Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[HojaVerde]

Let me rephrase.

**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 Catholic teaching** is quite murky.

Jesus is consubstancial with us in his humanity, and with God in his divinity.

467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

(bolding mine)

Generally speaking, I would understand consubstancial as “same nature” rather than “one being”. We human beings are all consubstancial. The three divine persons are consubstancial.

The human nature allows many instances of human beings, due to our finity and condition of creatures. The divine nature not, thus the three are one being.

 

[ajcstr]

Jesus is consubstancial with us in his humanity, and with God in his divinity.

(bolding mine)

Generally speaking, I would understand consubstancial as “same nature” rather than “one being”. We human beings are all consubstancial. The three divine persons are consubstancial.

The human nature allows many instances of human beings, due to our finity and condition of creatures. The divine nature not, thus the three are one being.

Sooooo, like same species?

 

[TOmNossor]

I would first like to hear what jane doe has to say about what it means to be able to say “Are we to be one with the Father through co-substantation? That doesn’t make any sense.” To say that it doesn’t make sense tells me that you have to have some understanding (whether correct or incorrect) about it to make such a statement.

If you can’t wait, this is something I’ve addressed many times before, so you can search my prior posts in the mean time.

I have looked for where you might have defined “consubstantial” in the past, but I have only found a few places where you quote CCC and where you discuss “separate” and “distinctions.”

I looked back at what Jane offered and I think she meant kindly what I say more aggressively.
“It is clear in scripture that there is One God. It is LDS and Catholic belief that Jesus Christ is God and that God the Father is God. Our shared scripture, the Bible, provides very little assistance in answering the question of HOW God the Father and God the Son are One God. John 17, where Jesus tells his apostles to become one like He and His Father are one, is the MOST HELPFUL of ALL SCRIPTURE in answering this question. Whatever the Bible teaches about the oneness of God the Father and God the Son, it would seem it is a oneness that the apostles can also enter into among themselves. This IMO is solid LDS teaching, but not developed non-LDS Chritianity.”

That is a more direct way of saying what I think Jane was saying.
Still, I think it is true and it should give pause to folks who think LDS embrace a non-Biblical Trinity.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Would it be correct to say that Mormons believe that the universe is eternal and all that is known via revelation is that God is the God of this planet. I have heard it described this way but not sure if it is accurate or not.

I think that is a very solid minimalist view of LDS thought. I know of no LDS who would disagree with the view you offer. I know there is a great deal of different views around this view.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

So the Biblical story of creation is just for our finite minds to try to comprehend about the who, what, when and why of everything?

I am not sure what you are saying here.
Are you suggesting that I who reject creation ex nihilo must believe that the Bible story of creation is “just for our finite minds to try to comprehend about the who, what, when and why of everything?”
Or are you saying that Catholic who embrace creation ex nihilo must believe that the Bible story of creation is “just for our finite minds to try to comprehend about the who, what, when and why of everything?”

I am not sure where you are coming from.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The answers to your specific questions are No & No.

And NO we are not consubstantial with each other as we do not meet the definitions above.

Horton,
My post below is nothing personal, but I think it is worth posting to show that criticizing LDS for not understanding “consubstantial” is unwise and unfair.
….
LDS should not be criticized for not understanding “consubstantial” when you and HojaVerda disagree on what it means.
HojaVerda answered the second question as “yes” already and the first question is OBVIOUSLY “yes.” (the man Obama is consubstantial with the man Obama whether you call him “Obama,” “Michelle’s husband,” or “President of the United States.”)

In addition to this HojaVerda specifically said:

We human beings are all consubstancial.

And you specifically said:

And NO we are not consubstantial with each other as we do not meet the definitions above.

As I said:

It is my position that "mystery " might be the best one can do, but Catholics will deny dogma regularly when they try to go beyond a shrug and “mystery.”

I can stop here and merely say that the “consubstantial” refers to “mystery” and going far beyond such is likely to cause problems.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Jesus is consubstancial with us in his humanity, and with God in his divinity.

(bolding mine)

Generally speaking, I would understand consubstancial as “same nature” rather than “one being”. We human beings are all consubstancial. The three divine persons are consubstancial.

The human nature allows many instances of human beings, due to our finity and condition of creatures. The divine nature not, thus the three are one being.

Thank you for your post.

I will say with Michael, “I have a hope that one day in Heaven, i can have a conversation with my Lord about these mysteries!”
Charity, TOm

 

[Michael68]

Horton,
My post below is nothing personal, but I think it is worth posting to show that criticizing LDS for not understanding “consubstantial” is unwise and unfair.
….
LDS should not be criticized for not understanding “consubstantial” when you and HojaVerda disagree on what it means.
HojaVerda answered the second question as “yes” already and the first question is OBVIOUSLY “yes.” (the man Obama is consubstantial with the man Obama whether you call him “Obama,” “Michelle’s husband,” or “President of the United States.”)

