Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[lax16]

Perhaps, for the sake of discussion, we could forget some all-encompassing definition and instead agree on a general set of parameters based on faith (x) and practice (y) within which Christianity is generally found.

https://s16.postimg.org/maqqvbhed/image.png

We might say the Nicene Creed, agreed upon by the majority of the Christian world for millenia because of its clear proclamation of the Triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), of Christ’s saving work, and of His church, forms this center of belief - appropriately symbolized in the chart above by Him Crucified.

We could call this intersection of x and y, which is described in the Nicene Creed, orthodoxy. Those who are closest to x,y are within orthodoxy and as the CCC states, “have been justified by faith in Baptism [and] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians,” despite holding slightly different views.

Those who hold generally orthodox beliefs but interject novel practices or reject some traditional practices might appear in the correct place according to x, but would be higher or lower on the y axis. We could call these unorthodox, but still acknowledge them to be essentially Christian.

Those who hold to generally orthodox practices but interject non-Christian beliefs or reject some Christian truths might appear in the correct place with relation to y, but would be left or right of the norm with regard to x. We might call these heterodox, and still acknowledge them to be Christian – provided they did not stray so far on the axis as to lose the faith entirely.

Stray too far on that x axis, and a group could leave heterodoxy altogether and find itself in heresy, at which point it would cease to be Christian, despite any outward appearances on the y axis.

Those groups that have abandoned not only orthodoxy of y, but also of x, are no longer on this chart. They belong on line z, which is non-Christian.

Well, imo, using your very well thought out graph and definitions, Mormons would be closest to those who are heretics. However, due to the true definition of heresy, they would not qualify.

Either way, you hit the nail on the head when used the term Christian as “defined by the majority of the Christian world for millennia”. That works. And if we use that definition, Mormons and JW’s are not Christians.

 

[ajcstr]

1. There is ONE God
2. God the Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit are separate persons (Father sends the Spirit, Jesus prays to the Father, etc)
3. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are each described/treated as God

LDS agree with all three, with stressing that the Son bows to the Father.

Just for clarification, and to dispel any false information I may have heard, with regard to number one, is your answer limiting the statement to this planet in any way?

 

[Horton]

Lets try this way - this really solidified the Trinity for me (I’m stealing this from a youtube video so if everyone agrees, thank you…If not, its not my idea)

These 3 statements which I believe form the foundation of the Trinity and all taught in the new testament. I’m not going to site scripture references here but can on request.

1. There is ONE God
2. God the Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit are separate persons (Father sends the Spirit, Jesus prays to the Father, etc)
3. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are each described/treated as God

So the Trinity is a word that describes all 3 “conditions” existing at once. The Council of Nicaea kind of “backed” into this because there is really no way to just define it (which is why Arius was able to gain so much traction).

WOULD ALL CATHOLICS AGREE WITH THIS BEFORE WE GO FURTHER ???

Now for instance, a Jehovah’s Witness would agree with the first 2 but not the last.

For Catholics to agree there needs to be a little clarity on #3. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial.

*con·sub·stan·tial.

ADJECTIVE

1.of the same substance or essence (used especially of the three persons of the Trinity in Christian theology):

“Christ is consubstantial with the Father”
*

LDS agree with all three, with stressing that the Son bows to the Father.

How can the LDS agree when they don’t believe in the Trinity? This poster is trying to get Catholics to agree on what the Trinity means. You don’t believe in the trinity so how can you agree with this?

 

[SpeakInSilence]

Except Mormons don’t think this-- we embrace an open cannon which include the Bible, Book of Mormon, other writings, and when God adds more it’ll be added.

You miss understand what I am saying.

You say Mormon “we believe in the bible”, and list other works outside of it. I’m not commenting on the fact that Mormons believe other things besides what is in the bible. I am saying is that the bible you use is seriously lacking in terms of what’s in it.

You have protestantized bible, you have a version of the bible crafted by the Martin Luther.

You are missing 7 books:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

You take for granted the very fact that the bible canon you use is not a complete bible. You might not be protestants but you keep the mistakes of Protestantism such as accepting a canon that is not complete.

You would think if Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet he would have not accepted the canon of a Church he said fell into “Great Apostasy”.

Especially a canon that was the thought scheme of someone like Martin Luther.

 

[lax16]

You miss understand what I am saying.

You say Mormon “we believe in the bible”, and list other works outside of it. I’m not commenting on the fact that Mormons believe other things besides what is in the bible. I am saying is that the bible you use is seriously lacking in terms of what’s in it.

