Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[zaffiroborant]

LW7, why do you want me to explain your theology to you? I’m sorry… but this strikes me as very illogical and I’m getting frustrated.

LivingWaters7 isn’t asking you to explain Catholic theology, she is asking you to give your understanding of Catholic theology, or to explain what you understand when you hear Catholic “jargon”.

 

[Stephen168]

What rationality?!?! All I have seen from you is evasion and insults!!

I have seen NOTHING from you.

That is the beauty of Catholicism; it is rational. Mormonism are statements that are irrational.

Like saying they believe in one god then describe it as many gods.

Like your statement that something doesn’t make sense, but it turns out you can’t repeat your understand of that thing. It was clearly a statement out of the blue which you can’t support. You just made it. AND you have no desire for LivingWater to help you understand by explaining what you understand now, so he can correct your misunderstanding.

 

[jane_doe]

I have seen NOTHING from you.

That is the beauty of Catholicism; it is rational. Mormonism are statements that are irrational.

Like saying they believe in one god then describe it as many gods.

Like your statement that something doesn’t make sense, but it turns out you can’t repeat your understand of that thing. It was clearly a statement out of the blue which you can’t support. You just made it. AND you have no desire for LivingWater to help you understand by explaining what you understand now, so he can correct your misunderstanding.

More insults! And nothing else.

Stephen, with all do respect, I shall not be responding to any more of your posts.

 

[Michael68]

I have seen NOTHING from you.

That is the beauty of Catholicism; it is rational. Mormonism are statements that are irrational.

Like saying they believe in one god then describe it as many gods.

Like your statement that something doesn’t make sense, but it turns out you can’t repeat your understand of that thing. It was clearly a statement out of the blue which you can’t support. You just made it. AND you have no desire for LivingWater to help you understand by explaining what you understand now, so he can correct your misunderstanding.

I’m not sure you can correct her understanding by bullying her.

 

[Stephen168]

So explain that to me. How are God and Christ “one” yet they don’t share the same substance? Doesn’t one logically have to follow from the other?

And by eternal understand I meant that Christ was not created by God after creation. Christ always existed with the father.

Yes, one does have to logically follow the other, if you believes in one God; the one uncreated divine nature. Mormonism isn’t about logic.

Mormons reject the divine nature. They believe god was once a human being and human beings can become god; humans are god in embryo.

A Christian baptism is in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

A Mormon baptism is in the nameS of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three separate beings and just three of the many possible gods.

And sources of DNA?
jane_doe;14145080:

She donated a Y chromosome?

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not sure you can correct her understanding by bullying her.

I’m sure bullying does not educate. I’m not sure it was bullying as much as establishing clarity of her obstinance.

I had a college professor tell us that education is a dialog, and we had to cooperate in our education. To correct her understanding, we would first have to know what her understand is. Not Catholic Church understanding, not Tom’s understanding, not my understanding, but her understanding.

I wanted to make it clear the “dialog ball” is in her court.

 

[Horton]

I’m sure bullying does not educate. I’m not sure it was bullying as much as establishing clarity of her obstinance.

I had a college professor tell us that education is a dialog, and we had to cooperate in our education. To correct her understanding, we would first have to know what her understand is. Not Catholic Church understanding, not Tom’s understanding, not my understanding, but her understanding.

I wanted to make it clear the “dialog ball” is in her court.

And she won’t answer because she is unable to. I believe Jane has zero understanding of the Trinity or consubstantiation and she is unable to admit she doesn’t understand.

 

[jane_doe]

I’m not sure you can correct her understanding by bullying her.

:

Bullying is a sign of weakness and insecurity. I know many things about the Catholic church, including the fact that she is strong, and does not need weak bullies fighting on her behalf.

 

[TOmNossor]

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

HojaVerde said:

.

We are not in disagreement with each other.

I had read 2 of the 3 in the past, but you are correct that I didn’t follow your links. It was enough for me to know that whatever your links said, you could still answer my questions as,

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.

