Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[RebeccaJ]

And sources of DNA?

Mary.

 

[jane_doe]

Mary.

She donated a Y chromosome?

 

[RebeccaJ]

She donated a Y chromosome?

Miracle!

What is the source of Adam’s DNA?

Jesus’ conception was a miracle. He is fully human and fully divine, not a Demi-God. His human nature is of his mother.

The Father is Spirit, without body parts, he has no species, as he is outside of creation, the Creator, and is not created. Jesus is begotten of the Father. God from God. The father does not have DNA as he is not a creature.

 

[jane_doe]

Miracle!

Then Mary was or was not the source?

 

[Horton]

Such logic does not flow at all. For example: John 17:21 says “That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
Are we to be one with the Father through co-substantation? That doesn’t make any sense. Rather, ONE In belief in God, Goodness, Truth, etc.

LDS believe that.

To truly understand what Jesus Christ means in verse 21 you need to read the whole chapter. When you take the whole chapter and read it as it was meant to be read, as a whole prayer to God it makes perfect sense.

John Chapter 17
The Prayer of Jesus.
1 When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. 3 Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do. **5 Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.
**

6 “I revealed your name to those whom you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything you gave me is from you, 8 because the words you gave to me I have given to them, and they accepted them and truly understood that I came from you, and they have believed that you sent me.

9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for the ones you have given me, because they are yours, 10 and everything of mine is yours and everything of yours is mine, and I have been glorified in them. 11 And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are.

12 When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you. I speak this in the world so that they may share my joy completely. 14 I gave them your word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.

16 They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. 17 Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. 19 And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.

20 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

24 Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am* they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 Righteous Father, the world also does not know you, but I know you, and they know that you sent me. 26 I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”

 

[LivingWaters7]

Such logic does not flow at all. For example: John 17:21 says “That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
Are we to be one with the Father through co-substantation? That doesn’t make any sense. Rather, ONE In belief in God, Goodness, Truth, etc.

It doesn’t make any sense if you are using an incorrect definition of “co-substantiation” (I believe you mean consubstantiation). What is your definition/understanding that leads you to say that it doesn’t make sense?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Then Mary was or was not the source?

She is the source of his humanity. This is what scripture reveals about Jesus’ conception. He is conceived of the Holy Spirit; born of a human woman. God in human vesture.

While Catholics are super explanatory about a lot of things, the Conception and the Holy Trinity are what we call mysteries. Mystery in the theological usage means God has revealed something that we cannot explain by human understanding or knowledge. The Conception is one of those things.

DNA discussions is using human knowledge and understanding to attempt to explain a mystery of God. It can be fun, but ultimately we are not God and do not understand His ways.

 

[Erich]

Then Mary was or was not the source?

If Jesus did not have Mary’s DNA then he would not be 100% human.

 

[gazelam]

Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, in perhaps the most explicit denial of the virgin birth, wrote, "Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547)

John 3:16 (Douay-Rheims) For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Are you saying that John 3:16 denies the virgin birth?

More from Elder McConkie in the same book you cite…

“Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person whoever had an immortal Father.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 822

“Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 822

I hope this helps…

 

[gazelam]

Ok for clarification. The LDS may believe Jesus is A god just as they believe man can become a god.

That’s correct. Romans 8:16, 17 clearly teaches that the righteous inherit all that Christ inherits/inherited.

The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

However they don’t believe God & Jesus are consubstantial (along with the Holy Spirit).

That’s correct.

 

[gazelam]

But you deny that Christ is of one being with the father (along with the Holy Spirit) in the form of the Trinity. You also deny that Christ is co-eternal with the father from before the world, no?

Off topic (since I think jane_doe responded).

I couldn’t help but notice your user ID. My dad took me to see the Padres (Nate Colbert, Chris Cannizzaro, Cito Gaston, etc.) in San Diego play the Giants (Mays, McCovey, etc.) in 1969! It was bat day - baseball bats given out to the first 15,000 fans (or something like that.) But I disgress… Thanks for the memories!

 

[Horton]

John 3:16 (Douay-Rheims) For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Are you saying that John 3:16 denies the virgin birth?

More from Elder McConkie in the same book you cite…

“Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person whoever had an immortal Father.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 822

“Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 822

I hope this helps…

No I do not claim John 3:16 denies the virgin birth. You can’t take ONE word from the bible to prove your claim. You always need to add context to the verse or in this case ONE word.
*
New American Bible
John 3:13-18

13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.*

In this case Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, explaining the concept of eternal life.

Originally Posted by Horton View Post

Ok for clarification. The LDS may believe Jesus is A god just as they believe man can become a god.

That’s correct. Romans 8:16, 17 clearly teaches that the righteous inherit all that Christ inherits/inherited.

The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him

.

