Questions about Christianity and Mormonism

[McBell]

It's an honest question.

Proceeded by a bunch of judgmental high horse nonsense worded specifically to insult.
But hey, that is the Christian© standard, is it not?

And you wonder why Mormons dislike being associated with such?

I have no idea what you're talking about? "Judgement"?

Yes, judgmental.

It's a theological discussion.

If that is what Christians© consider "discussion" it is no surprise that their churches are seeing lower attendance.

Do you know anything about Mormon theology?

Yes, do yu?
I mean, do you know about Mormon theology that is not rooted in bias judgmental snobbery like you presented in post #18?

They're the ones who call all other Christians apostates. So do the JWs. That was what that was referring to.

Ah...
So because they do it is ok for you too?

You can not claim the higher ground whilst treading the lower ground.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Proceeded by a bunch of judgmental high horse nonsense worded specifically to insult.
But hey, that is the Christian© standard, is it not?

And you wonder why Mormons dislike being associated with such?


Yes, judgmental.


If that is what Christians© consider "discussion" it is no surprise that their churches are seeing lower attendance.


Yes, do yu?
I mean, do you know about Mormon theology that is not rooted in bias judgmental snobbery like you presented in post #18?


Ah...
So because they do it is ok for you too?

You can not claim the higher ground whilst treading the lower ground.

Dude, go away. You have no idea what the discussion is even about, really. I'm not here because you want an excuse to go off about something. Go target someone else for that or maybe log off for the day.

 

[Katzpur]

So maybe you should answer why Mormons are using a book created by "apostates"? How does that make sense?

You're making some unfounded suppositions. Mormons value the Bible very highly and appreciate the fact that the Catholic Church preserved it for the world.

 

[Katzpur]

It's reasonable in the same way that a Mormon might not accept the Qur'an.

Okay, fair enough. From that perspective, I can agree with you.

 

[Katzpur]

It's an honest question. I have no idea what you're talking about? "Judgement"? It's a theological discussion. Do you know anything about Mormon theology? They're the ones who call all other Christians apostates. So do the JWs. That was what that was referring to.

Which is worst, Frank, being called an apostate or being called a heretic? The way I see it, we're all Christians. We all ought to be acting like it.

 

[InChrist]

I have a few questions for non-Mormon Christians about their views of Mormonism.

1. According to non-Mormon Christianity, was Joseph Smith a prophet?
   • If he was not, why not?
   • What parts of the New Testament disqualifies him?
2. According to non-Mormon Christianity are Mormons correctly holding by Christian requirements for salvation?
3. According to non-Mormon Christianity are Mormons correctly following the teachings of Jesus?
4. According to non-Mormon Christianity are there negative consequences to someone beleiving in Mormanism?
5. According to non-Mormon Christianity are the varous Mormon books/writings, shown below, considered authorative Christian scripture?
   • If not, what makes them not so?
   • If not, would non-Mormons benefit froom reading and learning from them?

View attachment 48944

That’s a lot of questions and it’s late.

In my twenties I met with Mormon missionaries, read the BoM, was baptized and joined the LDS Church, read the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, then later had my temple endowments and was married and sealed with my husband in the temple.

Several years later we were both delivered from Mormonism and saved by Jesus Christ and born again to new eternal life by Christ and in Christ Alone.

It is my perspective that Mormonism is another gospel as Paul spoke about in the NT, a false gospel.

In the Bible Jesus Christ is presented as Enough. He is All sufficient for one to have complete forgiveness, salvation and eternal life.
Not so in Mormonism.


https://www.adamsroadministry.com/micah-wilder-testimony

 

[Glaurung]

I'm not sure why you're bothering to ask. Of course we don't accept Smith as any sort of prophet or Mormon scripture as canon.

My suspicion is that he means to imply that belief in Jesus and the New Testament is identical to belief in Joseph Smith and his books. That Christians are in a sense Jewish Mormons. If Mormonism is invalid then Christianity must be invalid as well. But perhaps I'm reading too much into his intentions.

 

[Watchmen]

I have a few questions for non-Mormon Christians about their views of Mormonism.

