Do the Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God....?

[J2hapydna]

So I guess its like you said. That's exactly as Gersonides puts it, "and behold, the children of Keini returned to the faith of Israel, [because of] that, they settled in Judah

Everyone knows that leave alone a Ger, even an Israelite couldn't switch tribal identities in this way. These Israelite tribal identities were strictly passed down the patrilineal line. So if they were non Israelites, they were Ger whether Toshav or Tzedek in your opinion

Finally, thanks for saving me the need to provide sources that Kenites Gher (goy) non Israelites participated in the animal sacrifices with Jews. Also that the Kenites were known as salamai and muslamai. You have now become another Jewish source I can quote

As far as whether the salamai and muslamai are the same as the word Muslims, I frankly couldn't careless. I never claimed it was in my discussion. That is a windmill you can fight with Abrahamson.

 

[J2hapydna]

One Jew. Its just that guy. And he doesn't offer any proof either, just a few assumptions.

Well it's two Jews now. The other is you. Remember this is what I said,

As I said we have Jews claiming there were non Jewish Kenites worshipping the Jewish deity with them, by performing hajj and animal sacrifices, in the same way as the Quraysh was performing at Kaba. so it's not just that the name of their gods match and he happens to be invisible.

it had nothing to do with how the word Muslim is or isn't Salamai or Muslimai.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Of course it makes sense. If you were raised in an Evangelical Christian home, you come come an Evangelical Christian background, even if you no longer practice or believe in Christianity. I know what Evangelical Christians think of Mormons and I know how heavily they rely on CARM for their "facts" as to who is a Christian and who isn't. Catholics don't do that and neither do any of the more liberal Christian denominations. As a matter of fact, according to CARM, Roman Catholics aren't Christians any more than Mormons are. I have yet to run across a Catholic who would describe CARM as balanced, objective or credible.

If you do not come from an Evangelical Christian background, I can't help but wonder what it was about CARM that led you to accept it as a reliable, trustworthy authority on what's Christian and what's not. I can't imagine you just stumbled onto the website and bought into it hook, line and sinker. Someone must have pointed you in that direction and convinced you that it was your best source of accurate information on Christianity.

OK, I see how you can not be Christian and still be from an Evangelical background. In my case, however, there is nobody Christian anywhere in my family or ancestry. I am born Sikh, and a Hindu convert. Hence, I have no bias either way for Christianity or Mormonism. The only interest I have in them so far, is to argue my point that there has to be a point of demarcation beyond which you cease being a member of a certain tradition. I initially was showing that demarcation was between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but then Mormonism was brought up to showing how it was still within the Christian tradition. Hence it became my exercise to show that Mormonism is not at all considered to be within the Christian tradition.

All I did was a simple google search with the string "Is Mormonism Christian" and I posted the Christian sources I found, one of which was CARM. I have never come across either before, but my exercise was only to give you the perspective of several Christian sources who themselves do not recognise Mormonism as a Christian faith. I will post a few more just to show that it seems to be widely held by Christian scholars to not be a Christian faith:

'Is the Mormon church a Christian denomination?' NO. Mormonism is not Christian because it denies some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, including: 1) the deity of Christ, 2) salvation by grace, and 3) the bodily resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, Mormon doctrine contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible. The evidence for these statements is documented in section 3 below.

Is Mormonism Christian?


Attitudes of other Christians
Both the Vatican and the policy-making body of the United Methodist Church have decided that Mormons must be rebaptised when converting to Catholicism or Methodism.

This shows that the Roman Catholic Church regards Mormonism as varying in its essential beliefs from traditional Christianity. It does allow members of most Protestant and Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism without being rebaptised.

However Mormons require that everyone be baptised when they join their Church, no matter what background they come from.

One difference in the two concepts of baptism is that the Roman Catholic church states that baptism remits original sin as well as personal sin, and that as Mormons do not accept the idea of original sin their idea of baptism is different. Mormons believe people are baptised for the remission of their own sins.

BBC - Religions - Mormon: Are Mormons Christians?

Are Mormons "Christians" as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is "no." Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation.

The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of "traditional Christian orthodoxy." Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.

Is Mormonism Christian?

It is important for us to remember that the question here is much broader than just evangelicals. Virtually every self-confessed Christian movement in America rejects Mormonism as a true expression of biblical or traditional Christian faith to the point that ex-Mormons are generally asked to be baptized again when joining a non-LDS church. This fact is true both of the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church USA, and a variety of others. The United Methodist Church in 1995 included a report and a study document done on Mormonism which stated that the LDS church is not “a part of the historic, apostolic tradition of the Christian faith.” The important issue for us is that this raises a concern, not only in terms of Mormonism, but in terms of how a cult is defined.

http://www.mbts.edu/is-mormonism-christian/


Mormons call themselves “Christians.” They say they believe in Jesus and the Bible and should be considered one of the many respected Christian denominations.