How you can claim you and HojaVerde are in agreement when he said “yes” to one of my question and didn’t answer the other AND said,

We human beings are all consubstancial…

So, I re-assert that “consubstantial” is poorly understood by Catholics and thus criticizing LDS for not understanding it is a little unfair.
Perhaps you can elaborate on how:
“no” = “yes”
And how:
“And NO we are not consubstantial with each other” = “We human beings are all consubstancial”

Again, I hope you can see the above as me trying to make a point, not me trying to offend you. I think you are more knowledgeable than most Catholics concerning these topics. I am just making the point that Catholics do not understand these terms. I truly believe that they are hopelessly flawed terms, but I know some historians/theologians/scholars who claim that the word translated “consubstantial” has 3 meanings two of which are necessary to understand all Catholic Creedal statements concerning “consubstantial.” I do not agree that this works perfectly, but it get one MUCH farther than anything on this thread so far.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

I cannot agree that it is sufficiently clear, partially because I believe attempts at clarity will prove futile.
Your view that “consubstantial” is synonymous with “of the same species” cannot account for the ways this term is used within Catholic circles and Catholic history. One simple way of illustrating this is that LDS are quite comfortable with what is called by scholars the “generic” meaning of homoousian (consubstantial). I can affirm that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian/consubstantial (in the “generic” sense).
The most prevalent solution to this problem I see in the literature is to say that when homoousian is used of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is used in the “numeric” sense and when it is used of Christ’s humanity and our humanity it is used in the “generic” sense. This IMO makes the Father’s at Chalcedon schizophrenic, but it is the best there is IMO. It is also true that the BULK of the Fathers at Nicea used it in the “generic” sense and only the minority, Athanasius included used it in the “numeric” sense. After Nicea Athanasius called those other Father’s his “brothers” and not “Ariomaniacs,” but today those who only affirm the “generic” sense are unwelcome.
So, I do not think this is clear at all. And I have not even brought into the discussion the REASON many of the Father’s at Nicea were so opposed to “consubstantial.” That would further confuse this issue.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

But not really the same as Paul was with Jesus Christ while Christ walked the earth. Joseph Smith was not. Gabriel is talking about the reality of someone who heard from the mouth of Christ what to teach.

I have read the Bible, and there is zero evidence that Paul was ever with the “pre-resurrected” Christ. Paul’s call to the apostleship comes via vision on the road to Damascus. As such Paul is the Apostle most like Joseph Smith.
I am also unaware of ANY ECF who suggests Paul ever met Christ during his mortal ministry.
Finally, let me state that I have found a small number of speculative thinkers who claim MAYBE Paul came in contact with Christ before the end of Christ’s 40-day post resurrection ministry, but the prevalent view is the Biblical view which is “Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus.”
This makes Paul, among all of the Apostles, most similar to Joseph Smith who also claims to have met Christ in a divine manifestation (not while Christ walked among the Jews in Palestine).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen, LivingWaters, Horton, and all;
I entered this conversation familiar with what I suspected would be unproductive poking and prodding upon/at a LDS, Jane. I responded to this post:

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?

Let me say more clearly what I mean.
Jane believes “consubstantial” doesn’t make sense because she cannot possibly understand what the word means within Catholicism. I don’t and nobody else does either. This word from its origin was little more than a stick to beat heretics with.

1. If it clearly expressed pre-Nicene thought, why so much debate and frustration with it. As I have quoted for you, scholars agree that pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationism. There was a CHANGE (or DEVELOPMENT if you like) at Nicea.
2. One of the reason that many Father refused to embrace “homoousian” was that it was the word already condemned as modalist.
3. This “refusal to embrace” was precisely why “homoousain” was chosen. The Arians must be excluded from communion. They would not embrace “homoousian” and thus it was PERFECT.
4. Pre-Nicea it already had three different meanings and the Father’s at Nicea embraced it by using two different meanings. Athanasius embraced one meaning and Eusebius of C embraced a different meaning. This is not much of an agreement.
5. The word was so unacceptable, it was rejected for decades following Nicea. The world “groaned” under Arianism with most Bishops embracing Semi-Arian creeds.
6. The Council of Chalcedon took up the word again. In the space of a single sentence (the Catholic scholar asserts) the word homoousian means two different things. When referring to Father, Son, Holy Spirit it means numeric one-substance-ness. When referring to Jesus and mankind it means generic one-substance-ness. This is no way to use a word to communicate truth. I believe the Fathers had the “generic” mean in mind at Chalcedon, but who knows.

