedence than "text" is "prophets" living in our day and time. And so when Joseph Smith makes a revision on the text that he translated himself, we don't make such a big deal out of it all.

[Sparko]

In the LDS Faith, there is something that takes a higher precedence than "text". That is why you may be confused that there are (perhaps 2-3) significant revisions in the Book of Mormon. That "thing" that holds a higher precedence than "text" is "prophets" living in our day and time. And so when Joseph Smith makes a revision on the text that he translated himself, we don't make such a big deal out of it all.

You don't make a big deal about it because you don't bother to stop and think about what you are saying. If a prophet claims something is God's word on a matter one day, then changes his mind the next, then either:

1. You can't trust God's word because he keeps changing it.
2. You can't trust the prophet because he is either lying about hearing God's word, or he is hearing it very badly and so how can you be sure that the "correction" is the real word of God and not the original? Or something entirely different that will be revealed later?

[Cow Poke]

In the LDS Faith, there is something that takes a higher precedence than "text". That is why you may be confused that there are (perhaps 2-3) significant revisions in the Book of Mormon. That "thing" that holds a higher precedence than "text" is "prophets" living in our day and time. And so when Joseph Smith makes a revision on the text that he translated himself, we don't make such a big deal out of it all.

In other words, Smith gets a pass because he's Smith.
And future "Smiths" have the power to revise and extend Smith's remarks whenever they feel the need arises.
I don't think Brown Cat is "confused" about anything here.

[nrajeff]

I have long ago stopped expecting Mormons to be logical.

---How ironic that your insult against the ability of an entire group of people to be logical, is itself a logical fallacy (generalization).

You might as well have said that you have stopped expecting Jews to be selfless, while you yourself have a history of selfishness.

The hypocrisy just doesn't get any more blatant.

Is it any wonder that this forum is starting to make Carm look fair and balanced?

[Cow Poke]

---How ironic that your insult against the ability of an entire group of people to be logical, is itself a logical fallacy (generalization).

You might as well have said that you have stopped expecting Jews to be selfless, while you yourself have a history of selfishness.

The hypocrisy just doesn't get any more blatant.

Perhaps he should have been more specific, just like I should have been... "the Mormons who post most frequently on Tweb's Mormon forum". Is that better?

[Sparko]

---How ironic that your insult against the ability of an entire group of people to be logical, is itself a logical fallacy (generalization).

You might as well have said that you have stopped expecting Jews to be selfless, while you yourself have a history of selfishness.

The hypocrisy just doesn't get any more blatant.

Is it any wonder that this forum is starting to make Carm look fair and balanced?

Well your argument above just goes to show one of the reasons why I have stopped expecting you Mormons to be logical. It is incoherent and illogical, just like your doctrines.

[OtherCheek]

Well your argument above just goes to show one of the reasons why I have stopped expecting you Mormons to be logical. It is incoherent and illogical, just like your doctrines.

And you whine about us being snarky?

[Sparko]

And you whine about us being snarky?

where?

[Daniel7:14]

I have to give a big "NO FAIR" out to Sparko and Cow Poke!!! It would seem that you are capable of reading my thoughts! After I read the response to my post, I had every intention of "offering" some insight to that response.

You have definitely beat me to the punch!

However, I would like to add this:

If, as you claim, the prophet holds a higher status than the given word from God, what is the point in becoming a "god". By your own analysis, the higher achievment is to be a prophet, able to change, edit, refute or obliterate the word of God. It is clear to me that your god, whomsoever he may be, is in subjection to the prophet, in the things that he (god) speaks.

So why would your theology present a "position of attainment", in the eternal realm to become a god, when that is less than the positions currently held by your earthbound "prophet". By your own analysis obtaining a "god status" would actually be a digressive position.

You did say that the "prophet" was the accord by which you determine your theology.

You also mentioned that there were 2-3...SIGNIFICANT....revisions, does that mean 1 or 2 items that were changed, or does that mean potentially hundreds?

IF...there have been those changes, and your founding father clearly stated that the(his) original, his received version, was the ...ONLY...true version, what does that make the current version that you rely upon?

Just some thoughts.

Paul said let us "reason" together and it was determined by the Bereans, through the scriptures, that he had spoke the truth to them. The written record encompassing millenia, declaring that Jesus is the Christ, and that salvation is found in him alone, through and by his sacrificial work of atonement.

If your desire is to receive eternal life, then you need a personal relationship with Christ, and to pick up your cross daily and follow him.