Are Mormons Christians?

[Katzpur]

All the links are from the official site LDS.org, except of course for the official Smithsonian Institute statement.

Smithsonian Institute statement about the Book of Mormon: www .godandscience.org/cults/smithsonian.php

I'm afraid you have an out-of-date statement. The statement being sent out (for the past six years at least) in response to inquiries about the Book of Mormon states the following:

"Your inquiry of (date) concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response.
The Book of Mormon us a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.

Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated."

I guess they got tired of updating their letter each time archeological findings turned up new evidence for the Book of Mormon.

 

[Aqualung]

If you don't know, don't try and tell others what it says.

Word.

 

[nutshell]

All the links are from the official site LDS.org, except of course for the official Smithsonian Institute statement.

Smithsonian Institute statement about the Book of Mormon: www .godandscience.org/cults/smithsonian.php
If the Bible is translated correctly: www .lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

People can become gods: www .lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html
God has a body just like man does: scriptures .lds.org/dc/130/22#22

Polygamy Commanded For Salvation: scriptures .lds.org/dc/132/1-4#1

People existed before they were born on Earth: scriptures .lds.org/dc/93/29#28

You have not purged your post of errors and misrepresentations. Citing references does not do what is required, especially when you're taking things out of context and using out of date material. Nice try.

 

[Aqualung]

If the Bible is translated correctly: www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

Good job. Since, however, there exists no original document from which the Bible was written, the "perfect" translation of the Bible on your part, and the imperfect translation on my part, are unfalsifiable. Therefore, why discuss it? Oh, yeah, because then you would have to deal with the claims of the Bible itself that it is not complete and with the fact that the Bible was compiled well after Christ was around.

People can become gods: www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

Indeed. The Bible itself says that the righteous will be made heirs of God and JOINT HEIRS WITH CHRIST. You, I am sure, believe that Christ IS God. If we are to be JOINT HEIRS with Christ, how can we NOT have what he has? It is impossible to be a joint heir without sharing. It's what joint means.

God has a body just like man does: scriptures.lds.org/dc/130/22#22

Again, very good. But you overlook all the biblical evidence for this. For example, when Moses saw God's finger and back. Or when Christ made VERY sure that his desciples noticed that his resurection was bodily, not simply spiritual.

Polygamy Commanded For Salvation: scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/1-4#1

That's not what it says at all. It says MARRIAGE is necessary for EXALTATION. That's very different. It also says that God has sometimes permitted polygamy (such as in the BIBLICAL examples of David or Abraham). But nowhere does it say that it's NECESSARY for SALVATION.

People existed before they were born on Earth: scriptures.lds.org/dc/93/29#28

Have you ever read Numbers, Job, Ecclesiates, Jerimiah, Zecharia, John, Acts, Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, Jude, or Revelation? Because I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that those are all in the Bible. Now, obviously, I could be completely wrong, because those books all speak of premortal existence, and you claim this is unbliblical, but I was soooo sure they were there...

You're pretty good at conveniently putting spaces in your urls so nobody can follow them back to their source.

 

[Katzpur]

You're pretty good at conveniently putting spaces in your urls so nobody can follow them back to their source.

Actually, Vassal doesn't have enough posts to his credit to be able to post actual links yet. This method works quite well for him, though. He has also used it to reference anti-Mormon websites.

 

[Bishka]

Wow. 9 pages since I've been gone! What did I miss?!?!

 

[Katzpur]

Wow. 9 pages since I've been gone! What did I miss?!?!

Oh, about five gazillion posts, at least half of them mine. Go through them and frubal me, okay? I hope I haven't posted for 5 hours for nothing!

 

[Aqualung]

Actually, Vassal doesn't have enough posts to his credit to be able to post actual links yet. This method works quite well for him, though. He has also used it to reference anti-Mormon websites.

Ah, I see. I appologise for assuming your motives were anything less than pure, Vassal.

 

[Bishka]

Oh, about five gazillion posts, at least half of them mine. Go through them and frubal me, okay? I hope I haven't posted for 5 hours for nothing!