I suggest Jane could not possibly have a definition of Homoousian to mean all the stuff it has come to mean unless she believed it was just a stick to beat on others.

A poster on this thread denied Catholic dogma by saying that Christ and humans are not homoousian. Awesome.
A poster on this thread said homoousian should be thought of as “same species.” I understand where this comes from, but …

I suggested that we could leave it at “mystery,” but that seems to have been followed.

I am responding to a poster who was critical of a LDS for not understanding “consubstantial.” 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.”

And so we are here with Catholic denying dogma and …
Charity, TOm

 

[JMM1957]

Ok. For this post I am quoting your post 342, and speaking from an LDS perspective.

JMM1957: I share the same view as Gabriel of 12, that LDS preach another gospel other than Jesus Christ.
Jane: I acknowledge and respect your opinion here, though I adamantly disagree.

JMM1957 : Definition of gospel: 1) the teaching or revelation of Christ (not Joseph Smith),
Jane: LDS beliefs are teachings on Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is the master, not Paul, Moses, Joseph Smith, Peter, or anyone else.

JMM1957: in the first four books of the New Testament.
Jane: No. The Gospel is the Good News: the news of Christ’s birth, death, resurrection, and salvation for man. It is not just confined to the first four books of the NT, nor the Bible, nor any language, nor Earth.

JMM1957: There was to be no more divine revelation after the apostolic age,
Jane: Do you have a Biblical citation for this?

JMM1957: this is why Paul says what he did in Galatians 1:8-9. Do you agree with Paul or not?
Jane: Paul is not saying there will be no more divine revelation after the apostolic age. Rather he is warning against false teachings. I very much agree with Paul in that we should be wary of false teachings.
Now, before you say “and LDS believe false teachings!”, I could say the same thing about Catholic beliefs, and a Baptist could say the same thing about both of us, and a Lutheran about everyone else, etc. So let’s just skip that unproductive conversation.

Hi jane_doe,

Let me quote Galatians 1:6-9 here:

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul is saying that we should not believe in any distortion of the gospel of Christ that is different than what they already had received up to that time. That means no new divine revelation, because Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Christ, 11 “For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1:11-12)

Paul, John and others warn of false teachers who will come along with a false gospel, and the way that we know it is false is to compare it to the gospel preached by the Apostles, Paul and their successors who are members of the Christian Church established by Jesus Christ himself while he was on earth.

I see the church of LDS as having added to the original Gospel of Jesus Christ with their acceptance of the Joseph Smith story as being of divine origin and the resulting addition of three more books of what they call inspired scripture.

The words of Paul in Galatians cannot be thrown aside in favor of our own interpretations. Paul’s words do not need to be disputed about meaning, it is very clear;** no different gospel.** Without claiming that the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. all do the same thing, how do you explain that the** LDS specifically**, is not preaching a different gospel than the one Paul preached? If Paul said not to believe in a different gospel, that meant that the gospel he preached was not going to change (be added to or taken away from) at some point in the future by the true Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Stephen, LivingWaters, Horton, and all;
I entered this conversation familiar with what I suspected would be unproductive poking and prodding upon/at a LDS, Jane. I responded to this post:

Let me say more clearly what I mean.
Jane believes “consubstantial” doesn’t make sense because she cannot possibly understand what the word means within Catholicism. I don’t and nobody else does either. This word from its origin was little more than a stick to beat heretics with.

1. If it clearly expressed pre-Nicene thought, why so much debate and frustration with it. As I have quoted for you, scholars agree that pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationism. There was a CHANGE (or DEVELOPMENT if you like) at Nicea.

It has been shown that you twist scholarship to make your a priori point.

