Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lax16 said:
No, the definition of a Christian was established 2,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Of course when push comes to shove I agree but you realize that would also apply to Catholics using the word “priest”. We have a different understanding of that word than a Jew or pagan who used the word way before we even existed.
 
JMM1957 said:
Which brings up the question, must Mormons submit to “all” the teachings of their prophets? A simple yes or no is sufficient. 😉
Click to expand...
The short answer: all teachings which are declared to be revelation from God. It’s actually pretty similar to Catholic ex cathedra.
 
Michael68 said:
Who declares a teaching is from God?
Click to expand...
I apologize for the shortness of the answer, works being time-consuming right now–
A couple of things–
  1. The teaching itself may suggest it such as “thus saith the Lord”
  2. The church leaders (12 apostles, prophet, and councilors) counsel together in prayer. It this is God’s Word, the Spirit will testify of that to them and they will acknowledge it.
  3. The teaching is brought before the general Church (if it hasn’t already) and they will sustain it.
  4. Individuals members may seek confirming themselves by asking the Spirit to testify of Truth.
 
jane_doe said:
I apologize for the shortness of the answer, works being time-consuming right now–
A couple of things–
  1. The teaching itself may suggest it such as “thus saith the Lord”
  2. The church leaders (12 apostles, prophet, and councilors) counsel together in prayer. It this is God’s Word, the Spirit will testify of that to them and they will acknowledge it.
  3. The teaching is brought before the general Church (if it hasn’t already) and they will sustain it.
  4. Individuals members may seek confirming themselves by asking the Spirit to testify of Truth.
Click to expand...
Thank You! 🙂
 
lax16 said:
A person must first be baptized in the faith in order to be a heretic, so technically they don’t even qualify as heretical. However, I agree with you that this definition seems to be the closest to describing the Mormons.

I find it interesting that due to their rejection of the Trinity they are not only considered* not* Christian in the historical and orthodox sense, but due to their invalid baptism they cannot even be conidered *heretical *in the historical and orthodox sense.

If one cannot qualify as a heretic, can they qualify as a Christian? 🤷
Click to expand...
Exactly. Hence why I said it would take a very generous construction to even consider them heretical, because it would first have to presume Mormon baptisms are valid Christian baptisms. By their own admission, it is not practiced with the same intention as Christian baptism. If Mormon baptism has any validity, it is only by accident and through the mercy and grace of the true God.
 
Heterodox religion would be an accurate view of the Catholic take on both
 
SpeakInSilence said:
Now, did Luther hold these books to be less authoritative than the Gospels and the Epistles? Yes, as did many other Catholics at the time and even Catholics today, in a different way. (Ever wonder why they’re called Deutero-cannon?)

These books are is “deuterocanonical” not (as some imagine) because they are a “second rate” or inferior canon, but because their status as being part of the canon of Scripture was settled later in time than certain books that always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms.

There is New Testament deuterocanonical also; Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And the canon wasn’t totally settled until Trent, which took place after Luther’s death. During Luther’s time, even Cardinals who opposed Luther found agreement with him on the value of the Deuterocanon. Yet even at Trent, the decision was hotly debated and many bishops disagreed with closing the canon.
SpeakInSilence said:
A very interesting tidbit about the shipping of the King James Bible however. Thanks for that.
Click to expand...
No problem. We Old Lutherans like to remind obnoxious Protestants of that fact from time to time.
 
lax16 said:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PCBIB.htm

Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the “non-canonical books” of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out. Why Luther took this course of action is hard to say. Some scholars believe Luther wanted to return to the “primitive faith,” and therefore accepted only those Old Testament books written in Hebrew originally; others speculate he wanted to remove anything which disagreed with his own theology. Nevertheless, his action had the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Pro tip: beware the factual accuracy of any history that concludes with nigh-one-hundred words after “speculate.”
 
steido01 said:
Pro tip: beware the factual accuracy of any history that concludes with nigh-one-hundred words after “speculate.”
Click to expand...
😉
steido01 said:
Indeed. And the canon wasn’t totally settled until Trent, which took place after Luther’s death. During Luther’s time, even Cardinals who opposed Luther found agreement with him on the value of the Deuterocanon. Yet even at Trent, the decision was hotly debated and many bishops disagreed with closing the canon.
Click to expand...
And beware of the accuracy of this statement. What was specifically debated at the Council, and what was well agreed upon?
 
rcwitness said:
And beware of the accuracy of this statement. What was specifically debated at the Council, and what was well agreed upon?
Click to expand...
The council debated many things. Among them was the number of books in the canon, their value, and whether someone would be held anathema from then on for holding a previously-acceptable view. You can take your pick of those issues that were debated; if a single one of them was hotly contested (and given that some were accepted with a mere plurality of 44%, we know there was significant opposition or at least reticence), then we must conclude based on facts that it was difficult to find total, absolute consensus on the canon for the first 1546 years of Christianity.