However, Mormons have a serious problem if they want to claim the title of “Christian”. From the earliest days of Christianity battles have raged over orthodox theology — what is it that makes a Christian? There were a good number of tenets that distinguished an orthodox Christian from a heretical group. The Fathers of the Church, the Popes and the Councils were very clear on this.

Is Mormonism Christian? a Cult? a Heresy? | Defenders of the Catholic Faith | Hosted by Stephen K. Ray

In conclusion, Mormons seem to believe they are Christian because their first Article of Faith declares their belief in Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God. However, Mormon and traditional Christian doctrine differ on many levels, including scripture, the deification of humans and the nature of God, the triune Godhead, and the path to salvation. Although they showed similar responses to conservative Christians in their views of Literal Biblical Theology and Personally Oriented Values in a recent study, the authors of the study concluded that their extraneous beliefs, such as in premortal existence and eternal marriage, preclude them from being placed in a conservative/fundamentalist category.[37] Further, because the study showed the differences between LDS and other groups to be greater than the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics and because Mormons perceive themselves as superior, the authors concluded that the LDS Church does not fit within common Christian definitions. Similarly, Shipps believes that the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity is like that between Judaism and Christianity. Because Mormonism aimed to reform Christianity, it can be viewed as a whole new religious tradition as Christianity was eventually viewed as diverse from Judaism

Is Mormonism Christian?​

Now try to understand this, I am a Sikh born Hindu with no a priori knowledge about the traditional Christian vs Mormon controversy. Hence, no bias either side. I do a basic search online, and all I find is outside of Mormonism itself, every other Christian denomination considers them non-Christian. At the very least this makes Mormonism as a Christian faith to be controversial. The consensus appears to be overwhelmingly Moromonism is not christian. Now, the next part of my search is to find out the reasons why it is not Christian. I few have been cited in the excerpts above.

Cont.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm attacking you. I'm merely stating what Mormonism actually teaches and what Mormons actually believe. Most of the "Christian sources" you have provided disagree with what I have found to be the case in my 68 years as a practicing Mormon. Don't you think that in 68 years of attending church on a weekly basis, I'd have heard the Bible referred to as "the work of the Devil" if that was, in fact, part of Mormon theology? You must either believe that I am just about the stupidest person around or else that I am flat out lying about what I believe. I'm just not sure which.

It seems, that while Mormons do consider the Bible their holy scripture, they consider it to be imperfect, incomplete and having many errors.

• Joseph Smith stated: "it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.10); "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327).
• When: "the book [Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew...it contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record" (1 Nephi 13:24), but afterwards "thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church...after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles" (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:26,28). See also Doctrines of Salvation, vol.3, p.190-191.
• "many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible...Wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 29:3,10).
• When his "revelation" about Adam being God was disputed, Brigham Young stated: "You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe...I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child" (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.6).
• Orson Pratt's lack of confidence in the Bible is obvious: "...and who, in his right mind, could for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? No one can tell whether even one verse of either the Old or New Testament conveys the ideas of the original author" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 28).
• Apostle Bruce McConkie: "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors, many plain and precious things were deleted, in consequence of which error and falsehood poured into the churches. One of the great heresies of modern Christendom is the unfounded assumption that the Bible contains all of the inspired teachings now extant among men" (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 82,83).
• McConkie continues: The Bible of the Old World has come to us from the manuscripts of antiquity - manuscripts which passed through the hands of uninspired men who changed many parts to suit their own doctrinal ideas. Deletions were common, and, as it now stands, many plain and precious portions and many covenants of the Lord have been lost. As a consequence, those who rely upon it [the Bible] alone stumble and are confused... (The Ensign, December 1985, p 55).
• Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen accused manuscript copyists of deliberately tampering with the Bible: "Many insertions were made, some of them slanted for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated" (As Translated Correctly, p.4).
  
  What Mormons Say About the Bible

I appreciate your posting a Mormon source, but that source does not say what you are claiming it says. The fact that we believe Joseph Smith to have been a prophet does not imply that he founded "a new religion and not just a sect." Yes, Mormons do accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. That does not mean that we do not also accept the Bible as scripture. As a matter of fact, we devote roughly twice as much time to Bible study in our adult Sunday School classes as we do to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible has been described by one LDS Apostle as "foremost of [the Church's] standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as [its] written guides in faith and doctrine."

In contrast, this is the view on the Mormon scriptures:

• President Ezra Taft Benson stated: "Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation" ("The Keystone of Our Religion", The Ensign, January 1992, page 5).
• Joseph Smith claimed: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was more correct than any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.194).
• An official and widely read LDS publication reads: "Men can get nearer to the Lord, can have more of the spirit of conversion and conformity in their hearts...can gain a better understanding of the doctrines of salvation through the Book of Mormon than they can through the Bible...there will be more people saved in the kingdom of God - ten thousand times over - because of the Book of Mormon than there will be because of the Bible" (The Ensign, November 1984, p. 7).
• A letter from the First Presidency (Presidents Benson, Hinckley, and Monson) to all members of the Church states: "The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations". (Church News, June 20, 1992, page 3, letter dated May 22, 1992).
  