Again context.

Romans 8: 14-17

Children of God through Adoption.
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, “Abba, Father!” 16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.*

And just to not have to respond to the next comment on who or what the “spirit” is. For Catholics it is the Holy Spirit. Has nothing to do with spirit children or any of the other LDS fallacies.

 

[Tarquin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erich View Post
Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, in perhaps the most explicit denial of the virgin birth, wrote, "Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547)

Which can be done without sex, even by us flimsy humans.

I do not believe God used in vitro fertilization to produce the human race. There are many statements by the early prophets of the Mormon Church claiming that God produced children in the “natural” way - they didn’t have in vitro processes for creating humans back then, so they were not referring to that - the “natural” way is by a husband and wife having intercourse. That is exactly what Brigham Young and his successors meant.

 

[Tarquin]

Originally Posted by Tarquin: 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?

It seems so to me. Blatantly so. More than simply “knowing the Lord.” In fact, the rituals for “assuring one’s exaltation” depends on personal very specific detailed knowledge of what seem to be trivial matters – gestures and recitations.

Originally Posted by Tarquin: 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.

How odd, that quoting a Mormon Prophet should be called “spinning.” Perhaps you would be so kind as to identify which quotes I cited in honest sincerity that you believe were only spinningly cited?

Originally Posted by JMM1957: As far as Mormon’s are concerned, can God reveal something new that would make a previous belief obsolete?

Again, we’re getting pretty far away from the OP. Another thread or pm would be a more polite venue.

I hope this will be helpful to both of you, and to any others uncertain how to explain the Mormon position about the abrogation of the teachings of past Mormon prophets by the teachings of future Mormon prophets:

“Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.” – Mormon Prophet Ezra Taft Benson. No need to have said that unless what the “the living prophets” teach contradicts what “the dead prophets” taught. The living prophets now teach that there was no intercourse between God and Mary, and thus today’s Mormons are instructed to disregard the contrary teachings of the dead prophets. Modernism carried to a self-discrediting extreme.

 

[RebeccaJ]

John 3:16 (Douay-Rheims) For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Are you saying that John 3:16 denies the virgin birth?

More from Elder McConkie in the same book you cite…

“Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person whoever had an immortal Father.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 822

“Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 822

I hope this helps…

You’ll have to explain how anyone here denies the virgin birth.

God begets God. God made man. Maybe someday Mormons will get the difference? Jesus is eternally begotten. He was not begotten at the annunciation or at His birth.

As for McConkie, he’s off in Demi-God land. Jesus is the only person ever born to a virgin because He is Jesus. He is God who became man. There is no other for this to happen with. McConkie is teaching that this could happen to anyone, you, me, anyone. All the Father has to do is another miraculous conception and procreate more Demi-gods.

Stop with the blasphemy already. There is only one Begotten Son. Jesus revealed Himself as divine, because that is his nature, and always has been. He is I AM. He is God, who lowered himself for a while and became man. The incarnation is unique to Jesus because he is God. Only God has been born of a virgin. No man or imagined half man ever was.

 

[TOmNossor]

It doesn’t make any sense if you are using an incorrect definition of “co-substantiation” (I believe you mean consubstantiation). What is your definition/understanding that leads you to say that it doesn’t make sense?

Can you or any Catholic define “consubstantiation” or more importantly the creedal word you say every Sunday "consubstantial? "
I personally believe LDS are on common ground (in common with most or all Catholics) when they do not know what to mean when saying "consubstantial. "

Charity, TOm

 

[Michael68]

Can you or any Catholic define “consubstantiation” or more importantly the creedal word you say every Sunday "consubstantial? "
I personally believe LDS are on common ground (in common with most or all Catholics) when they do not know what to mean when saying "consubstantial. "

Charity, TOm

Consubstantial= one in being

 

[JMM1957]

Consubstantial= one in being

Yes, CC position is one in being, also one in purpose. LDS looks at it as three separate beings, but also having a common purpose, at least that’s how I interpret it.

 

[TOmNossor]

Consubstantial= one in being

I would say that is not very clear.

Would it be correct to say that Obama, the husband of Michelle, and the President of the United States are consubstantial (one in being)?

Would it be correct to say that Jesus Christ who died on the cross and I are consubstantial (one in being)?

What would those mean relative to the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial?

I really think this concept is quite murky.
Charity, TOm

 

[Michael68]

I would say that is not very clear.

Would it be correct to say that Obama, the husband of Michelle, and the President of the United States are consubstantial (one in being)?

Would it be correct to say that Jesus Christ who died on the cross and I are consubstantial (one in being)?

What would those mean relative to the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial?

I really think this concept is quite murky.
Charity, TOm

Its not a concept, its a reality. Your examples are not the same