1. According to non-Mormon Christianity, was Joseph Smith a prophet?
   • If he was not, why not?
   • What parts of the New Testament disqualifies him?
2. According to non-Mormon Christianity are Mormons correctly holding by Christian requirements for salvation?
3. According to non-Mormon Christianity are Mormons correctly following the teachings of Jesus?
4. According to non-Mormon Christianity are there negative consequences to someone beleiving in Mormanism?
5. According to non-Mormon Christianity are the varous Mormon books/writings, shown below, considered authorative Christian scripture?
   • If not, what makes them not so?
   • If not, would non-Mormons benefit froom reading and learning from them?

View attachment 48944

It’s like cookies. The Christian denominations are all making chocolate chip cookies. Some use butter. Some use shortening. The ratios might be somewhat different. Some use big chocolate chunks while others use small chips, but at the end of the day they all are make something recognizable as a chocolate chip cookie.

Mormons, on the other hand, make oatmeal raisin cookies but want to call them chocolate chip cookies. They are both cookies. They have similarities. But an oatmeal raisin cookie will never be a chocolate chip cookie.

 

[Glaurung]

One wonders which Apostate version of the Bible you like best.

You misunderstood Saint Frankenstein's point. Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Nicene Christianity is an apostasy from true Christianity. Both groups claim to have restored true Christian doctrine and that those who don't accept their claims are not only in error but are in fact apostates.

The thing is, the scriptures both groups claim to base their teachings upon was put together and made authoritative by the very church they claim had apostatized. If Catholicism and Orthodoxy are apostate religions, then on what basis do they accept the canon as authoritative? As the canon is by their own claims the work of apostates.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

My suspicion is that he means to imply that belief in Jesus and the New Testament is identical to belief in Joseph Smith and his books. That Christians are in a sense Jewish Mormons. If Mormonism is invalid then Christianity must be invalid as well. But perhaps I'm reading too much into his intentions.

Yes, you are reading too much into my intentions.

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread Closed for Review***​

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread Moved to General Religious Debates and re-openned***​

 

[Kenny]

• According to non-Mormon Christianity are Mormons correctly holding by Christian requirements for salvation?

A lot of questions... so let's start with one and I'm sure @Katzpur will correct me if I am wrong. There certainly are many difference but starting with this one.

If memory serves me correctly, the Mormons believe that when you die you have another chance of accepting Jesus as Lord for salvation in the spiritual realm.

If this correct, I can assume that you can also accept Jesus as the Christ and Lord on this earth believing that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Understanding that God is the judge and not me since only God knows the heart, you could be Mormon IMO and be saved. (I speak as a human and not as God)

But IMO, as noted by Jesus and applying it to all sectors, you can be Jewish and don't know God, you can label yourself a Christian and not know God and you can be listed as a Mormon and not know God. You learn all the outward appearances but your heart is far from God.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

because the Bible is a product of the Church.

Here you just have no historical ground whatever. It is the Jews who put together the larger majority of the Bible, the Old Testament.

The New Testament canonization was a political process also, not a religious process. There is still debate over which books belong together as scripture, and which ones aren't. The Shephard of Hermas, the Book of Enoch, and others was considered scripture by some of the early Christian groups, but not others. Who got to decide if it was scripture? Marcion's canon was vastly different than ours, being far less inclusive than what we have right now, and many accepted his canon, but not today. Does that mean it wasn't the canon though? Does a majority make a truth true? Has it ever? I'm just askin.

The Bible is not just a product of the church, it was and continues to be (!) a long drawn out process involving politics, wars, and vigorous debates and excommunications, and that doesn't even get into the doctrines that have continually been argued about for millenia now. So, I honestly don't think you have a historical leg to stand on with this too hasty a claim. And it is an important one, if for no other reason than accuracy with what happened historically. I'm just sayin......

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Here you just have no historical ground whatever. It is the Jews who put together the larger majority of the Bible, the Old Testament.

The New Testament canonization was a political process also, not a religious process. There is still debate over which books belong together as scripture, and which ones aren't. The Shephard of Hermas, the Book of Enoch, and others was considered scripture by some of the early Christian groups, but not others. Who got to decide if it was scripture? Marcion's canon was vastly different than ours, being far less inclusive than what we have right now, and many accepted his canon, but not today. Does that mean it wasn't the canon though? Does a majority make a truth true? Has it ever? I'm just askin.