1. One of the reason that many Father refused to embrace “homoousian” was that it was the word already condemned as modalist.

Also has been addressed and shown to you more than once that the word homoousian was used to describe a modality. Modalism is the heresy, not the word homoousian.

1. This “refusal to embrace” was precisely why “homoousain” was chosen. The Arians must be excluded from communion. They would not embrace “homoousian” and thus it was PERFECT.

. That’s just you, with your eye towards making Catholicism look like the bad guy being projected onto history.

1. Pre-Nicea it already had three different meanings and the Father’s at Nicea embraced it by using two different meanings. Athanasius embraced one meaning and Eusebius of C embraced a different meaning. This is not much of an agreement.

. Right so there is a council to settle it once and for all. Those who recognize the Spirit being involved, see that a nut was cracked. A glorious thing to witness.

1. The word was so unacceptable, it was rejected for decades following Nicea. The world “groaned” under Arianism with most Bishops embracing Semi-Arian creeds.

Another Tom’s version of history asserted as fact?

1. The Council of Chalcedon took up the word again. In the space of a single sentence (the Catholic scholar asserts) the word homoousian means two different things. When referring to Father, Son, Holy Spirit it means numeric one-substance-ness. When referring to Jesus and mankind it means generic one-substance-ness. This is no way to use a word to communicate truth. I believe the Fathers had the “generic” mean in mind at Chalcedon, but who knows.

The word has one meaning. If I say a car is black and a cat is black, am I changing the meaning of the word black? Your argument is that black always refers to cars and if I use it to refer to something other than cars, I’ve changed the meaning of the word black. Like I said, sophistry.

I suggest Jane could not possibly have a definition of Homoousian to mean all the stuff it has come to mean unless she believed it was just a stick to beat on others.

Who cares! That wasn’t the question. It shouldn’t be so hard to answer, what do you think a word means? Does black always refer to cars for Jane Doe?

A poster on this thread denied Catholic dogma by saying that Christ and humans are not homoousian. Awesome.
A poster on this thread said homoousian should be thought of as “same species.” I understand where this comes from, but …

I suggested that we could leave it at “mystery,” but that seems to have been followed.

And so we are here with Catholic denying dogma and …

Aren’t you all that and a bag of chips. Guess what, every Catholic here understands Catholicism far better than you even attempt.

Charity

Doubtful.

 

[Stephen168]

I believe Jane has zero understanding of the Trinity or consubstantiation and she is unable to admit she doesn’t understand.

I believe it is part of Mormon culture to think that complicated ideas are false, therefore the Trinity must remain a complicated idea to be false. For something to remain complicated, you must never seek to understand it.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, LivingWaters, Horton, and all;
I entered this conversation familiar with what I suspected would be unproductive poking and prodding upon/at a LDS, Jane.

No, you entered this conversation to start a tangent to deflect the conversation away from Jane having to explain what co-substantation means to her.

Jane believes “consubstantial” doesn’t make sense because she cannot possibly understand what the word means within Catholicism.

You are famous for saying that you alone of the world’s greatest authority on knowing what Tom believes; which is true. But you are not the world’s greatest authority on knowing what Jane believes. Only Jane knows what she means by co-substantation.

And you have not even tried to explain what she might have meant by it, but again that is her responsibility not yours.

 

[Stephen168]

Let me say more clearly what I mean.
Jane believes “consubstantial” doesn’t make sense because she cannot possibly understand what the word means within Catholicism. I don’t and nobody else does either. This word from its origin was little more than a stick to beat heretics with.

