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

[Spirit_Warrior]

There are indeed Christians that reject them. They are still, however, often considered Christians.

I think you are arguing a slippery slope here. If Christians sects also have can have differences, and still be considered Christian and worshipping the same God, then why cannot Islam have differences and still be considered Christian and worshipping the same God. In that case we could say as all prehistoric religions were some form of animism, shamanic and nature spirit worship, then can't all religions be considered that and worshipping the same God despite having differences. Clearly that leads to absurdity. There has to be a point of demarcation from which we can recognise that a tradition has split form another. Where I can positively say this is a jew, this a Christian and this is a Muslim, or that matter this is a Hindu, this is a Buddhist this is a Jain.

Minor sectarian differences are not divergent enough to warrant that it has split from the original tradition, but major and fundamental differences in tenets does warrant a split and a demarcation. Islam is an example of demarcation from Judaism.

Do you mean that is a major difference because that is what Jesus taught, rather than a later interpretation by Christians ?
Here you are making an assumption over what Jesus actually taught. Whether he really did teach that he was God is not undisputed. It is still a matter of opinion.

We know what Jesus allegedly taught from the major gospels, that is the oldest gospels according to scholarship. Hence we can know how much in alignment with the original doctrines a later tradition his. Jesus did often say things like "I am and my father are one" and this is subject to interpretation, one of those interpretations is that Jesus is God and another interpretation is Jesus is the Son of God. The orthodox interpretation is Jesus and God are aspects of one another.

 

[MansFriend]

The God characters of the Christians and the Muslims are both based on the God character of Judaism, which was on his turn based on El, the head God of the ancient Canaanite polytheistic pantheon, called the Elohim (meaning “children of El”), with a good dose of cross-pollination from the Supreme God Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism, an older monotheistic religion than Judaism.

So technically all three are all based on the same fictional character.

So, what you are saying here is human beings who voluntarily consent to a system of governance who elect certain members of human beings to a governing body are fictional characters?
It doesn't give you cause for concern that these governing bodies influence, in a very profound way, billions of people on this planet who accept their governance?
Not to mention, there are also competing and conflicting governing bodies who rally together their adherents and they duke it out in great spiritual battles and sometimes physical wars? And, these battles and wars cause massive alterations in the geneology and political dominions of who lives where on the planet and under what governance, yet you think this is all just a fiction. People aren't really being influenced by any tangible beings they are all just somehow accidentally coordinating their choices and making it look like there might be some master-mind coordinating all of these things? The appearance of coordination isn't really being orchestrated from a central governing entity, it is just all a fiction people are imagining to themselves....

Go figure....

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Well, I'll be damned! So do Mormons.

They do not actually, they have significantly diverged here from the rest of Christianity as well.

They do not accept the authority of the bible. They consider the bible to be full imperfections and corruptions and the work of the Devil, they accept as authority their own "Book or Mormon"

They accept Jesus, with a completely new understanding. Jesus is a brother of Satan. Jesus was on his way to becoming God to take God's place, and just as God was once like Jesus a man on another planet who worked his way to become God. Mormonism rejects the very distinguishing criteria of not just Christianity, but of the Abrahamic religions, and that is monotheism: There is only one God, and none other. Mormonism is polytheistic.

Mormonism is most definitely not "traditional, mainstream Christianity," but it is absolutely a Christian faith.

Its status as a Christian faith is disputed by other Christians. I think you already know this

A different founder? So does this mean Lutherans, whose church was founded by Martin Luther, are not Christians? What about the Anglicans, whose church was founded by Henry VIII, or Methodists, whose church was founded by John Wesley? What about Presbyterians, whose church was founded by John Calvin? Or Baptists, whose church was founded by Thomas Helwys? Are all of these churches Christian churches, but Mormonism is not -- because it was founded by Joseph Smith?

This is an apples and oranges fallacy. The aforementioned are all founders of sects of Christianity based on on sectarian differences in practices without any significant alterations to the theology. Joseph Smith significantly changed everything. He changed it from monotheism to polytheism; he rejected the bible and introduced new revelation the book of Mormon which revealed God is in fact an alien from another planet and was once a man that became a God; he turned Jesus into Satan's brother. He changed literally every doctrine --- hence he is a founder of not a Christian sect, but another religion. As founders of new religions often do, they justify it by connecting it to an old tradition --- just as Jesus did by connecting it to the old Mosaic tradition or Mohammed did by connecting it to the old Mosaic tradition. Even Buddha claimed his new religion to be a part of the same past tradition. Likewise, Smith founded a new religion and justified it by connecting it to Christianity.