But this doesn’t pertain to the topic. Sorry for the derailment. I’ll butt out.
 
I personally reject the notion that if we are to call Mormons and JW Christian, “you might as well call Islam Christian as well.”
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam( and now more recently the Baha’i Faith) are considered the Abrahamic Religions, those who have a common beginning to Abraham ( which in Judaism and Christianity emphasizes on the descendants of Isaac, Islam, Ishmael.
The reason I have an issue comparing Mormonism to Islam is the only real commonality is that there is a later prophet than Christ. Islam and Mormonism don’t share much more than that.
Judaism rejects Jesus as anything but a false messiah who has been among many throughout history, however admitting Jesus was the most damaging to their belief of the messiah, and do not believe the messianic age is yet here.
Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet and messenger of God, and the messiah. I believe in Islam there are many of the same prophets as in Judeo-Christian belief, however the five most important messengers of God who brought a new message are Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, the latter being “the seal of the prophets.” The belief is Moses brought the Torah, and Jesus brought the gospel however throughout time the message was “distorted” by humanity, however with no real specific reason for having this belief. They believe Paul corrupted Jesus’ message and that Jesus was a mortal who was saved from crucifixion and brought into heaven much like we believe Elijah was. The thing is, Islam does not worship Jesus, they may have high emphasis on him, however, like Judaism they are devoted to God alone, or in Arabic, Allah.
In Mormonism and JW, the view of Jesus and the trinity is much different than mainstream Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations, but we also seem to forget pre Nicaea there were Arian Christians who also denied the trinity, even more so than these two groups. If I am correct Mormons and JW have a similar view but the trinity in Mormonism is more of a God Head consisting of three separate entities with one purpose. In JW, I believe it is somewhat similar. I believe both do believe Jesus is the son of God however as much of difference in the orthodox view they do believe that. Let us also not forget even John Calvin claimed somewhat of prophethood, and in the Seventh Day Adventist church, the writings of Ellen G. White are also put to a similar standing as the Bible. Are they to not Christian because they believe revelation never stopped? I mean when you think revelation stopped after Christ as a Catholic, many of your beliefs are contradictory, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church has been an ongoing belief system with the belief that God has been inspiring the Church to make these decisions. I myself believe these two groups as much as they may differ from the orthodox view of Christianity and although may be following false beliefs, do revere Christ in a way that only a Christian would. That is my opinion.
 
steido01 said:
The council debated many things. Among them was the number of books in the canon, their value, and whether someone would be held anathema from then on for holding a previously-acceptable view. You can take your pick of those issues that were debated; if a single one of them was hotly contested (and given that some were accepted with a mere plurality of 44%, we know there was significant opposition or at least reticence), then we must conclude based on facts that it was difficult to find total, absolute consensus on the canon for the first 1546 years of Christianity.

But this doesn’t pertain to the topic. Sorry for the derailment. I’ll butt out.
Click to expand...
Yes, I don’t want to derail either. I’m under the impression (without asserting as fact) that the anathema was more contested, while the actual books were nearly unanimous. And “previously accepted” is probably not the way to describe it, but maybe “without reprimandment”?

Anyway, I’m glad you brought to my attention, to look into. I wanted to call you out on that, but not cause I know for certain the level of disagreement on specifics at that Council. 😉
 
jas84173 said:
The reason I have an issue comparing Mormonism to Islam is the only real commonality is that there is a later prophet than Christ. Islam and Mormonism don’t share much more than that.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia begs to differ! 😉
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Mormonism

Basic similarities between the Islamic and Mormon faiths include, but are not limited to:

A founding prophet who received visits from an angel, leading to revelation of a book of scripture;[14]
A founding prophet whose first wife was older than himself
A division of the religion into a minimum of two parties after the death of the founding prophet, with one party claiming that leadership should continue through the prophet’s descendants, and the other party rejecting this idea;[15]
Special reverence for, though not worship of, their founding prophet;
Belief that their faith represents the genuine, original religion of Adam, and of all true prophets thereafter;
Belief that the text of the Bible, as presently constituted, has been adulterated from its original form;[16]
Assertions that modern Christianity does not conform to the original religion taught by Jesus Christ;
Rejection of the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and the Trinity;[14]
A belief that theirs constitutes the one and only completely true religion on the earth today;[16]
An active interest in proselytizing nonbelievers;
An emphasis upon family, and the family unit as the foundation for religious life and the transmission of values;
A clergy drawn from the laity, without necessarily requiring collegiate or seminary training;[17] (Sunni Islam only)
Insistence that their religion is a complete way of life, meant to directly influence every facet of existence;
Belief that good deeds are required for salvation just as much as faith;
Emphasis upon charitable giving, and helping the downtrodden;
Strong emphasis upon chastity, including modesty in dress;
Belief in fasting during specified periods of time;
Prohibition of alcoholic beverages, gambling, and homosexual and bisexual practices;
Strong emphasis upon education, both in the secular and religious arenas;
Incorporation of a sacred ritual of ablution, though each religion’s rite differs in form, frequency and purpose;
Belief that one’s marriage can potentially continue into the next life, if one is faithful to the religion; and
Belief in varying degrees of reward and punishment in the hereafter, depending upon one’s performance in this life.
Islam believes that God is essentially and uniquely one. Mormons accept the Christian division of the Godhead into Father, Son and Holy Ghost, while rejecting the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Hence, Mormons believe that God is essentially and uniquely one as well.
 
lax16 said:
Wikipedia begs to differ! 😉
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Mormonism

Basic similarities between the Islamic and Mormon faiths include, but are not limited to:

A founding prophet who received visits from an angel, leading to revelation of a book of scripture;[14]
A founding prophet whose first wife was older than himself
A division of the religion into a minimum of two parties after the death of the founding prophet, with one party claiming that leadership should continue through the prophet’s descendants, and the other party rejecting this idea;[15]
Special reverence for, though not worship of, their founding prophet;
Belief that their faith represents the genuine, original religion of Adam, and of all true prophets thereafter;
Belief that the text of the Bible, as presently constituted, has been adulterated from its original form;[16]
Assertions that modern Christianity does not conform to the original religion taught by Jesus Christ;
Rejection of the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and the Trinity;[14]
A belief that theirs constitutes the one and only completely true religion on the earth today;[16]
An active interest in proselytizing nonbelievers;
An emphasis upon family, and the family unit as the foundation for religious life and the transmission of values;
A clergy drawn from the laity, without necessarily requiring collegiate or seminary training;[17] (Sunni Islam only)
Insistence that their religion is a complete way of life, meant to directly influence every facet of existence;
Belief that good deeds are required for salvation just as much as faith;
Emphasis upon charitable giving, and helping the downtrodden;
Strong emphasis upon chastity, including modesty in dress;
Belief in fasting during specified periods of time;
Prohibition of alcoholic beverages, gambling, and homosexual and bisexual practices;
Strong emphasis upon education, both in the secular and religious arenas;
Incorporation of a sacred ritual of ablution, though each religion’s rite differs in form, frequency and purpose;
Belief that one’s marriage can potentially continue into the next life, if one is faithful to the religion; and
Belief in varying degrees of reward and punishment in the hereafter, depending upon one’s performance in this life.
Islam believes that God is essentially and uniquely one. Mormons accept the Christian division of the Godhead into Father, Son and Holy Ghost, while rejecting the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Hence, Mormons believe that God is essentially and uniquely one as well.
Click to expand...
Catholicism also share much of this list.
 
jane_doe said:
The short answer: all teachings which are declared to be revelation from God. It’s actually pretty similar to Catholic ex cathedra.
Click to expand...
There are similarities to Catholic ex cathedra, except ex cathedra does not declare new revelations, just clarifications of old revelations dating from the apostles. No councils nor ex cathedra announcements are inspired, but are merely infallible. Infallible means the Holy Spirit prevents the announcement from being in error, but does not “guide” it nor provide the content of it.

The Mormon Church is kind of a miniature Catholic Church. The president could correspond to the pope, the apostles to the college of cardinals, although the Mormon bishop corresponds more closely to the Catholic priest. Both Churches are hierarchical and non-congregational and provide official teaching from God, unlike Protestant teachings, which simply represent man’s opinion of scriptural interpretation.

The Watchtower Society, “God’s organization,” is also a miniature Catholic Church with the corporation president similar to the pope, the corporation governing body to the cardinals, the circuit and district overseers to the bishops and archbishops, and the elders and ministerial servants to the priest and deacons. It is very hierarchical like the Catholic Church and is “God’s channel of communication” to mankind. It is the “faithful and wise servant” providing “new light” at the “proper times.”

These type churches, then, are officially sanctioned from God and “true” churches, unlike classical Protestant churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top