  (op cit)

It thus becomes clear that the Mormons consider their own new scripture to be the main authority, and the Bible of secondary importance. The Mormon scripture is a new revelation, in much the same way the NT of the Bible was a new revelation, but in order to justify it as being within the Jewish tradition the compilers included the OT as a part of it, but this did not make Christianity a sect of Judaism. Similarly, Mormonism cannot be considered a sect of Christianity just because it includes the Bible, because it is new revelation.

I will next show you how Mormonism inverts nearly every doctrine of Christianity

Cont.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Finally, I challenge you to provide one single, solitary verse from the Book of Mormon that teaches polytheism. Before you waste too much time, though, here, for your information, are two verses from the Book of Mormon, that state the exact opposite of what you claim:

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.

Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

This was a fairly easy challenge to meet:

1. The Mormon church teaches that "God is only one of many gods", because human beings can progress to become gods and godesses in the celestial kingdom (see: Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball , pp.28, 51-53).

Mormon founder Joseph Smith describes the creation of the earth: "And they (the Gods) said, 'Let there be light'...And the Gods pronounced the dry land...And the Gods organized the earth...And the Gods planted a garden in Eden" (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 4:3,10,25; 5:8). A reference to a plurality of 'Gods' occurs at least 43 times in the book of Abraham.
According to Joseph Smith: "The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is prominent in the Bible. The heads of the Gods appointed our God for us...you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.370-372, 346).
Mormon Apostle and leading apologist Bruce McConkie states: "Three separate personages---Father, Son, and Holy Ghost---comprise the Godhead...As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us...these three are the only Gods we worship" (Mormon Doctrine, p.576-577).
Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt wrote "there are more gods than there are particles of matter" (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.345).
Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote: "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods" (Journal of Discourses v.7, p.333).

Mormon Teaching about the Nature of God​

There is more than one God in Mormornism and this is called polytheism.

In contrast this is what the bible says:

• "the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him" (Deut. 4:35).
• " I am the first, I am also the last and there is no God besides Me" (Is. 44:6, 48:12, 45:14,21-22).
• "there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him" (1 Cor. 6:6).
• "I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is no one like me" (Is. 46:9).
• "...before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me!" (Is. 43:10).
• "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since he could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself" (Heb. 6:13).
• "Thou alone art the LORD; thou hast made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their host, the earth and all that is on it" (Neh. 9:6).

There is only one God in Christianity and Judaism and this is called monotheism.

Mormonism also teaches the complete opposite doctrine of God. They say God was once a man like we were, who became an exalted being because of good works, and that God has a flesh and bones body like we do:

"God is an organized being just as we are who are now in the flesh" (Gospel Doctrine, p.64).
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).
"God is not omnipresent...cannot be physically present in more than one place at a time"; "If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions, and therefore of limited extension and space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits" (Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.43,48).
Brigham Young declared: "Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so" (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.345).
Carfred Broderick writes: "God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, p.100-101).
​

In contrast this is what the Bible says:

"God is Spirit and those that worship Him must worship him in spirit and truth" (John 4:24).
"A spirit does not have flesh and bones" (Lk. 24:39).
"No man has seen God at any time" (Jn 1:18).
Jesus said: "No man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God" (Jn. 4:46).
"And He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15).
"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God" (1 Tim. 1:17).
"For he [Moses] endured, as seeing Him [God] who is unseen" (Heb. 11:27).
"who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see" (1 Tim. 6:16).
God is Omnipotent: "I [God] will do whatever I choose" (Is. 46:10); "You [God] are all-powerful, what you can conceive, you can perform" (Jb. 42:2); "To you [God] nothing is impossible" (Jer. 32:17); "For God everything is possible" (Matt. 19:26).
God is Omniscient, because He has total knowledge of the past, present and future: "Our Lord is great, all-powerful, of infinite understanding" (Ps. 147:5); "He sees to the ends of the earth, and observes all that lies under heaven (Jb. 28:24); "From the beginning I [God] foretold the future and predicted beforehand what is to be" (Is. 46:10).
God is Omnipresent: "Yahweh is indeed in heaven above as in earth beneath" (Deut. 4:39); "the heavens cannot contain you [God]" (1 Kings 8:27); "Yet...he [God] is not far from any of us, since it is in him that we live and move and exist" (Acts 17:24-28).
God is Sustainer of the Universe: "you [God] made all the universe and it was only by your will that everything was made and exists" (Rev. 4:11); "it is He who gives everything, including life and breath, to everyone" (Acts 17:25); "for in Him all things were created in heaven and on earth...before anything was created He existed, and He holds all things together" (Col. 1:16-7)​

Hence, we can see a total inversion of Christian and Jewish beliefs. In like manner there are inversions and additions of many other beliefs like God having wives. The web site I have cited extensively above shows many such inversion and additions.