You have protestantized bible, you have a version of the bible crafted by the Martin Luther.

You are missing 7 books:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

You take for granted the very fact that the bible canon you use is not a complete bible. You might not be protestants but you keep the mistakes of Protestantism such as accepting a canon that is not complete.

**You would think if Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet he would have not accepted the canon of a Church he said fell into “Great Apostasy”. **

Especially a canon that was the thought scheme of someone like Martin Luther.

 

[ajcstr]

1. There is ONE God
2. God the Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit are separate persons (Father sends the Spirit, Jesus prays to the Father, etc)
3. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are each described/treated as God

For Catholics to agree there needs to be a little clarity on #3. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial.

The only disagreement I have with you is that I tried to break it down into the three basics. Yes they are consubstantial but isn’t that a description of #1 and #3 together? It’s just symantecs.

 

[Horton]

As far as Mormon’s are concerned, can God reveal something new that would make a previous belief obsolete?

According to LDS theology the current president of the church can have “revelations” that would can change previous theology.

There are two good examples of this. When Utah was trying to obtain statehood one off the biggest barriers was their theology of polygamy. Then the president of the church had a revelation that polygamy was no longer acceptable and they were able to achieve statehood.

From the time of J. Smith, LDS theology taught that those with dark skin were dark due to sin. While black people could join the church they were denied the priesthood which is necessary for all LDS men. At the time of the civil rights movement in the 1960’s the president had a revelation and then changed that teaching.

Of course this is a simple answer and leaves a lot of unanswered questions but any web search can give you more information about the role of revelation in the LDS church.

 

[Horton]

The only disagreement I have with you is that I tried to break it down into the three basics. Yes they are consubstantial but isn’t that a description of #1 and #3 together? It’s just symantecs.

It is a description of #1 & #3 together…for Catholics. We get what you are saying. My point for those who do not believe in the trinity such as JWs and LDS it does need to be clarified.

 

[steido01]

Well, imo, using your very well thought out graph and definitions, Mormons would be closest to those who are heretics. However, due to the true definition of heresy, they would not qualify.

Either way, you hit the nail on the head when used the term Christian as “defined by the majority of the Christian world for millennia”. That works. ** And if we use that definition, Mormons and JW’s are not Christians.**

Indeed. They are most certainly not Christians, and even if understood in the friendliest construction, they would be at least heretical.

 

[steido01]

You have protestantized bible, you have a version of the **bible crafted by the Martin Luther. **

…

Especially a canon that was the thought scheme of someone like Martin Luther.

Merely nuance in this thread, but it cannot go unaddressed. Luther did not remove any books from his bible. In fact, his bible translation actually included the Prayer of Manasseh, which makes his bible one book bigger than today’s Catholic bible which was codified after Luther’s death. Lutheran bibles in Europe and American continued to have “all 74” well into the 1800’s. (Trust me, my Lutheran ancestors were persecuted as “Catholics” by angry Protestants in the American South.) 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?)

The physical removal of books form the bible happened nearly 300 years later, when Anglican missionaries and Puritan refugees decided they could cut shipping costs across the Atlantic if they removed the Deuterocannon. They figured no one cared much about it anyway. This makes the Mormon claim to a King James-only bible even more ludicrous, as their holy book is literally based on a business decision.

 

[Michael68]

Indeed. They are most certainly not Christians, and even if understood in the friendliest construction, they would be at least heretical.

I have to agree. I hope this doesn’t hurt any feelings, but I’ve kept up with this thread and I have to conclude they are not.

 

[jane_doe]

Just for clarification, and to dispel any false information I may have heard, with regard to number one, is your answer limiting the statement to this planet in any way?

That’s a more complicated answer, very speculative (non-official), and doesn’t really have anything to do with daily worship. Did you want to talk about it?

 

[lax16]

Indeed. They are most certainly not Christians, and even if understood in the friendliest construction, they would be at least heretical.

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?

 

[lax16]

Merely nuance in this thread, but it cannot go unaddressed. Luther did not remove any books from his bible. In fact, his bible translation actually included the Prayer of Manasseh, which makes his bible one book bigger than today’s Catholic bible which was codified after Luther’s death. Lutheran bibles in Europe and American continued to have “all 74” well into the 1800’s. (Trust me, my Lutheran ancestors were persecuted as “Catholics” by angry Protestants in the American South.) 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?)

