Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rcwitness said:
If you invite Jesus for dinner, the Father and Holy Spirit are fully present.
Click to expand...
HMMMM, that’s interesting (probably from my own confusion of the doctrine), but I would say yes and you may need 1 chair or you may need 3 chairs depending - See #2 of post #138
 
ajcstr said:
  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
    …
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.
Click to expand...
LDS agree with all three, with stressing that the Son bows to the Father.
 
SpeakInSilence said:
The problem is Jane is that because Mormonism is a break off of Protestantism you have the same preconcieved assumptions.
Click to expand...
LDS aren’t Protestants, and reject several key beliefs of Protestantism including sola scriptura.
 
The Church has determined that the Consubstantial Trinity is a required assent of faith in order to be properly Baptized. This was affirmed at the Council of Nicea in 325.

The Trinity is not explicitly articulated in Scripture. But neither was Christ’s prophesy in the Old Testament.

Yet Jesus uses language too convicting to be ignored when describing His unity with the Father. This unity is what we call “consubstantial”.

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.”*Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

And I suppose the term “persons” should be defined in context of the Trinity.

a*:* one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
 
rcwitness said:
The Church has determined that the Consubstantial Trinity is a required assent of faith in order to be properly Baptized. This was affirmed at the Council of Nicea in 325.

The Trinity is not explicitly articulated in Scripture. But neither was Christ’s prophesy in the Old Testament.

Yet Jesus uses language too convicting to be ignored when describing His unity with the Father. This unity is what we call “consubstantial”.

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.”*Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?/INDENT]

And I suppose the term “persons” should be defined in context of the Trinity.

a*:* one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
​
Click to expand...

This is probably one of the best examples in Scripture explaining the Father, Son relationship in the Trinity.(JW’s can explain this away though).:rolleyes:​
 
ajcstr said:
We agree that we disagree, who is right or wrong is irrelevant because we can throw up 52,000 posts on this thread and never resolve the thing. So from the point of this thread on a CATHOLIC forum, if a Mormon and/or Jehovah’s Witness is NOT a Christian, what are they lacking or what have they added for them not to be considered so.

So by stating how a Catholic on a Catholic forum would define the Trinity and ask how THEY would define the Trinity is a legitimate question I think. As I say, I know how a JW would respond because I have talked with them enough. I don’t know how a Mormon would respond.
Click to expand...
If we cannot agree on the definition of Christian, then how can we begin to answer the OP?
 
lax16 said:
If we cannot agree on the definition of Christian, then how can we begin to answer the OP?
Click to expand...
The answer to the OP, as replied to by many posters of diverse faiths, was “it depends on your definition”.
 
ajcstr said:
We agree that we disagree, who is right or wrong is irrelevant because we can throw up 52,000 posts on this thread and never resolve the thing. So from the point of this thread on a CATHOLIC forum, if a Mormon and/or Jehovah’s Witness is NOT a Christian, what are they lacking or what have they added for them not to be considered so.

So by stating how a Catholic on a Catholic forum would define the Trinity and ask how THEY would define the Trinity is a legitimate question I think. As I say, I know how a JW would respond because I have talked with them enough. I don’t know how a Mormon would respond.
Click to expand...
That’s why it is not good to establish your faith and then expect the Church to accept it. It goes the other way around. The Church established the faith, and we accept it.

The Mormon faith seems to have an “Apostle” complex. That is, they revealed through these modern prophets more revelation and a new ordination.

The Church has been burdened with all these sects and their claims throughout history.

It’s not as though they are like St. Paul going to the Church to lay their Gospel before Peter. They just assumed a divine position with new Scriptures and a fundamental different understanding than what the Church confirmed as Apostolic way back in 325.

But, I realize it’s not easy for one to step out of the box they may have been raised in. This could take time, even for a genuine believer.
 
lax16 said:
If we cannot agree on the definition of Christian, then how can we begin to answer the OP?
Click to expand...
The OP is a Catholic so we define what a Christian is from a Catholic perspective, then we apply that to the beliefs of Mormonism.
 
ajcstr said:
The OP is a Catholic so we define what a Christian is from a Catholic perspective, then we apply that to the beliefs of Mormonism.
Click to expand...
No, the definition of a Christian was established 2,000 years ago.

And for those of us that don’t believe definitions can be changed to fit one’s personal situation whenever we feel like it, this is the main problem.

Who gets to define Christian? Mormon? Marriage?

To say the OP is using a certain definition simply because of his religion isn’t accurate. Catholics claim to be the original Christians which is why they stake their claim to the definition.
 
jane_doe said:
LDS aren’t Protestants, and reject several key beliefs of Protestantism including sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
Protestantism is extremely diverse. Not all protestants believe in sola scriptura. Some protestants like anglicans view tradition in a very high light, view baptism as essential, and have a very similar view of the eucharist.

Believing in all the right doctrines dont make one protestant or even catholic. There are people, like my father who is a united methodist minister, who is still catholic despite his beliefs.

I was not saying mormons are protestants, im saying that joseph smith grew up around protestants so one can see certain protestant assumptions carried over in mormonism.

Preconceived notions such as the fact that you somehow use the same bible, but mormons very much use a protestantized bible.

Thinking the bible is complete is one of those assumptions.
 
lax16 said:
If we cannot agree on the definition of Christian, then how can we begin to answer the OP?
Click to expand...
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.
 
jane_doe said:
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.
Click to expand...
As far as Mormon’s are concerned, can God reveal something new that would make a previous belief obsolete?
 
JMM1957 said:
As far as Mormon’s are concerned, can God reveal something new that would make a previous belief obsolete?
Click to expand...
Again, we’re getting pretty far away from the OP. Another thread or pm would be a more polite venue.
 
jane_doe said:
Again, we’re getting pretty far away from the OP. Another thread or pm would be a more polite venue.
Click to expand...
Certainly. And would you be willing to participate in a new thread that had to do with Mormon theology in detail?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top