In addition to this HojaVerda specifically said:

And you specifically said:

As I said:

I can stop here and merely say that the “consubstantial” refers to “mystery” and going far beyond such is likely to cause problems.
Charity, TOm

I don’t like the word consubstantial for this reason. No one seems to really understand it. I like “one in being with the Father”

 

[ajcstr]

I think that is a very solid minimalist view of LDS thought. I know of no LDS who would disagree with the view you offer. I know there is a great deal of different views around this view.
Charity, TOm

So is this as far as official LDS teaching will go?

 

[PJM]

I have always debated this. From what I have read they do have similarities however the differences make it impossible for a traditional Christian to accept these groups as Christian. I try to give them a second doubt as some Protestant Christians say Catholics aren’t Christian. In any case this is how their websites defend them as being Christian. Thoughts please as I am very conflicted on this.

jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/
ttps://www.mormon.org/faq/topic/about-mormons/question/mormon-christian

They are NOT, because while they use some same terms {God, Jesus for example} their understanding of them does not align with the same terms for any Christian sect.

In effect they worship a different god

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[HojaVerde]

Thank you for your post.

I will say with Michael, “I have a hope that one day in Heaven, i can have a conversation with my Lord about these mysteries!”
Charity, TOm

I think the quote I provided from the catechism is quite clear:

“our Lord Jesus Christ …] consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity”

But human nature and divine nature are different, thus speaking about God is not the same as speaking about human beings. People who have human nature are different beings, the Three Divine Persons in God are one being. God is one because that is his nature.

 

[jane_doe]

I would first like to hear what jane doe has to say about what it means to be able to say “Are we to be one with the Father through co-substantation? That doesn’t make any sense.” To say that it doesn’t make sense tells me that you have to have some understanding (whether correct or incorrect) about it to make such a statement.

If you can’t wait, this is something I’ve addressed many times before, so you can search my prior posts in the mean time.

Hi LW7, I was away from the forum for the day, at it seems TOm did a good statement already on my behalf–

I have looked for where you might have defined “consubstantial” in the past, but I have only found a few places where you quote CCC and where you discuss “separate” and “distinctions.”

I looked back at what Jane offered and I think she meant kindly what I say more aggressively.
“It is clear in scripture that there is One God. It is LDS and Catholic belief that Jesus Christ is God and that God the Father is God. Our shared scripture, the Bible, provides very little assistance in answering the question of HOW God the Father and God the Son are One God. John 17, where Jesus tells his apostles to become one like He and His Father are one, is the MOST HELPFUL of ALL SCRIPTURE in answering this question. Whatever the Bible teaches about the oneness of God the Father and God the Son, it would seem it is a oneness that the apostles can also enter into among themselves. This IMO is solid LDS teaching, but not developed non-LDS Chritianity.”

That is a more direct way of saying what I think Jane was saying.
Still, I think it is true and it should give pause to folks who think LDS embrace a non-Biblical Trinity.
Charity, TOm

 

[JMM1957]

LDS do not generally believe in Creation ex Nihilo.

I am not sure what you want me to defend.

I believe God knows all truth instantly and this violates General Relativity… I do not know how to reconcile the understanding I have of general relativity with God’s omniscience. That is a mystery for me.
I attempt to not embrace bald contradictions, but embracing thinga I do not understand is to be expected.
Charity, TOm

I agree it is a mystery for anyone to comprehend. Sometimes we have a hard time putting words to our questions about God.

 

[rcwitness]

Jesus is consubstancial with us in his humanity, and with God in his divinity.

Generally speaking, I would understand consubstancial as “same nature” rather than “one being”. We human beings are all consubstancial. The three divine persons are consubstancial.

The human nature allows many instances of human beings, due to our finity and condition of creatures. The divine nature not, thus the three are one being.

Jesus is consubstantial with God and consubstantial with man. He is obviously consubstantial with God from all eternity, but consubstantial with man at a certain point in time.

“… and the Word became flesh…”

The human nature of The Son of God became obedient to His divine nature.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Hi LW7, I was away from the forum for the day, at it seems TOm did a good statement already on my behalf–

That’s great, however his response does not address my question, which was "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?"

His post does not address that (it talks about the LDS view), so I am wondering what is your definition/understanding.

 

[Horton]

Horton,
My post below is nothing personal, but I think it is worth posting to show that criticizing LDS for not understanding “consubstantial” is unwise and unfair.
….
LDS should not be criticized for not understanding “consubstantial” when you and HojaVerda disagree on what it means.
HojaVerda answered the second question as “yes” already and the first question is OBVIOUSLY “yes.” (the man Obama is consubstantial with the man Obama whether you call him “Obama,” “Michelle’s husband,” or “President of the United States.”)