The Bible as the Word of God? Which Bible? The one used by the Catholics or the one without the Apocrypha, used by the Protestants? And where in the Bible can we find any statement saying, "This is all there is folks. I, God, am through talking."?

We all know the Bible is the scripture of Christians, their holy book. The Mormons have rejected the scripture and claimed some other scripture as the source for their beliefs, and hence we can see they have excluded themselves from the Christian tradition.

New mythology? If it's all just myth (which I'm not saying is the case), why not? What part of Mormonism is any more difficult to believe than the Virgin Birth? God can apparently talk through a burning bush. Why couldn't he send an angel to the earth instead? We trust in His word as it was inscribed on stone tablets (which have since disappeared) but if more of His word can be found on metal plates (which have also disappeared), it's quite laughable.

I called it "mythology" for a reason.

The bottom line here is that no one except God is in the position to be able to say with any authority whatsoever which of all professing Christian denominations is "truly Christian." All the rest of us can really do is voice our own opinions.

I am not talking about individual Christians, but about Mormonism. There is no need to shoot the messenger(me) here, Mormonism is not considered a Christian faith by a majority of Christian sects. Such that if one is baptised by a Mormon Church, they have to be rebaptised if they enter another denomination. However, the same differences do not exist between Catholics and Protestants etc.

I am not a practitioner of Christianity so I have no bias either way, but even I can see Mormonism is an aberration in the Christian tradition. It overturns most of its core beliefs.

 

[Katzpur]

They do not actually, they have significantly diverged here from the rest of Christianity as well.

They do not accept the authority of the bible. They consider the bible to be full imperfections and corruptions and the work of the Devil, they accept as authority their own "Book or Mormon"[/

They accept Jesus, with a completely new understanding. Jesus is a brother of Satan. Jesus was on his way to becoming God to take God's place, and just as God was once like Jesus a man on another planet who worked his way to become God. Mormonism rejects the very distinguishing criteria of not just Christianity, but of the Abrahamic religions, and that is monotheism: There is only one God, and none other. Mormonism is polytheistic.



It's status as a Christian faith is disputed by other Christians. I think you already know this



This is an apples and oranges fallacy. The aforementioned are all founders of sects of Christianity based on on sectarian differences in practices without any significant alterations to the theology. Joseph Smith significantly changed everything. He changed it from monotheism to polytheism; he rejected the bible and introduced new revelation the book of Mormon which revealed God is in fact an alien from another planet and was once a man that became a God; he turned Jesus into Satan's brother. He changed literally every doctrine --- hence he is a founder of not a Christian sect, but another religion. As founders of new religions often do, they justify it by connecting it to an old tradition --- just as Jesus did by connecting it to the old Mosaic tradition or Mohammed did by connecting it to the old Mosaic tradition. Even Buddha claimed his new religion to be a part of the same past tradition. Likewise, Smith founded a new religion and justified by connecting it to Christianity.



We all know the Bible is the scripture of Christians, their holy book. The Mormons have rejected the scripture and claimed some other scripture as the source for their beliefs, and hence we can see they have excluded themselves from the Christian tradition.



I called it "mythology" for a reason.



I am not talking about individual Christians, but about Mormonism. There is no need to shoot the messenger(me) here, Mormonism is not considered a Christian faith by a majority of Christian sects. Such that if one is baptised by a Mormon Church, they have to be rebaptised if they enter another denomination. However, the same differences do not exist between Catholics and Protestants etc.

I am not a practitioner of Christianity so I have no bias either way, but even I can see Mormonism is an aberration in the Christian tradition. It overturns most of its core beliefs.