Therefore, as a Sikh born Hindu convert, with no bias either side, having looked at all the evidence, it makes sense why the rest of Christian denominations do not consider Mormonism a Christian faith. Mormonism rather seems more like a Neo-Christian cult, and reminds me of a lot of similar Neo-Hindu cults like the Brahma Kumaris which were also based on new revelations and made similar claims that their revelation supersedes the rest and invert every teaching of Hinduism, e.g. Raja Yoga. Although BK's resent being called a cult, and I am sure likewise Mormons resent being called a cult.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do a basic search online, and all I find is outside of Mormonism itself, every other Christian denomination considers them non-Christian.

I am pretty sure that this is not correct, and could not even conceivably be correct.

Your lack of previous contact with Christianity seems to have left you vulnerable to the very biased, unbalanced claims from certain vocal, motivated yet very questionable segments of that group. You should be made aware that attitudes towards other Christian segments vary widely among Christians. Quite a few, possibly a majority even, don't even like to have an opinion on whether other groups qualify as ("true") Christians.

At the very least, I would expect that the most liberal segments of most denominations would acknowledge Mormons as Christians without a second thought. Likewise for Seventh Day Adventists and probably Jehovah's Witnesses as well, since they are often lumped into that weird situation along with Mormons.

It is significant to notice that Roman Catholicism is numerically perhaps the most significant of all Christian groups, yet it is also claimed as "non-Christian" by most of those groups who like to decide who are not true Christians.

In case you are curious, I feel safe to assure you that most of us stinking atheists would not even consider questioning the claims of Mormons, SDA and JDW of being Christians. Generally, our attitude is that anyone who speaks of God and or Jesus with any frequency and seriousness and claims to be a Christian should probably be considered a Christian.

 

[Haroundb]

Come on, you are not really asking that question!
Sure everything said to be "God" is simply leads to One and only "ONE"! It is just because humans are very complicated so their output is also complicated. So the first input to humanity regarding the "Creator" was that : "He is God". Then life goes, people tend to change what they receive because of their deficiency, miss-inter-petition, self orientation, environmental influence ...etc. This leads toe the deformation of the "original" "Real" truth or the very first one in particular.

Yah, all are the same, it is just "Different Languages To Say It"

 

[Katzpur]

'Is the Mormon church a Christian denomination?' NO. Mormonism is not Christian because it denies some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, including: 1) the deity of Christ

Mormons totally believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. We believe that He, along with His Father and the Holy Ghost, is "God." I just got through posting two verses from the Book of Mormon itself which say as much. You have chosen to simply ignore them. Furthermore, we believe every word the Bible has to say about Him, from the fact that He created this earth, to His birth to a Virgin, to the details concerning His mortal life, to His completely unselfish and loving atoning sacrifice to reconcile us with our Father in Heaven, to His miraculous resurrection from the dead. No mere human being could have done what He did.

2) salvation by grace

Mormons believe that were it not for the grace of Jesus Christ, not one of us could possibly hope for salvation. Yes, we are expected to keep His commandments to the best of our ability, but no matter how hard we were to try to live righteously, we are saved by His grace, apart from anything we might be able to do on our own. And just for the record, Roman Catholicism (which is by far the largest Christian denomination in the world) does not believe in salvation by grace alone any more than Mormonism does. Anyone who would insist that it doesn't matter to God how we behave as long as we have faith in Christ would have to exclude Catholics from Christianity as well as Mormons. Therefore, on this point alone, there are more Christians in the world that believe that our works are, in fact, important to God and will be taken into account when we stand before Him to be judged than believe that they count for nothing.

3) the bodily resurrection of Christ.

We are absolutely firm in our convictions that Jesus Christ rose from the dead in bodily form and ascended in bodily form to Heaven, where He sits today on on His Father's right hand side. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, but Mormons absolutely do. Furthermore, we believe that He assured every individual who has ever lived a literal bodily resurrection as well. And just as a side note -- we believe He has prepared a place in Heaven for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and even (*gasp*) atheists. Now that may not strike some people as being very Christian, but to Mormons, it's what His incredible love is all about.

Furthermore, Mormon doctrine contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible.

Well, I've already responded to those two claims. There doesn't seem to be much point in my repeating myself, since you obviously don't think I know what I'm talking about. So, seeing as nothing I have said has made the slightest bit of difference to you, I'm afraid I'm done here. Before I leave, though, I just want to tell you a couple of things about myself, since you really don't know me. (1) I know my religion and I know it well. (2) I am honest and forthcoming in my answers. I don't beat around the bush or try to avoid answering the more difficult questions. (3) I can be the most patient person on this forum when it comes to helping people understand what Mormonism really teaches. (4) BUT -- I have a zero-tolerance policy for people who simply refuse to give me credit where credit is due, and whose responses to me suggest that I am either ignorant about Mormon doctrine or dishonest in explaining it. (5) Recent experiences on this forum have convinced me that I am better off not even getting into discussions with the kind of people who make me as frustrated and angry as I see you're trying to make me. Because I don't feel that anybody has my back, regardless of the nonsense that is thrown out there about my religion, I have decided it best not to even encourage dialogue that will just add fuel to the fire.