1. If it clearly expressed pre-Nicene thought, why so much debate and frustration with it. As I have quoted for you, scholars agree that pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationism. There was a CHANGE (or DEVELOPMENT if you like) at Nicea.
2. One of the reason that many Father refused to embrace “homoousian” was that it was the word already condemned as modalist.
3. This “refusal to embrace” was precisely why “homoousain” was chosen. The Arians must be excluded from communion. They would not embrace “homoousian” and thus it was PERFECT.
4. Pre-Nicea it already had three different meanings and the Father’s at Nicea embraced it by using two different meanings. Athanasius embraced one meaning and Eusebius of C embraced a different meaning. This is not much of an agreement.
5. The word was so unacceptable, it was rejected for decades following Nicea. The world “groaned” under Arianism with most Bishops embracing Semi-Arian creeds.
6. The Council of Chalcedon took up the word again. In the space of a single sentence (the Catholic scholar asserts) the word homoousian means two different things. When referring to Father, Son, Holy Spirit it means numeric one-substance-ness. When referring to Jesus and mankind it means generic one-substance-ness. This is no way to use a word to communicate truth. I believe the Fathers had the “generic” mean in mind at Chalcedon, but who knows.

I suggest Jane could not possibly have a definition of Homoousian to mean all the stuff it has come to mean unless she believed it was just a stick to beat on others.

Yes, it is all sooooooo complicated it could not possibly be true, said the Mormon.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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

There are similarities that the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and the Watchtower Society have that are not shared with Protestantism.

Each claims to be the official, authoritative, teaching institution of God. Protestantism denies that there is such a thing.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have read the Bible, and there is zero evidence that Paul was ever with the “pre-resurrected” Christ. Paul’s call to the apostleship comes via vision on the road to Damascus. As such Paul is the Apostle most like Joseph Smith.
I am also unaware of ANY ECF who suggests Paul ever met Christ during his mortal ministry.

This makes Paul, among all of the Apostles, most similar to Joseph Smith who also claims to have met Christ in a divine manifestation (not while Christ walked among the Jews in Palestine).
Charity, TOm

I have to disagree with your “similar” take between Paul and Joseph Smith.

The reality is; Paul after his encounter with the resurrected Jesus, Paul stood a few days with a disciple of Jesus. Then later, Paul would go to Jerusalem and visit Peter, to confirm the gospel he was preaching of Jesus, was the same gospel of Jesus Christ as Peter and the other apostles.

Your Joseph Smith got his revelation and came away with another or different gospel other than the one Paul received, and different than the one Peter and the original apostles received.

Comparing Joseph Smith with Paul is a great contradiction to 2000 years of Christianity, and Joseph Smith’s personal revelation is never confirmed by eye witnesses, to confirm Joseph Smith’s revelation.

Biblically speaking, it takes two witnesses to establish a Truth. Joseph Smith’s private revelation lack’s the support of any witness to confirm his vision and his gospel.

The Mormon Gospel is founded upon Joseph Smith revelation, not Jesus Christ revelation. That is one reason, why a Mormon is not a Christian.

Peace be with you

 

[JMM1957]

I have to disagree with your “similar” take between Paul and Joseph Smith.

The reality is; Paul after his encounter with the resurrected Jesus, Paul stood a few days with a disciple of Jesus. Then later, Paul would go to Jerusalem and visit Peter, to confirm the gospel he was preaching of Jesus, was the same gospel of Jesus Christ as Peter and the other apostles.

**Your Joseph Smith got his revelation and came away with another or different gospel other than the one Paul received, and different than the one Peter and the original apostles received.

Comparing Joseph Smith with Paul is a great contradiction to 2000 years of Christianity, and Joseph Smith’s personal revelation is never confirmed by eye witnesses, to confirm Joseph Smith’s revelation.

Biblically speaking, it takes two witnesses to establish a Truth. Joseph Smith’s private revelation lack’s the support of any witness to confirm his vision and his gospel. **

The Mormon Gospel is founded upon Joseph Smith revelation, not Jesus Christ revelation. That is one reason, why a Mormon is not a Christian.

Peace be with you

Jesus confirmed who he was and authenticated his gospel by many miracles and he had thousands of witnesses to him being the Son of God. The messengers of Jesus’ gospel, Peter, Paul, and others, had the gospel they preached confirmed also by similar signs; "3This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will. (Heb. 2:3-4)

I have not seen anything to confirm the authenticity of Joseph Smiths’ gospel and teachings being divinely inspired and worthy of belief. If Joseph Smith is all that the LDS claim he is, then there should be no problem finding many witnesses, correct?