Suit yourself. I've been a Mormon for 68 years, and know my religion inside and out. But I decided a long time ago that when someone makes inaccurate statements about Mormon doctrine, and I take the time to provide him with accurate information, and he turns around and tells me that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about, that's a clear indication to me that this individual has no desire whatsoever to get his or her facts straight. Such individuals aren't worth my time.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Suit yourself. I've been a Mormon for 68 years, and know my religion inside and out. But I decided a long time ago that when someone makes an inaccurate statement about Mormon doctrine, and I take the time to provide him with accurate information, and he turns around and tells me that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about, that's a clear indication to me that this individual has no desire whatsoever to get his or her facts straight. Such individuals aren't worth my time.

You are just shooting the messenger here. I am getting the opinion of Christian sources on this:

"Is Mormonism Christian?" The answer is simple. No. Mormonism is not Christian.

If you are a Mormon, please realize that CARM is not trying to attack you, your character, or the sincerity of your belief. If you are a non-Mormon looking into Mormonism or if you are a Christian who is simply researching Mormonism, then this article should be of help.

The reason Mormonism is not Christian is that it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Here is a basic list of what true Christianity teaches as essential doctrine according to the Bible.

1. There is only one God in all existence (Exodus 20:1-4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5).
2. Jesus is divine (John 1:1, 14; 8:24; Col. 2:9)
3. Forgiveness of sins is by grace alone without works (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:28; 4:1-5)
4. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:39)
5. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4)

Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it is outside Christianity. It is not a Christian religion.


Is Mormonism Christian? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Is Mormonism Christian? This may seem like a puzzling question to ask. Mormons include the Bible among the four books they recognize as Scripture and insist that Jesus Christ is central to their faith as evidenced by their official name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Mormons’ commitment to high moral standards and strong families is impressive. Doesn’t it follow that Mormonism is genuinely Christian?

The question here is not whether individual Mormons are saved (a question we cannot answer) or whether the LDS Church is “Christian” in the sense that any group that professes faith in Christ (as Mormonism does) is part of the world religion known as Christianity. Rather, we are asking whether Mormonism is an authentic form of Christianity that teaches the essential truths of the gospel. To resolve this question, we need to compare carefully the basic doctrines of Mormonism with the basic doctrines of historic, biblical Christianity. To represent the Mormon position fairly and accurately, in addition to the Mormon scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price), we have relied on several well-known Mormon doctrinal publications currently published by the LDS Church, including its official magazine Ensign.​

Is Mormonism Christian?​

Even a Mormon source itself makes it is clear how significantly it has departed:

Latter-day Saints believe the melding of early Christian theology with Greek philosophy was a grave error. Chief among the doctrines lost in this process was the nature of the Godhead. The true nature of God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Mormon | Nickname in Reference to LDS Church Members
​

This answers your argument why Marther Luther, Henry VIII etc are not in the same category as Smith. They do not claim to be prophets bringing new revelation. Smith claimed to be a prophet, brought new revelation a new book or scripture(whose original got conveniently lost) changed most of the core doctrines of Christianity and then claimed to be fulfilling the true tradition. Hence, he is the founder of a new religion not a sect.

 

[Tumah]

Regarding MP, yes Muhammad the Prophet

Regarding the if then,
I was saying that if MP's message didn't require Jews to convert / adopt the Ishmaelites Sharia then it wouldn't have been a problem to Jews.

In my opinion MP actually didn't expect or require Jews and Christians to adopt the Ishmaelite Sharia. In my opinion, the ideas that they had to convert or pay Jizya was invented by the Umayyads who were psychopathic megalomaniacs. I say this because MP didn't require Najashi to change his Sharia to be considered a Muslim.

Then what do you think he actually expected. How would that conversation would have gone. "Hi! My name is Muhammed, my friends call me MP. I'm starting up this new religion, but like, you guys should totally keep doing what you were doing." And then what? I mean would we accept him as a prophet, obviously not. But I don't see what potential problem there would be in such a case either.

 

[J2hapydna]

there has to be a point of demarcation from which we can recognise that a tradition has split form another. Where I can positively say this is a jew, this a Christian and this is a Muslim, or that matter this is a Hindu, this is a Buddhist this is a Jain.

What this shows me is that you lack respect for the individual. Can you imagine a chemist saying here is a compound that hasn't been identified before, but let me ignore it as it doesn't fit an existing classification? That would be insanity. However this is what you are proposing- reducing religion to the most common belief system. How is that meaningful?

