Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[jane_doe]

Correct, it doesn’t say specifically what you want to see, but the consensus of all Biblical references combined indicate that, for Paul, the gospel message that he preached, and the traditions taught orally, or written, were sufficient for salvation.

jane, this quote can’t be more clear about not adding to the gospel; Galatians 1:6-12

I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you* by [the] grace [of Christ] for a different gospel
7
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

Notice I underlined the words “we preached to you”. This is not a future tense, but a past tense. Paul is telling the Galatians that the gospel “already” preached to them is sufficient for salvation. To sum things up, even if someone were to add a different gospel message to what Paul had already preached for salvation, “let that one be accursed.” The LDS have added and continue to add new scripture as revealed to their successive prophets. This is exactly what Paul is warning the Galatians about in the above reference.

I have explained several times now how Paul’s words in this chapter actually point to the need for continuing revelation and from no other source.

 

[jane_doe]

A)No, you’re not convincing me,

I haven’t even tried.

so-called scriptural books of LDS that are not accepted by** 99.9% of Christianity.**

Why in the world are you appealing to popular opinion as a indicator of Truth?

 

[JMM1957]

For starters because I haven’t even tried.

Why in the world are you appealing to popular opinion as a indicator of Truth?

I’m not swayed by just popular opinion of itself, I just happen to actually agree with 99.9% of Christianity that the LDS is wrong about adding more scriptural books.

 

[jane_doe]

I’m not swayed by just popular opinion of itself, I just happen to actually agree with 99.9% of Christianity that the LDS is wrong about adding more scriptural books.

But you are submitting popular opinion as evidence of Truthfulness… I’m sorry, but such an argument holds zero sway for me. I do not understand why you are deploying such a argument in the first place.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Bad English. How about you?

A statement of Mormon belief.

 

[jane_doe]

A statement of Mormon belief.

No.

 

[JMM1957]

I’m not swayed by just popular opinion of itself, I just happen to actually agree with 99.9% of Christianity that the LDS is wrong about adding more scriptural books.

What is the value of the BOM, D&C, and PGP for salvation? By LDS using more so-called scripture from those books, do they acknowledge that the first century Biblical authorship was insufficient or incomplete for salvation? How do you justify more scripture?

 

[JMM1957]

But you are submitting popular opinion as evidence of Truthfulness… I’m sorry, but such an argument holds zero sway for me. I do not understand why you are deploying such a argument in the first place.

Are you saying because .1% have those three books, that is evidence for Truthfulness? Why are you having a hard time with me being entitled to my own belief about something? It has nothing to do with popular opinion, why are you making it an issue. It just so happens my percentages are quite correct and not exaggerated.

 

[jane_doe]

What is the value of the BOM, D&C, and PGP for salvation?

2 Corin 13:1 “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

do they acknowledge that the first century Biblical authorship was insufficient or incomplete for salvation?

Does the existence of the Book of Revelation mean that the Gospel of Mark was insufficient or incomplete? No! ALL scripture works together and support each other. Again:2 Corin 13:1 .

How do you justify more scripture?

Are people suppose to refuse what God gives? God is unchanging: He does not stop giving revelation.

 

[mackbrislawn]

It is an adjective, describing one of His many qualities. It does not mean that God is a spirit, no more than “God is Light” literally means that God is a photon whose wavelength is in the visible spectrum, or the “God is love” mean that God is nothing more than an emotion.

That is right, to say God is light, or God is love, does not mean that God is a photon or an emotion. However, the words light and love are not adjectives, they are** nouns**. In that case, what are the statements “God is light,” and “God is love”? These statements are metaphors. Another example of metaphor is when the poet says, “My sweetheart is a red, red, rose.” The word rose is a noun, not an adjective.

But how about when we say something like, “The substance in that glass is water.” This statement is not metaphor. It is a literal statement indicating that the substance is H2O.

Likewise if we were to say “God is flesh” it is not a metaphor and the word “flesh” is a noun, meaning that God is meat and bone, molecules and atoms.

Finally, when scripture says “God is spirit” it means what God is, spirit.

 

[mackbrislawn]

No.

A new revelation!

 

[JMM1957]

2 Corin 13:1 “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

Are you saying that there were witnesses to the truthfulness of the Joseph Smith story? Not sure what you mean by this?

Does the existence of the Book of Revelation mean that the Gospel of Mark was insufficient or incomplete? No! ALL scripture works together and support each other. Again:2 Corin 13:1 .

Of course not. And John did also warn against adding to what is written.

Are people suppose to refuse what God gives? God is unchanging: He does not stop giving revelation.