That said, I won't be commenting on any further posts by you regarding Mormonism unless I see a clear change in your attitude. That makes me feel kind of bad, actually, since I would like very much to be able to help you understand Mormonism better than you obviously do. But since you refuse to believe anything I say, what point would there be? If you ever change your mind and decide you want to become better educated on the subject, you know where to find me. I'll probably die still posting on this forum.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I agree that there is a line of demarcation. But I am arguing that the line is further out than you are saying. I don't think its a slippery slope because we seem to have the line quite well drawn: The Islamic god-concept is considered acceptable by Jewish standards, the Christian one is not. Even more than that - we (OJ's) need to have the line drawn clearly because it has practical ramifications on how we can associate with them.

You are also assuming that differences between sects are minor compared to those between religions. I don't think that's necessarily so.

I am glad we agree there has to be a line of demarcation. Now, the next point is to decide where that line is drawn. You draw the line between Judaism and Christianity, but not between Judaism and Islam. I draw the line between all three.

However, what is notable here that Jews themselves living in the times of Mohammed, drew the line between Judaism and Islam. That is because they knew of Allah's Pagan past, possibly a moon God, hence they did not accept Mohammed's effort to pass of Allah as YHWH. I understand there have been a few later Jewish scholars who have accepted Allah as the Jewish God, but the overall consensus appears to be Jewish people do not accept Allah as their God.

I don't think that makes a difference. First of all, say instead of two daughters, we speak of their children who never met their grandfather. Does that mean daughter Y's kids are going to believe in a grandfather that never existed? Let's say instead of a grandfather it was a teacher. Student A heard X and student B heard Y, but the teacher really said X. Now both students pass on these lessons to their students in the name of their teacher. Doesn't B's students believe in a teacher that never existed? Its the same idea. There's key concepts here that parallel each other enough that we would say, they believe in the same teacher but one of them is mistaken as to what the teacher said.

The problem with your analogy is that we know that people have ancestry, so you have a father, a great grandfather, a great great grandfather, hence if you claim your great grandfather said x but another says he said y, while I can doubt whether he really said x or y, I do not doubt the fact that he existed. On the other hand, God is not a human person, God is an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent spirit. The only way I can know God exists, is from those humans who have claimed to experience him or his messengers. Hence, I know nothing of God beyond the narrator who describes God. However, the trouble is there are many narratives of God. This time I can doubt the narratives and also the very existence of God itself.

Hence, we cannot speak of God as separate from the narrator.

But we can take integrate your idea into this as well. Because the fact is that Muhammad got his god-concept from Moses (or if you prefer the scholarly tradition, from whoever came up with the Jewish version). That is true both from a scholarly point of view (they certainly seemed to have borrowed heavily from the Jewish tradition) and theologically true as I'm fairly sure Muslims validate their religion as a continuation of Judaism through supersessionism.

5. Moses heard it right and Muhammad borrowed from it.

I would argue that Mohammed's God is not God but another image or concept of God. Although you have tried to argue that Mohamed 's God is the same God of the Jews, and I have agreed with you in spirit or character it definitely far closer to the Jewish God than the Christian God, you have failed to answer my objection that if the the Muslim God is the same as the Jewish God, why does the Jewish God love Jewish people and the Muslim God hate Jewish people?

I don't think that would be true even within Judaism. Different prophets have different revelations of G-d. If they all experienced revelation differently than are you going to say that they each had a different god? In Song of Songs 5:10-11, G-d is described as having a ruddy complexion with black hair. In Daniel 7:9 G-d is described as "ancient" with hair like "white wool". Do Solomon and Daniel worship two different gods? Even Adam before he sinned and after he sinned had different revelationary experiences. Does that make him a polytheist?

Have you noted the two descriptions you gave me are opposite? One says "Black hair" and the other "white hair" This can indicate any of the following possibilities

1. God has black hair
2. God has white hair
3. They both experienced two different God one with black and another with white hair
4. They both made it up
5. They both experienced the same God according to their own perceptions
​

I will discuss (5) with you next.

And we say the opposite. Because we uphold apophatic theology, no image would ever be a valid image to remind one of G-d with any effective degree of legitimacy. Therefore we Jews prohibit all images and only use abstract references.

I don't think you realise according to Hindu understanding anything you attribute to God is an image. An image need not to be visual, it can also be a word-image. We consider your YHWH to be as much an image as Shiva, Vishnu, Divine Mother, Rama, Krishna. That is because you make attributions to it and draw narratives, your God YHWH is a God that is concerned with people in the Middle East, and hence he has little draw for us Indians. On the other hand, our God Vishnu or Shiva is concerned with people in India, and hence has little draw for people in the Middle east. The names we assign are all culturally specific, our names are Sanskrit names and yours are Hebrew/Semetic names. The attributes we assign are also culture specific, our God incarnates to restore dharma; your God intervenes directly or sends messengers.