Did Christianity emerge from the most common form of Judaism or the most common form of Roman paganism? So you would be sitting there in the age of Jesus, tracking the most common forms of Roman paganism and Judaism while the movement of Jesus would have unfolded and passed you by because it didn't fit. Similarly, you would have been tracking pagans in Quraysh and Christianity of Heraclius as MP's movement would have escaped your radar. I dare say the most interesting things that are being said on this board are probably being completely missed by you

 

[Tumah]

The problem I am having here is you think you can not separate the idea of God from the various concepts of God. In Hinduism we do make a distinction between God itself without attributes and narratives(Nirguna Brahman) and God with attributes and narratives(Saguna Brahman). In making this distinction we can separate the myriad concepts of God and names that people have assigned to God itself --- think of it like ontological God vs ontic God. You cannot separate the attributes and narratives from the the one giving the attributes and narratives. Moses's God is not God, but Moses's understanding of God; Jesus God is not God, but Jesus's understanding of God; A Vaishnavas God is not God, but a Vaishnavas understanding of God. And so on.

We can agree we all have different concepts of God. I can accept that Mohammed's God has a lot a in common in spirit with the Jewish God. I have already admitted this. However, Mohammed's God Allah is a God that sent him as the last and final prophet. Mohammed God is a God that later hates Jews. In contrast, the God's of the Jews YHWH loves the Jews, they are his chosen people.

These are of course two competing narratives of God and they are mutually opposing. Hence, I cannot say they are worshipping the same God at all. Nor did the Jews during Mohammed time accept this narrative either --- because it is a fabricated narrative.

I understand what you are saying. But I don't have Moses' understanding of G-d either. I don't even have my own Rabbi's understanding of G-d, let alone Moses. That doesn't mean we don't worship the same G-d. And let's say I thought that it was permitted for Jews to eat un-tithed grain grown in Israel and I thought G-d only sent 9 plagues. Does that mean, since I'm an ignoramus I'm not worshiping the same G-d as learned Jews? There are certain common denominators, that - so long as they're met - there is leeway from person to person with regards to their belief or understanding. It has to be that way.

Let's say I have two daughters. They hear me say something and one assumes I said X and the other assumes I said Y. Does that mean my daughters believe in two different fathers? Let's say I actually did say X. Does that mean the daughter that thinks I said Y believes in a father that doesn't exist?

Its kind of the same thing here. Muslims believe that G-d spoke to Muhammad, Jews believe He didn't. But we both intend the same G-d.

 

[Tumah]

https://m.facebook.com/notes/ben-ab...mson-interview-from-pakistan/1594333250592709

I'm with @rosends on that one. I've seen another video by that rabbi and commented on it here and here.

 

[Tumah]

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.

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

 

[Flankerl]

Its always fun, whenever some "Jewish Rabbi" says something in favour of Islam you can never really find any information about him anywhere.

"Ben Abrahamson is an orthodox Chassidic Jew from Israel who works as historian and consultant to an important Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem. He enjoys talking about the Haddith; histories of Tabari, Ibn Hisham & Waqidi; the kings of Himyar, as well as the Midrash Rabbah, the Midrashei Geulah, Rambam, Tosefos & Shulchan Aruch."

Ah an "important Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem".

 

[Koldo]

I think you are arguing a slippery slope here. If Christians sects also have can have differences, and still be considered Christian and worshipping the same God, then why cannot Islam have differences and still be considered Christian and worshipping the same God. In that case we could say as all prehistoric religions were some form of animism, shamanic and nature spirit worship, then can't all religions be considered that and worshipping the same God despite having differences. Clearly that leads to absurdity. There has to be a point of demarcation from which we can recognise that a tradition has split form another. Where I can positively say this is a jew, this a Christian and this is a Muslim, or that matter this is a Hindu, this is a Buddhist this is a Jain.

Minor sectarian differences are not divergent enough to warrant that it has split from the original tradition, but major and fundamental differences in tenets does warrant a split and a demarcation. Islam is an example of demarcation from Judaism.

Why does there have to be an exact point of demarcation ? And who gets to determine what difference is big enough ?

Would you go as far as say that those that submitted to Arianism ( rather than Trinitarianism ) were not Christians ? Just because they didn't agree with the decisions of a concil ?

Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Karaite Jews, all have different criteria to determine who is a Jew nowadays, while Muslims will go as far as tell you that Abraham was not a Jew.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I understand what you are saying. But I don't have Moses' understanding of G-d either. I don't even have my own Rabbi's understanding of G-d, let alone Moses. That doesn't mean we don't worship the same G-d. And let's say I thought that it was permitted for Jews to eat un-tithed grain grown in Israel and I thought G-d only sent 9 plagues. Does that mean, since I'm an ignoramus I'm not worshiping the same G-d as learned Jews? There are certain common denominators, that - so long as they're met - there is leeway from person to person with regards to their belief or understanding. It has to be that way.

I agree there can be leeway, which is what I argued above, there can be minor differences like disagreement in dietary habits or interpretations. However, I am sure you can agree this leeway cannot be infinite, there has to be a point of demarcation or a line that once you have crossed you can no longer be within that tradition of thought. This is what I have attempted to argue above with Mormonism. I have called out the fallacy as a slippery slope that just because we can allow some minor differences between sects of a religion, then are forced to allow major differences of a divergent religion still claiming to be in that lineage.

Let's say I have two daughters. They hear me say something and one assumes I said X and the other assumes I said Y. Does that mean my daughters believe in two different fathers? Let's say I actually did say X. Does that mean the daughter that thinks I said Y believes in a father that doesn't exist?

Its kind of the same thing here. Muslims believe that G-d spoke to Muhammad, Jews believe He didn't. But we both intend the same G-d.

The problem with this analogy is that in this case the two daughters have actually heard you and you know that you exist and you exist as a flesh and blood person as they do to too. However, 99.999% of religious believers do not know of God's existence, have not heard God or seen God, but believe in God as faith based on the revelation of another who claims to have seen or heard him or had messengers like angels. Hence, they work with a borrowed understanding of God. Those working in the tradition of Moses, work with Moses's understanding of God and within those boundaries(with some leeway) Hence, they are worshipping Moses understanding of God. According to that understanding, Jews are the chosen people.

Those working in the tradition of Mohammed's understanding of God, work with Mohammed's understanding of God and within those boundaries(with some leeway) Hence, they are worshipping Mohammed understanding of God. According to that understanding, Muslims are God's chosen people and he hates Jews.

Now there are four ways to approach this

1. Moses heard it right, and hence the correct understanding
2. Mohammed heard it right, hence has the correct understanding
3. Both heard it wrong, hence both have the wrong understanding
4. There is no God in the first place, they made it up​

As followers of either Moses, Mohammed or Jesus whatever we know of "God" is based on the attributes and narratives they gave. Hence, we cannot speak of "God" as separate from the attributes and narratives. Whatever God we hear is somebodies revelation.

We Hindus also have our own understanding of God and ours is revealed through our equivalent of prophets or Rishis. They obtained it not through God coming in person to them, or an angel or messenger, but through meditation they experienced God within themselves. Hence, we inherit a very different understanding of God, as a pure or highest state of consciousness/Self(God within) and thus we describe God as an abstract entity as the substratum of existence, consciousness and bliss. However, the distinction here these are not attributes of God, but the rather the nature of God. Attributes and narratives would be saying stuff like "God has a son, a daughter, God came and spoke this, God lives in heaven, God cried, God laughed" As attributes and narratives depend on posteriori knowledge, that is knowledge from experience we gain from the 5 senses and mind, none of these finite categories can capture God. As God is infinite and absolute existence that precedes us and will be there after us too, nothing that we attribute to God is valid. It is at best an image, symbol or tool that reminds us of God(proper) but taking it be God, would be like taking the picture of the moon to be the moon. Therefore, we Hindus allow infinite images of God, but never mistake the image to be God itself.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Why does there have to be an exact point of demarcation ? And who gets to determine what difference is big enough ?

So let me ask you a counter-question. Do think there should be infinite leeway to interpret beliefs and practices or should there be some limits beyond which you cease being a part of that tradition?

Would you go as far as say that those that submitted to Arianism ( rather than Trinitarianism ) were not Christians ? Just because they didn't agree with the decisions of a concil ?