God gave the promised Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it. Calling it “new revelation” or “new scripture” doesn’t accurately reflect the purpose of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

 

[JMM1957]

That is right, to say God is light, or God is love, does not mean that God is a photon or an emotion. However, the words light and love are not adjectives, they are** nouns**. In that case, what are the statements “God is light,” and “God is love”? These statements are metaphors. Another example of metaphor is when the poet says, “My sweetheart is a red, red, rose.” The word rose is a noun, not an adjective.

But how about when we say something like, “The substance in that glass is water.” This statement is not metaphor. It is a literal statement indicating that the substance is H2O.

Likewise if we were to say “God is flesh” it is not a metaphor and the word “flesh” is a noun, meaning that God is meat and bone, molecules and atoms.

Finally, when scripture says “God is spirit” it means what God is, spirit.

Yes!

 

[jane_doe]

Why are you having a hard time with me being entitled to my own belief about something?

I have nothing against you having your beliefs, and very much respect that fact. As I said earlier, part of my original purpose of coming to CAF was to learn more about the beliefs of others.

It has nothing to do with popular opinion, why are you making it an issue.

It seemed that you were arguing (essentially) ‘99.99% of Christianity agrees with me, so I must be right’. Therefore, you were appealing to popular opinion as a mechanism of determining Truth. As I reject this mechanism, the argument fell flat.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

 

[jane_doe]

That is right, to say God is light, or God is love, does not mean that God is a photon or an emotion. However, the words light and love are not adjectives, they are** nouns**. In that case, what are the statements “God is light,” and “God is love”? These statements are metaphors. Another example of metaphor is when the poet says, “My sweetheart is a red, red, rose.” The word rose is a noun, not an adjective.

But how about when we say something like, “The substance in that glass is water.” This statement is not metaphor. It is a literal statement indicating that the substance is H2O.

Likewise if we were to say “God is flesh” it is not a metaphor and the word “flesh” is a noun, meaning that God is meat and bone, molecules and atoms.

Finally, when scripture says “God is spirit” it means what God is, spirit.

If you want to argue the literalness of something, citing a metaphorical verse is not the way to do it.

 

[jane_doe]

JMM1957 said: What is the value of the BOM, D&C, and PGP for salvation?
Jane said: 2 Corin 13:1 “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
JMM1957 said: Not sure what you mean by this?

Speaking the LDS perspective–
Scripture, ALL of scripture, is multiple witnesses for the Truthfulness of the Gospel. That is the purpose of having multiple witnesses.

Kane: Does the existence of the Book of Revelation mean that the Gospel of Mark was insufficient or incomplete? No! ALL scripture works together and support each other. Again:2 Corin 13:1 .

Of course not. And John did also warn against adding to what is written.

If you’re referring to the verses in the Book of Revelation, we’ve already talked about how those refer to the Book of Revelation. John clearly did not mean “a person should not write any more in the Bible” because he himself then wrote more scripture!

Jane: Are people suppose to refuse what God gives? God is unchanging: He does not stop giving revelation.

JMM1957: God gave the promised Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it. Calling it “new revelation” or “new scripture” doesn’t accurately reflect the purpose of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

That is how new revelation and new scripture are delivered.

 

[mackbrislawn]

If you want to argue the literalness of something, citing a metaphorical verse is not the way to do it.

What a non sequitor. But, coming from the one who tried to claim nouns were adjectives. And who thought the perfectly correct grammatical statement “God is flesh” to be bad English! And who can’t comes to grips with real logic so just attempts to shrug it oft.

Well, at any rate, we now know that God isn’t spirit, and we know he isn’t flesh, neither.

 

[jane_doe]

What a non sequitor. But, coming from the one who tried to claim nouns were adjectives. And who thought the perfectly correct grammatical statement “God is flesh” to be bad English! And who can’t comes to grips with real logic so just attempts to shrug it oft.

Well, at any rate, we now know that God isn’t spirit, and we know he isn’t flesh, neither.

Metaphors are by definition not literal. To cite you previous example, if you describe someone “red as a rose” they are in no means literally a rose, but rather the whole sentense and compassion is being used as a adjective.

 

[JMM1957]

Speaking the LDS perspective–
Scripture, ALL of scripture, is multiple witnesses for the Truthfulness of the Gospel. That is the purpose of having multiple witnesses.

If you’re referring to the verses in the Book of Revelation, we’ve already talked about how those refer to the Book of Revelation. John clearly did not mean “a person should not write any more in the Bible” because he himself then wrote more scripture!

That is how new revelation and new scripture are delivered.

I think I’m beginning to tire of this.

 

[JMM1957]

I have nothing against you having your beliefs, and very much respect that fact. As I said earlier, part of my original purpose of coming to CAF was to learn more about the beliefs of others.

It seemed that you were arguing (essentially) ‘99.99% of Christianity agrees with me, so I must be right’. Therefore, you were appealing to popular opinion as a mechanism of determining Truth. As I reject this mechanism, the argument fell flat.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

You misunderstood.