As soon as you have said anything about God you are giving attributes and narratives and hence that becomes a concept of God, rather than God itself. In Hindu philosophy we understand this, hence why we make a distinction between Nirguna Brahman(God without attributes) and Saguna Brahman(God with attributes) Nirguna Brahman is unknowable through our ordinary senses and mind, because it is beyond sense perception and beyond reason, it cannot be described or fathomed, because as soon as you attempt to do so, it ceases being God. Think of it like the Tao, "The Tao that can be named is not the Tao"

How do we know that there is a God at all if God is unknowable to us using our senses and mind? The answer is we know through both inference and testimony. The inference is very much like a Kantian inference, I know the the noumena(reality in itself) exists, from the fact there is phenomena(reality as it appears) Similarly, we know God exists, because there has to be a substratum for all of existence, from which this proceeds and into which it disappears. This substratum has be also the substratum of all consciousness, from which all souls originate and into which they disappear. This substratum also has to be substratum of all bliss, from which all things derive their bliss. Hence we say God is satchitananda, meaning existence-consciousness-bliss --- or in other words God is BEING.

If you are intellectually inclined, the the above inference will convince you. If you are not, then it simply based on the testimony of Rishis or seers that we believe God exists. However, in Hinduism, which I don't think is present in your religion, we have a way by which we can directly experience God. In other words we can experience what the Rishis experienced. As God is BEING, I am intimately connected to God through my consciousness. Hence, I can directly experience God within my consciousness. What is currently preventing me from experiencing God is my consciousness is directed through the senses and the mind, and knows no other way of knowing reality. I am forced to think in terms of words, objects, categories. I thus withdraw my consciousness from going outwards into the world, to going inwards to the BEING of my SELF. In order to achieve this aim we developed Yoga and meditation whereby we suspend the senses and the mind(Be Still and know that I am God) Thus, we are the only religion that gives you a practical method by which you can experience God yourself.

As consciousness goes inwards towards the SELF or BEING it passes through stages. One of those stages is when you experience a vision(darsana) of your own God concept. So a Muslim will experience their own God concept(Allah) a Taoist theirs(Tao) a Buddhist theirs(Nirvana) a Vaishnava theirs(Vishnu) and this explains why different prophets have different revelations(white hair or black hair)

It is unavoidable that we all have to start with some God concept and hence why in Hinduism a Hindu has freedom to choose whatever God concept appeals to them the most, like Vishnu, Shiva or Divine Mother, or Hanuman, or Ganesha. There are some Hindus that even like the Jesus or Allah god concept. It need not be a personal God though. Other Hindus prefer to use more abstract concepts like God as the "Self" or God as "Primordial Vibration" or God as "Source" Based on your temperament, different concepts will appeal to you. We do not have this "One size fits all" mentality that Abrahamic religions do. In Christianity you can only relate to God as "Father" but what if you feel better relating to God as Mother? In Islam you can only relate to God as Master, but what if you want to relate to God as friend, or guru, or your child? Recognising the differences in peoples preferences and tempers, Hinduism is democratic.

I sense a possible objection that you insist that your God image is not a image but God itself. To that I reply, that is what they all say It requires humility to accept that God is beyond all sense and reason and therefore cannot be fathomed using our senses and mind.

 

[psychoslice]

No one really worships the same god, everyone has a concept of what god means to them, so there is really about 7 billion god's.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Well, I've already responded to those two claims. There doesn't seem to be much point in my repeating myself, since you obviously don't think I know what I'm talking about. So, seeing as nothing I have said has made the slightest bit of difference to you, I'm afraid I'm done here. Before I leave, though, I just want to tell you a couple of things about myself, since you really don't know me. (1) I know my religion and I know it well. (2) I am honest and forthcoming in my answers. I don't beat around the bush or try to avoid answering the more difficult questions. (3) I can be the most patient person on this forum when it comes to helping people understand what Mormonism really teaches. (4) BUT -- I have a zero-tolerance policy for people who simply refuse to give me credit where credit is due, and whose responses to me suggest that I am either ignorant about Mormon doctrine or dishonest in explaining it. (5) Recent experiences on this forum have convinced me that I am better off not even getting into discussions with the kind of people who make me as frustrated and angry as I see you're trying to make me. Because I don't feel that anybody has my back, regardless of the nonsense that is thrown out there about my religion, I have decided it best not to even encourage dialogue that will just add fuel to the fire.

That said, I won't be commenting on any further posts by you regarding Mormonism unless I see a clear change in your attitude.

I think you are reacting a bit too emotionally and it does little in persuading me to your position. Like I told you, I am a Sikh born Hindu with no a priori knowledge about Christianity vs Mormonism controversy, everything I know about it is based on recent Google searches. I have no bias for either side. I am simply going by what I know so far based on my research. I cannot doubt my own eyes now can I. You tell me that Mormonism is not polytheistic, but this is what I find:

Mormon founder Joseph Smith describes the creation of the earth: "And they (the Gods) said, 'Let there be light'...And the Gods pronounced the dry land...And the Gods organized the earth...And the Gods planted a garden in Eden" (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 4:3,10,25; 5:8). A reference to a plurality of 'Gods' occurs at least 43 times in the book of Abraham.
According to Joseph Smith: "The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is prominent in the Bible. The heads of the Gods appointed our God for us...you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.370-372, 346).
Mormon Apostle and leading apologist Bruce McConkie states: "Three separate personages---Father, Son, and Holy Ghost---comprise the Godhead...As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us...these three are the only Gods we worship" (Mormon Doctrine, p.576-577).
Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt wrote "there are more gods than there are particles of matter" (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.345).
Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote: "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods" (Journal of Discourses v.7, p.333).