The Bible is not just a product of the church, it was and continues to be (!) a long drawn out process involving politics, wars, and vigorous debates and excommunications, and that doesn't even get into the doctrines that have continually been argued about for millenia now. So, I honestly don't think you have a historical leg to stand on with this too hasty a claim. And it is an important one, if for no other reason than accuracy with what happened historically. I'm just sayin......

What are you talking about? It was the Church who collected the books and decided which books were canon. The Jewish canon of the OT isn't the same as the Catholic or Orthodox canons, only the Protestant canon. The Protestants removed a bunch of books and other material.

Who do you think assembled the New Testament?

 

[Katzpur]

A lot of questions... so let's start with one and I'm sure @Katzpur will correct me if I am wrong. There certainly are many difference but starting with this one.

If memory serves me correctly, the Mormons believe that when you die you have another chance of accepting Jesus as Lord for salvation in the spiritual realm.

If this correct, I can assume that you can also accept Jesus as the Christ and Lord on this earth believing that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

That is correct. We believe that our mortal life is just a small speck on the continuum that is eternity. Mortals see death as such a final thing. You live and then you die, and whatever happened during the 70 or 80 years you spent on this earth will determine your final destiny. In other words, death marks the fall of the final curtain and the play is over and done. Mormons believe that, to God, our mortality is just a period of time when we live apart from Him and must learn for ourselves to choose between good and evil. Death to us (and in God's perspective) is not a period; rather it's merely a comma. The curtain may fall, but the play isn't over. It's simply intermission. We don't believe that our ultimate destiny is cast in concrete at the time of death but that, as we are all born into different circumstances, God will allow for the fact that some did not have the opportunity to hear Jesus Christ's gospel during their mortal lives. Others may have been exposed to it, but for whatever reason, failed to understand and embrace it. We believe that there is a period of time between death and the resurrection when the playing field will be leveled, so to speak, so that by the time a person is resurrected and stands before God to receive His final judgment, everyone who has ever lived will have had an opportunity to hear, truly understand, and either accept or reject Jesus Christ as their Savior.

But IMO, as noted by Jesus and applying it to all sectors, you can be Jewish and don't know God, you can label yourself a Christian and not know God and you can be listed as a Mormon and not know God. You learn all the outward appearances but your heart is far from God.

Absolutely. I think that goes without saying.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Who do you think assembled the New Testament?

Who do you think assembled and wrote the Old Testament? You said Bible, so I am going with that. The New Testament is NOT "the Bible." It is a part of it. Lets stay clear.

 

[Kenny]

According to non-Mormon Christianity, was Joseph Smith a prophet?

• If he was not, why not?
• What parts of the New Testament disqualifies him?

On this one, main-line Christians would not consider Joseph Smith a prophet simply because many things he taught or said an angel told him does not match what our scriptures said.

Mormons position would be, "“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things: but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.” Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 327.

and that “that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” (Joseph Smith-History 1:18–19).

While mainline Christianity would say, since what he taught was different, Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

My point is simply that mainline Christianity wouldn't accept him as a prophet while Mormons would.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

It was the Church who collected the books and decided which books were canon. The Jewish canon of the OT isn't the same as the Catholic or Orthodox canons, only the Protestant canon. The Protestants removed a bunch of books and other material.

The NT canon was never ratified by an ecumenical council in the early church, according to biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. Small and differing groups of synods of bishops met together and ratified different canons, and these have never been universally agreed upon, and isn't still in our day. There is no single canon worldwide that is accepted the same by all Christian churches. See his book "Lost Scriptures, Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament," pp. 341ff.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The NT canon was never ratified by an ecumenical council in the early church, according to biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. Small and differing groups of synods of bishops met together and ratified different canons, and these have never been universally agreed upon, and isn't still in our day. There is no single canon worldwide that is accepted the same by all Christian churches. See his book "Lost Scriptures, Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament," pp. 341ff.

My point was that the various canons were still assembled by the Church, including after the period the supposed "great apostasy" happened. Mormons still use the "apostate" Protestant KJV. That was my point, and the rest of this is irrelevant to it.