Oh my! What a thread. Unfortantley this seems to be what happens over and over again.....*Sigh*

 

[Katzpur]

Oh my! What a thread. Unfortantley this seems to be what happens over and over again.....*Sigh*

Yes, but look at it this way:

Nearly 200 posts and the thread hasn't been closed!

 

[Bishka]

Yes, but look at it this way:

Nearly 200 posts and the thread hasn't been closed!

:biglaugh:

I laughed so loud when I read that!

 

[Booko]

*** MOD POST ***

Please take care in posting links to other sites.

4.) While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or inflammatory posts. We will allow faith to be debated and discussed by a member only when there is no hostile, rude, or insulting opinion of another's faith. The same applies to international conflicts; hostile, rude or insulting opinions of one of the sides to an international conflict will not be allowed. These restrictions to an open debate or discussion also apply to material linked and/or quoted from another site. Our decision is final in these matters.

That means posting links to other sites that insult other religions are as much as violation of this rule as if a user posted the insult him/herself.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

 

[Aqualung]

Yes, but look at it this way:

Nearly 200 posts and the thread hasn't been closed!

That's actually quite amazing. Huzzah!

 

[nutshell]

Yes, but look at it this way:

Nearly 200 posts and the thread hasn't been closed!

Comprehend must be restraining himself.

 

[Vassal]

Good job. Since, however, there exists no original document from which the Bible was written, the "perfect" translation of the Bible on your part, and the imperfect translation on my part, are unfalsifiable. Therefore, why discuss it? Oh, yeah, because then you would have to deal with the claims of the Bible itself that it is not complete and with the fact that the Bible was compiled well after Christ was around.

There are thousands of documents, that when pieced together, can reconstruct about 99% of the Bible. To say you can’t trust the validity of the Bible, which has tons of historical and textual backing, but then say that you can trust the Book of Mormon, is just totally backwards.

Indeed. The Bible itself says that the righteous will be made heirs of God and JOINT HEIRS WITH CHRIST. You, I am sure, believe that Christ IS God. If we are to be JOINT HEIRS with Christ, how can we NOT have what he has? It is impossible to be a joint heir without sharing. It's what joint means.

Yes, those who have faith in Christ are joint heirs, joint heirs of the eternal life that God gives. Read Romans 8:11 and you will see the correct meaning of Romans 8:17. If the spirit that lives with Christ also lives within us, then we are sure to be raised back to life just as Christ was raised back to life. No mention of people becoming gods.

Again, very good. But you overlook all the biblical evidence for this. For example, when Moses saw God's finger and back. Or when Christ made VERY sure that his desciples noticed that his resurection was bodily, not simply spiritual.

How else would Moses describe what he saw? He would have to compare what he saw to something that he already knew, otherwise no one would understand it. In Revelation it says there will be no need for a sun in heaven because God will give light to his people. Is this saying that God gives off photon radiation? Of course not, but light is the closest thing to compare it to that we would understand. The Bible is full of similes and metaphor comparing spiritual things to earthly things, if not we would be totally confused.

That's not what it says at all. It says MARRIAGE is necessary for EXALTATION. That's very different. It also says that God has sometimes permitted polygamy (such as in the BIBLICAL examples of David or Abraham). But nowhere does it say that it's NECESSARY for SALVATION.

Well it says the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines, to receive this command, and those who do not abide by the covenant will be damned. It certainly seems to be referring to polygamy. But even if it is referring to just marriage, it still seems in contradiction to Luke 18:29-30, which says that giving up things, including wife, for the Kingdom will be rewarded and will have eternal life.

Luke 18:29-30 (NLT) 29 “Yes,” Jesus replied, “and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, 30 will be repaid many times over in this life, and will have eternal life in the world to come.”

Have you ever read Numbers, Job, Ecclesiates, Jerimiah, Zecharia, John, Acts, Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, Jude, or Revelation? Because I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that those are all in the Bible. Now, obviously, I could be completely wrong, because those books all speak of premortal existence, and you claim this is unbliblical, but I was soooo sure they were there...