In addition to this HojaVerda specifically said:

And you specifically said:

As I said:

I can stop here and merely say that the “consubstantial” refers to “mystery” and going far beyond such is likely to cause problems.
Charity, TOm

Apparently you did not read the links I attached otherwise you could clearly see the difference.

HojaVerde said:

I think the quote I provided from the catechism is quite clear:

“our Lord Jesus Christ …] consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity”

But human nature and divine nature are different, thus speaking about God is not the same as speaking about human beings. People who have human nature are different beings, the Three Divine Persons in God are one being. God is one because that is his nature

.

We are not in disagreement with each other.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

jas84173;14125176]I have always debated this. From what I have read they do have similarities however the differences make it impossible for a traditional Christian to accept these groups as Christian. I try to give them a second doubt as some Protestant Christians say Catholics aren’t Christian. In any case this is how their websites defend them as being Christian. Thoughts please as I am very conflicted on this.

During the Spanish Inquisition, there is a story of a rugged man who was brought in for questioning, about his faith. The man in haste and with conviction, exclaimed; “I curse a lot when I speak, I commit fornication, I like to drink and get drunk, I sometimes beat my wife, and I seldom go to Mass”, “you see, I am a Christian”.

What is ironic, the rugged man, set free and was never tried for his faith after his confession.

Mahatma Ghandi, practiced Christian virtue’s by loving his enemies, while practicing Hinduism. Did that make Ghandi a Christian?

I am sure there a good moral Mormons and good moral JW’s.

When it comes to divine revelation. A Christian is one who is a disciple of Jesus Christ.

If one claims to be a disciple of Joseph Smith or Charles T. Russell, and follows their religious founders personal divine revelation or personal heavenly visions? These Follow another gospel and new divine revelations apart from the original apostles who walked and talked with Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[jane_doe]

If one claims to be a disciple of Joseph Smith or Charles T. Russell, and follows their religious founders personal divine revelation or personal heavenly visions? These Follow another gospel and new divine revelations apart from the original apostles who walked and talked with Jesus Christ.

Are you not a Christian then, because you honor Paul as a leader? Or do you acknowledge Christ as the master and Paul is the servant? That is how it is with LDS: Christ is the master, the others are servants.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you not a Christian then, because you honor Paul as a leader? Or do you acknowledge Christ as the master and Paul is the servant? That is how it is with LDS: Christ is the master, the others are servants.

Hi, jane;
Paul got direct revelation from the resurrected Jesus, while persecuting the same Christians who witnessed Jesus divinity, humanity, death, resurrection and who raised the dead before their very eyes, when He walked the earth.

I don’t follow Paul. I follow Paul’s Master Jesus Christ.

After the apostolic age, there is no more divine revelation, or as the new Testament records, “depart from those who preach another gospel”.

I am Christian, not because of Paul, I am Christian because I am baptized into Christ Himself in the blessed Trinity who is One God and no other. This is what makes me a Christian. To Accept Jesus Christ as the Word of God made flesh and the works of God’s Word made flesh, who saves me daily.

Secondarily, I try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Paul and many other’s like him (before and after him) are a living witness to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The gospel Paul teaches is not his own Gospel, that Gospel is the same Gospel Jesus gave to Peter and other disciples who got divine revelation first hand from God to hand down to us.

In my opinion, Charles T. Russell and Joseph Smith teach another gospel other than Jesus Christ, which the New Testament informs us and teaches us to beware of such new gospels, even if they come from Angels, they are accursed.

How are you Christian? by your moral standards or something else?

 

[jane_doe]

Hi, jane;
Paul got direct revelation from the resurrected Jesus, while persecuting the same Christians who witnessed Jesus divinity, humanity, death, resurrection and who raised the dead before their very eyes, when He walked the earth.

I don’t follow Paul. I follow Paul’s Master Jesus Christ.

LDS believe the same about Paul and Joseph Smith.

I am Christian, not because of Paul, I am Christian because I am baptized into Christ Himself in the blessed Trinity who is One God and no other. This is what makes me a Christian. To Accept Jesus Christ as the Word of God made flesh and the works of God’s Word made flesh, who saves me daily.

Same here.

Secondarily, I try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Paul and many other’s like him (before and after him) are a living witness to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Same here.

The gospel Paul teaches is not his own Gospel, that Gospel is the same Gospel Jesus gave to Peter and other disciples who got divine revelation first hand from God to hand down to us.

Same here.

In my opinion, Charles T. Russell and Joseph Smith teach another gospel other than Jesus Christ, which the New Testament informs us and teaches us to beware of such new gospels, even if they come from Angels, they are accursed.

I acknowledge and respect your opinion here, though I adamantly disagree with you on the Joseph Smith account. I’ve no comment on Russel.

How are you Christian? by your moral standards or something else?

I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I devote my entire being to the Father, Son, and Spirit, every day. I was baptized in their name. I pray to the Father in the name of the Son, as He instructed. I believe in them with my entirety and do everything I can to uphold and honor that faith.