These are quotations from Mormon sources itself and they confirm they believe in many Gods. If you want me to change my attitude you have to show me that this is wrong. The passages you cited earlier are outweighed by all these other quotes which must mean either of the following

1. Mormon scriptures are contradictory, one source saying another and another saying something else
2. You misinterpreted the quotes you originally cited
3. You took out of context the original quotes



​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am pretty sure that this is not correct, and could not even conceivably be correct.

Your lack of previous contact with Christianity seems to have left you vulnerable to the very biased, unbalanced claims from certain vocal, motivated yet very questionable segments of that group. You should be made aware that attitudes towards other Christian segments vary widely among Christians. Quite a few, possibly a majority even, don't even like to have an opinion on whether other groups qualify as ("true") Christians.

I am simply citing what I found searching for it. They were not all Evangelical sources, one of them was BBC and there were some well argued papers like the Luther college one. They all agreed, that except for Mormons themselves, the rest of traditional Christian denominations do not consider them Christians. However, I am not basing my views solely on testimony from Christian sources, I am also looking at the reasons for why they do not consider it Christian and I agree with their reasons

At the very least, I would expect that the most liberal segments of most denominations would acknowledge Mormons as Christians without a second thought. Likewise for Seventh Day Adventists and probably Jehovah's Witnesses as well, since they are often lumped into that weird situation along with Mormons.

I don't know much at this stage of SDA or JW to pass comment on them, so I will reserve comment. However, I suspect these are also Neo-Christian groups that have sprung up recently.

It is significant to notice that Roman Catholicism is numerically perhaps the most significant of all Christian groups, yet it is also claimed as "non-Christian" by most of those groups who like to decide who are not true Christians.

This maybe true, maybe the Evangelical are far more exclusive in defining whose Christian. However, in the case of Mormonism it seems it is unanimous, that outside of Mormonism, nobody considers them a Christian faith. According the BBC source, while Protestant and Catholics do not require most of their members to be rebaptized if they are from another sect, they do in the case of Mormonism because they do not recognise it. I would like to add, I am not just basing this on consensus, but also in reason. How much in alignment is Mormonism with Christian theology? It appears to have inverted most of the core doctrines.

In case you are curious, I feel safe to assure you that most of us stinking atheists would not even consider questioning the claims of Mormons, SDA and JDW of being Christians. Generally, our attitude is that anyone who speaks of God and or Jesus with any frequency and seriousness and claims to be a Christian should probably be considered a Christian.

I would argue that is because you are atheist, so it does not matter to you what the internal matters of a theistic religion is. It is all bunk to you anyway. However, as I argued in my other thread, self-identity is not a valid criteria to decide whether you are a member of a certain group, because it is subjective. It does not matter how much a meat eater self-identifies as "Vegetarian" they are not objectively vegetarian because they do not fulfil the criteria of being vegetarian and others will remind them of it. Similarly, if somebody self-identifies as Christian, and yet does not fulfil the criteria of being Christian, they cannot legitimately be considered Christian. As Mormonism inverts almost all of the core beliefs of the Christian faith(like one God) denies the absolute authority of the Bible, and whose soteriology is based on the exact inversion of Abrahamic theology of man becoming God, which is considered the greatest lie or deception by Satan, who told Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge so her and Adam too can become Gods, lead to the subsequent expulsion from the Garden of Eden and is considered the original sin. Now, as a Hindu I should welcome this belief that man can become God, but I can clearly see it is an aberration in Abrahamic thought. Hence, it makes perfect sense to me why it is not considered Christian by the other Christian groups.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are writing quite the fiction piece, @Spirit_Warrior .

I am so glad that I do not have to believe in it, that I find myself wondering whether the Gospels and the Qur'an began that way.

You know, Dharma is supposed to know better than that.

For that matter, Dharmi are supposed to listen and consider what other people say, particularly when they went through the trouble of asking in the first place. You clearly do not have any interest in doing that, and you would do better by not going through the motions in the first place.

 

[J2hapydna]

What that guy is really trying to say is - and I explained this on that thread I linked you to earlier - is that Islam is an acceptable incarnation of Noahidism

He is actually not saying that in my opinion. I think he is saying that followers of Orthodox Islam "could be" peaceful Noachides IF they revisit their Islamic sources.
His main point is that Orthodox Islamic sources are adequate to bring about such a change. So Sunni Muslims should look within their tradition to find answers.