Nope, I would say they were not Catholics though. As Jesus nether confirms or disconfirms trintarianism in the gospels, but leaves it ambiguous by claiming to be the Son of God and also oneness with God, the interpretations are valid. On the other hand, Mormonism is not an interpretation of what Jesus said in the bible, because it rejects the authority of the bible, it claims a new scripture and bases its teachings on that. Hence, it cannot be regarded as a valid Christian tradition working in the same understanding of God as Jesus's. Rather, it is working with the understanding of God of Joseph Smith, and hence why its followers regard Smith as their prophet.

Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Karaite Jews, all have different criteria to determine who is a Jew nowadays, while Muslims will go as far as tell you that Abraham was not a Jew.

I am not sure it should be based on the criteria of one specific sect. It should be based on the criteria of the founding prophet itself. I know what is Christian and unchristian by the degree of conformity it has with what Jesus is suppose to have said in the gospels.

 

[J2hapydna]

Then what do you think he actually expected. How would that conversation would have gone. "Hi! My name is Muhammed, my friends call me MP. I'm starting up this new religion, but like, you guys should totally keep doing what you were doing." And then what? I mean would we accept him as a prophet, obviously not. But I don't see what potential problem there would be in such a case either.

He was here to establish a covenant with the Ishmaelites.

In the Quran, Allah advises MP to not waste his time helping Jews make decisions under their covenant when they kept coming to him. Allah says they have all they need to make their decisions on their own. However, MP was told that if they came to him then he could if he had the time. In other words, MP didn't come to abrogate or abolish your covenant and convince you to follow his. So he wasn't your prophet in that sense.

So I guess the question is, do you think goy can have prophets and can G-d establish covenants with them or not?

 

[J2hapydna]

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

Please don't make it about the messenger, let's talk about the message. He is saying there were Kenites who were non Jews who worshipped with the Jews and performed animal sacrifices in hajj. Are you questioning or denying this point?

 

[J2hapydna]

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

Please don't belittle and disparage others behind their backs. Approach him directly and debate him, but don't attack him when he isn't here to defend himself.

If there is a fact he has presented then show us why you disagree. If there is fact he has presented and you don't know the source then ask me. However let's avoid the mud slinging. What do you say?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Please don't make it about the messenger, let's talk about the message. He is saying there were Kenites who were non Jews who worshipped with the Jews and performed animal sacrifices. Are you questioning or denying this point?

Can you verify this?

 

[Katzpur]

You are just shooting the messenger here. I am getting the opinion of Christian sources on this:

"Is Mormonism Christian?" The answer is simple. No. Mormonism is not Christian.

If you are a Mormon, please realize that CARM is not trying to attack you, your character, or the sincerity of your belief. If you are a non-Mormon looking into Mormonism or if you are a Christian who is simply researching Mormonism, then this article should be of help.​

You say you are "not a practitioner of Christianity so [you] have no bias either way." You may not be a practitioner of Christianity, but you clearly come from an Evangelical Christian background. Otherwise, it would never have even occurred to you to rely on CARM for your information. Look, I don't really care what either you or Matt Slick think of Mormonism. The only opinion I care about is God's. At the end of the day, His opinion is the only one that's going to count, and nobody else's is going to be relevant in the slightest. So, have a nice day, Mr. Warrior, and I'll see you in Heaven. ​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You say you are "not a practitioner of Christianity so [you] have no bias either way." You may not be a practitioner of Christianity, but you clearly come from an Evangelical Christian background. Otherwise, it would never have even occurred to you to rely on CARM for your information. Look, I don't really care what either you or Matt Slick think of Mormonism. The only opinion I care about is God's. At the end of the day, His opinion is the only one that's going to count, and nobody else's is going to be relevant in the slightest. So, have a nice day, Mr. Warrior, and I'll see you in Heaven. ​

Your argument makes no sense. How can I not be a Christian, and then be from an Evangelical Christian background?. You are just shooting the messenger. I am showing you what Christian sources are saying. However, ironically I also posted a Mormon source, which refers to Joseph Smith as a prophet. In other words Smith really is a founder of a new religion and not just a sect. The sources I have looked at and cross-reference, all confirm that the Mormons accept their own scripture book of Mormon as their scripture and the book of Mormon teaches many doctrines which are the total inversion of Christianity e.g. Polytheism.