I know of several places where it says that God knew us before he created us, but there is no place that says we existed before we were born. If you think there is such a statement then cite it.

 

[Bishka]

. If you think there is such a statement then cite it.

If you think you can really 'disprove' our religion, go ahead and start your own thread.

 

[bible truth]

Yes, but look at it this way:

Nearly 200 posts and the thread hasn't been closed!

http://www.ligonier.org/thegospel_affirmations.php

http://www.t4g.org/T4TG-statement.pdf

Hey Katzpur,

Not bad for being new to this site. I guess I hit a sore spot. I will give you the major difference which seperates Historical Biblical Christianity and the LDS Faith. The major difference has to do with the “person and work of Jesus Christ”. Our doctrines about "the person and work of Christ" are not the same. Please read the links above for basic essentials to the Christian Faith. Please consider the three Bible passages in regards to the claim of the LDS Church. In Jude, the faith to contend for was once for all delivered to the saints. The good deposit of faith has been delivered to the church in the 1st century. There are no additional revelations to guard or defend. In Hebrews 1, God spoke through prophets, but in the last days he has spoken to us by his Son. The revelation is complete in Jesus Christ. - BT

Jude 3:
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

2 Timothy 1:14:
Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

Hebrews 1
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

If I believe that Peter was the first Pope and the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, I would be a Roman Catholic Christian.

If I believe Angel Moroni was a messenger from God, and that God the Father and His Son appeared to Joseph Smith, I would be a Mormon Christian.

However, I believe God has spoken to us through His Son as complete revelation from Him. I believe the complete Faith was delivered to the 1st century church as Jesus promised through God the Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible translations are trustworthy to have faith in all of the promises of God revealed in the Bible. Therefore, I am a Bible believing Christian. I test all things in the light of Scripture. When the Bible is used as the final authority as truth, the official teachings of Roman Catholicism and the official teachings of the LDS church are shown to be false. I will call you a Mormon Christian. Should we close this Thread and talk about the Christian gospel as compared to the LDS gospel? Again, look at my two links above for the universal biblical gospel embraced by evangelical Christians. - BT

 

[Bishka]

Please read the links above for basic essentials to the Christian Faith.

So if I go ask a Catholic, a Lutheran and a Baptist, they'll all agree on these?

Please consider the three Bible passages in regards to the claim of the LDS Church

Please consider to quite trying to be so considered about my salvation. It's your's I would worry about.

 

[jonny]

Hey Bible Truth, I started a thread on the topic that you wanted to discuss/debate. Did you see it?

Here's the link: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50346

I'm excited for the discussion.

 

[James the Persian]

Hi James,

I think we may have a different understanding of Sola Scriptura. The Westminster Confession is the reformation confession. God brought out the truth of Sola Scriptura during the protestant reformation. The real issue is about final authority resting with Scripture Alone as compared to creeds, councils, and confessions. The Westminster Confession also states this same principle as yielding to Scripture authority. I believe creeds and councils are reactions to heresy attacking the church. They are responses to false teachings inside the church. Do you agree? I embrace the historical creeds and councils that defend the truths defined in Scripture alone. I reject the councils that contradict the Scriptures. For example, I reject the "Council of Trent" because it is non-scriptural in what Trent proclaimed. The Council of Trent’s numerous anathemas are aimed at Biblical truths of the Christian gospel. Therefore, by the light of Scripture, The Council of Trent is rejected from being from God.

We certainly do have a different understanding of sola scriptura. For us the Church as a whole (specifically Ecumenical Councils) is the final authority 'pillar and ground of the Truth'. Scripture is the most important part of the Tradition of the Church, against which all else must be weighed, but it is still a product of the Church, and not Her foundation, which is none other than the Incarnate Word of God. The way Protestants view Scripture very often seems like idolatry to us, to be perfectly frank.

I also reject the Council of Trent but not for the same reason as you. To me it is a local council held by a schismatic church and, as such, can have no authority. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'll disagree with the points made, however, just that they hold no particular importance to me due to their origin. I actually haven't really got too much idea what was decided at Trent given it's irrelevance to my Church, as we are neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant.