Beyond that I think he is also a historian who enjoys reading about secular archaeological discoveries as well as religious books on Islam to better understand the forces that shape and could potentially change the beliefs of Muslims in the region.

 

[Koldo]

This maybe true, maybe the Evangelical are far more exclusive in defining whose Christian. However, in the case of Mormonism it seems it is unanimous, that outside of Mormonism, nobody considers them a Christian faith.

Source: Mormons in America – Certain in Their Beliefs, Uncertain of Their Place in Society

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Muslims to not believe God adopts and do not believe Jesus died rose or is the son of God... and yet these are the basis of salvation as presented in the New Testament... so ... there are significant differences in views

Yes, but that doesnt change your love for God. Love God first and foremost, and love one another as God loves you. The rest is your personal journey in life in finding out who the true God is and the true way to worship him. You wouldn't stop going to school at elementry, or middle school, or high school. You would probably go out and get the most advanced degree possible. Same with God. Learn and try to understand how God is revealing himself. Why were some born into Christianity, some born into Islam, some born into Judaism, and all the other religions. Maybe you are just a product of your culture and society. Have you thought bigger than your current situation and beliefs without bias from others?

 

[BlaznFattyz]

The Jews worship Yehovah, the creator of our universe. True Christianity worships Yeshua (Jesus), who merged with Yehovah upon His second ascension to Heaven (in Galilee).

The Muslims worship an Arabian idol "moon god" named Allah, making the false claim that Ishmael was part of "the promise" given to Abraham. But it is another gentile falsehood created to deceive mankind. The Catholic regime created Islam, in a scheme to obtain the rights to Jerusalem.

The birthright bloodline was from Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. In Genesis 50:24 and Exodus 2:24, it is confirmed that God made His covenant with those three. God made no such covenant with, and nor did He ever speak to, Ishmael. It is the same type of lie Satan told to Eve ("thou shalt not surely die").

Herman Cummings
[email protected]

I dont know where you got this info, but it is incorrect. True Christianity worships God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Christians worship both the Son and the Father, as they are both the one God. We worship in spirit as the Holy Spirit knows your deepest desires and knows the deep things of God. Thru the Holy Spirit is how we connect to God and worship and are given understanding of salvation thru Jesus Christ.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You know, Dharma is supposed to know better than that.

For that matter, Dharmi are supposed to listen and consider what other people say, particularly when they went through the trouble of asking in the first place. You clearly do not have any interest in doing that, and you would do better by not going through the motions in the first place.

Again, you are shooting the messenger here. It is not me who had decided that Mormonism is not a Christian faith, it is the the rest of Christian denominations. I have looked at their reasons for doing so, and they say because it inverts all the core tenets of Christianity. I have looked at one of those core tenets monotheism inverted into polytheism and given evidence from Mormon sources itself. Now Katz is telling me they are definitely not polytheist, but she is saying it based on her word, but it is contradicted by the official Mormon sources itself. Now, considering this, whose word do I take, hers or her official sources?

There is no prescribed way a 'Dharmi' should act. There is no such thing as a "Dharmi" in the first place.

I am fighting the battle for Christians here right now, why don't we ask them ourselves especially those who are from Roman Catholic or Protestant backgrounds whether they consider Mormonism Chrisitan? Do they accept that God is just a flesh and bones man, who became God?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Source: Mormons in America – Certain in Their Beliefs, Uncertain of Their Place in Society

I meant the other major denominations. I make a distinction between the views of the laity and the views of scholars and clergy. If we did another survey how many Christians have cheated on their partner, we might see similar percentages, but that does not mean it is NOT against Christian ethics.

I have made it clear already I do not consider subjective assessment or popularity of opinion valid. I measure it by more objective standards. The degree of how much one conforms to their religion is measured by how much they believe and practice what it teaches. So I know a Jain who eats meat is not a good example of somebody in that religion or a Muslim who eats pork is not a good example.
I have a consistent and objective standard that I can equally apply to my own religion as I can another --- this leads to some uncomfortable truths for some -- but hey truth hurts, right?

 

[Koldo]

I meant the other major denominations. I make a distinction between the views of the laity and the views of scholars and clergy.

And what if the scholars and the clergy have contradictory views ?
I have already pointed out Judaism ( who is a jew ? ) as an example.

If we did another survey how many Christians have cheated on their partner, we might see similar percentages, but that does not mean it is NOT against Christian ethics.

You got this mixed up. You would be doing the wrong survey.
What you should be asking is whether Christian consider 'cheating on their partner' to be in line with Christian ethics.

I have made it clear already I do consider subjective assessment or popularity of opinion valid. I measure it by more objective standards. The degree of how much one conforms to their religion is measured by how much they believe and practice what it teaches. So I know a Jain who eats meat is not a good example of somebody in that religion or a Muslim who eats pork is not a good example.
I have a consistent and objective standard that I can equally apply to my own religion as I can another --- this leads to some uncomfortable truths for some -- but hey truth hurts, right?

But how do you determine what Christianity teaches ? That requires a considerable degree of interpretation on your part, which is inherently subjective.