The physical removal of books form the bible happened nearly 300 years later, when Anglican missionaries and Puritan refugees decided they could cut shipping costs across the Atlantic if they removed the Deuterocannon. They figured no one cared much about it anyway. This makes the Mormon claim to a King James-only bible even more ludicrous, as their holy book is literally based on a business decision.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PCBIB.htm

With this background, we can now address why the Protestant versions of the Bible have less books than the Catholic versions. In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament under the title “Apocrypha,” declaring. “These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.” Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God’s work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); an non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament). 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.

 

[Tarquin]

**The LDS Article of Faith are considered scripture **and bound as such. The mainstream Christian creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, Chalcedonies, etc) are not consider scripture, even by mainstream churches, and are not bound as such.

In that case, you should not have claimed otherwise:

LDS answer–
ALL scripture contributes to understanding of the Father, Son, and HS.

Note: the creeds are not scripture.

Doing so contributes to the confusion.

 

[SpeakInSilence]

Merely nuance in this thread, but it cannot go unaddressed. Luther did not remove any books from his bible. In fact, his bible translation actually included the Prayer of Manasseh, which makes his bible one book bigger than today’s Catholic bible which was codified after Luther’s death. Lutheran bibles in Europe and American continued to have “all 74” well into the 1800’s. (Trust me, my Lutheran ancestors were persecuted as “Catholics” by angry Protestants in the American South.) 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?)

The physical removal of books form the bible happened nearly 300 years later, when Anglican missionaries and Puritan refugees decided they could cut shipping costs across the Atlantic if they removed the Deuterocannon. They figured no one cared much about it anyway. This makes the Mormon claim to a King James-only bible even more ludicrous, as their holy book is literally based on a business decision.

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.

A very interesting tidbit about the shipping of the King James Bible however. Thanks for that.

 

[Tarquin]

LDS view–
God does not judge us by our knowledge, but by our hearts. Yes, Catholics have a flawed understanding of God, but they devote themselves to Him with all of their hearts, mind, and soul, and that is something honorable and show to be acknowledged.

Church founder Joseph Smith taught that “no man is saved faster than he gets knowledge,” and that “no man can be saved in ignorance.” - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), p. 266.

The principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation. This principle can be comprehended by the faithful and diligent; and every one that does not obtain knowledge sufficient to be saved will be condemned. The principle of salvation is given us through the knowledge of Jesus Christ.” - Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 297

“A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God” - History of the Church vol. 4, p.588.

“**Salvation is **nothing more nor less than to triumph over all our enemies and put them under our feet. And when we have power to put all enemies under our feet in this world, **and a knowledge to triumph over all evil spirits in the world to come **- History of the Church vol. 5, p. 387.

”Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved” - History of the Church vol. 6, p. 314.

Joseph Smith rests his case. God may not judge us by our knowledge, but Joseph Smith obviously did. I realize that different individual Mormons may tweak and interpret this in various ways. I’m just giving what the Mormon prophet said, without note of whether particular individual Mormons support or oppose the Lord’s Anointed.

 

[Michael68]

Church founder Joseph Smith taught that “no man is saved faster than he gets knowledge,” and that “no man can be saved in ignorance.” - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), p. 266.

Joseph Smith rests his case. God may not judge us by our knowledge, but Joseph Smith obviously did. I realize that different individual Mormons may tweak and interpret this in various ways. I’m just giving what the Mormon prophet said, without note of whether particular individual Mormons support or oppose the Lord’s Anointed.

Isn’t this the gnostic way of thinking?

 

[jane_doe]

Church founder Joseph Smith taught that “no man is saved faster than he gets knowledge,” and that “no man can be saved in ignorance.” - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), p. 266.

Joseph Smith rests his case. God may not judge us by our knowledge, but Joseph Smith obviously did. I realize that different individual Mormons may tweak and interpret this in various ways. I’m just giving what the Mormon prophet said, without note of whether particular individual Mormons support or oppose the Lord’s Anointed.

You’re spinning, and I don’t have time to write more elaborately right now.

 

[JMM1957]

Church founder Joseph Smith taught that “no man is saved faster than he gets knowledge,” and that “no man can be saved in ignorance.” - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), p. 266.

Joseph Smith rests his case. God may not judge us by our knowledge, but Joseph Smith obviously did. I realize that different individual Mormons may tweak and interpret this in various ways. ** I’m just giving what the Mormon prophet said, without note of whether particular individual Mormons support or oppose** the Lord’s Anointed./QUOTE]

Which brings up the question, must Mormons submit to “all” the teachings of their prophets? A simple yes or no is sufficient.