Christianity is confessional by nature, consisting of doctrine about God Himself, redemptive history, what He expects of His creatures, etc... I believe some contemporary Christians like to proclaim no creeds but Christ. When contemporary Christians proclaim "no creeds but Christ", that have developed a brand new creed…lol. I embrace the lessons and truths revealed through Church History!

I don't disagree with this but then could you please explain why you seem to accept the filioque as unilaterally and uncannonically added to the Creed by Rome (and condemned by the whole Church at the 8th Ecumenical Council which Rome reduced to the status of a Robber Council a couple of centuries later after the Schism)? Is it that you reject the authority of the Council of Constantinople that forbade further additions other than by another Ecumenical Council or is it that you accept that the Pope of Rome had the authority to unilaterally change the faith (and in a way which you simply cannot reconcile with Scripture, which speaks of Pneumatic procession from the Father only).

Yes, I embrace the truth of Sola Scriptura as final authority regarding the Christian Faith and practice. I reject the idea of the Roman Catholic Magestrium is binding over Scripture alone. I embrace all historical creeds and confession that defend Biblical truth.

I reject all three of these points. Sola Scriptura is a nonsense because no text can stand outside of all tradition, secular or Scriptural - we all use a tradition of some sort to interpret it (even Protestants, sola scriptura itself being one such) the only question is whether it's the right one. I reject the Magisterium for obvious reasons and I even reject the very idea as the heirarchy should not be separate. We are all the Church, lay and clergy alike, merely with different roles and clergy should not act like rulers. (Historically, clergy, even bishops, have been deposed by the lay members of our Church for preaching heresy and that is how it should be - unquestioning obedience to questionable individuals is dangerous to say the least). I also, however, reject all Creeds except that started at Nicea and completed at Constantinople. This is the only one with the authority of the whole Church even if some others (such as the Apostle's Creed) teach no heresy. Others, such as the late western fabrication known as the Athanasian Creed and the Creed as altered at Toledo must be rejected on doctrinal grounds also.

James, are you of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Being from America, I have not had a chance to understand the distinctive of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I believe the three branches of Christendom (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism) have the same Christ. All three Christian communities have converted sinners that have been truly united to Christ.

Yes, I'm Orthodox Catholic - what you would call Eastern Orthodox, though we do not call ourselves that. I don't dispute that we all have one Christ (there is only one) but that doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with the view of Him held by other groups. The same is true of the filioquists (RCs and many Protestants). They worship the same God we do but I can't characterise the view of the Trinity held by them as anything other than incorrect (and dangerously so). The difference between us and the Mormons seems to me to be along the same lines, though the degree of separation is greater (though I admit to not being an expert on Mormonism, their view of the Godhead seems similar to the Arians with some Anthropopmorphism thrown in - both condemned heresies, but then for us so is the filioque).

I believe Mormonism is outside the orthodoxy of the Christian Faith. How much Mormon doctrine do you know? How do you determine who the mission field is and who you can embrace as Christian brothers and sisters? - BT

I'm certain Mormonism is outside orthodox Christian faith also, but does that mean they aren't Christian at all? I don't think so. Were I to say that this were truly the case then I would have to conclude the same of the filioquists, which would reduce the number of Christians around rather drastically. As to the mission field, we don't tend to evangelise in the Protestant sense. Most Orthodox prefer to evangelise by example (and this seems to work much better) though there are, of course, places where we do go out and preach - not generally on the territory of other churches. Everyone, in our opinion, who is Christian but not Orthodox is outside the Church and would benefit from being members but God pours His grace out on all and being outside the visible Church (the Church Militant) is no guarantee of damnation. We know where the Church is but not where She is not, and we won't until the Last Judgement. No matter how much I disagree with their teachings, I will not deny anyone the title of Christian if they truly try to follow Christ and I'll leave the judging up to God. He can see into a man's heart. I, certainly, can not.

James