Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[Stephen168]

I heard the same thing about Mormons in areas where their livelihood might rely on them being Mormon.

 

[kainosktisis]

You said: “I referenced the ECF’s in response to the claim that every use of the term “gods” in the Bible referred to “false gods” or demons. This claim made by thephilosopher6 is not accurate for the Bible and for the ECF.”

I made no claim that every reference to “gods” was only for demons. That was your assumption. If the LDS context about godhood entails worship of other creatures who procreate & populate other planets, then I have serious reservations of the orthodoxy & historicity of such interpretations. This would certainly raise a red flag to me & invoke Moses’ & St. Paul’s words on idolatry.

Immortality is Scriptural. This can be verified Scripturally. The terms I’ve encountered on the matter of Gods as in Jesus’ reference to Psalm 110:4 in John 8 are divinization, deification, or theosis. I am no theologian to tackle the complexities of these teachings, but whatever immortality entails, I understand it from the point that Jesus made: we shall be like the angels, we are not given in marriage, & as far as Scripture reveals, we don’t give birth to children. Certainly our bodies will be resurrected imperishable one day. We are co-heirs who will one day be glorified with Him if we abide in Him. How & when that specifically occurs, I do not know. I’d once heard it explained as us starting in the Garden & ending in the Garden again, implying our going back to a state of innocence. For now I am satisfied to know it’s His will.

I don’t believe that LDS teaching & Scripture & the ECFs on partaking of the Divine nature are one & the same. I would have to see evidence of historical alignment of Church teaching with LDS to honestly consider that. What I gather is that we both believe in an afterlife with immortality, but our understandings of it don’t necessarily concur. Going back to the source, it must be understood as taught by Jesus through the Church.

Aside from that I have personal reasons for rejecting LDS teachings stemming from dealings with LDS family members who have shown themselves to be of dubious character repeatedly. I will refrain from airing the drama, but suffice it to say I’ve had enough, & I want them to just leave me alone. Having dealt with them has left a VERY bitter taste in my mouth, but I pray for them daily.

 

[kainosktisis]

From the New Advent Website - Augustine - “On the Trinity (Book 1)” :

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm

Perhaps this will help shed some light on the matter.

 

[Stephen168]

Tom has said more than once that he can become a god just like Christ did.

This is not true … I have always claimed the Christ was eternally divine. … I agree that what Christ is we will become.

The Mormon website says Christ is a God; part of the Godhead. So again you are saying you will become God, which is the teaching of the Mormon Church.

Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost. These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe.-Mormon Encyclopedia, page 552

Logically and naturally, the ultimate desire of a Supreme Being is to help his children enjoy all that he enjoys. For Latter-day Saints, the term “godhood” denotes the attainment of such a state - one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is.-Mormon Encyclopedia, page 553

 

[Phemie]

That’s the same list my Pastor sent me when I was trying to figure out who parents could have as Christian witnesses. In our town there are large Salvation Army & Pentecostal communities and most of the Inuit are Moravians.

Although Moravians here baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, this list says their Baptism is doubtful and each case must be investigated. That was made clear to me when a former Pastor was questioned by the Moravian minister who didn’t understand why a Catholic/Moravian wedding was considered a disparity of cult marriage requiring a dispensation, rather than simply a mixed-marriage, and why Moravians coudn’t be Christian witnesses at a Catholic Baptism.

 

[TOmNossor]

The Many Gods of Mormonism

TOm seems to be writing about a religion much different from the Mormonism I am familiar with. I don’t think he’s trying to dissemble, so that suggests that either he doesn’t agree with some basic Mormon teaching or that he just doesn’t know what the Mormon church really holds.

I recommend Isaiah Bennett’s books on Mormonism: “When Mormons Call” and “Inside Mormonism,” both published by Catholic Answers.

I would also recommend the official Mormon website. Mormon beliefs about God like many Mormon beliefs, are not biblical as confirmed by the Mormon Church. Joseph Smith made them up.

Quite simply, Karl Keating knows far less about Mormonism than I do. This was true in 2004 when he offered this post and when I responded. It is certainly true today. I learned a great deal about Catholicism from Keating, but it is clear he has not learned about Mormonism.

And having read his book, I was able to show that his recommendation of Isaiah Bennett was precisely what he asked non-Catholic not to do with respect to Catholicism.

The Many Gods of Mormonism Non-Catholic Religions

TOm seems to be writing about a religion much different from the Mormonism I am familiar with. I don’t think he’s trying to dissemble, so that suggests that either he doesn’t agree with some basic Mormon teaching or that he just doesn’t know what the Mormon church really holds. I recommend Isaiah Bennett’s books on Mormonism: “When Mormons Call” and “Inside Mormonism,” both published by Catholic Answers.

My fondest hope is that you will retract this statement. I …

BTW, I read most of Bennett’s book. I agree with the assessment of a one-time Catholic poster here that it is in the same ilk as typical anti-Catholic screeds. So, Keating and most Catholic posters have not learned Mormonism from informed LDS like Blake Ostler. They have cherry-picked statements and formed flawed opinions.

Stephen,

It is remarkable to me that it would seem you have read almost every post I have ever made from 2+ years before you even joined the board. You don’t know what they say as I will point out in my next response to you, but…. This must be because they are so obviously silly and should be ignored.

Charity, TOm

 

[kainosktisis]

This is what I have observed of LDS teaching. There is the use of Christian terminology without the same historical or orthodox context. Just because the words for the existence of the Melchizedek priesthood are in historical records, the meaning attributed to it by LDS proponents & that of the historical Church must be clarified. Assumptions cannot be made.

Without anyone getting excited over these things, I think people need to try to phrase their questions in a non-accusatory or attacking manner. Everybody, chill. Dialog here. You can discuss & agree or disagree without being hurtful to one another.

 

[LoyalViews]

First I’ve heard tell of that. Any reason why the Moravian baptism is doubtful? I’ve been to a few - they seem fairly straightforward. Is it the intention of the minister?

 

[TOmNossor]

You said: “I referenced the ECF’s in response to the claim that every use of the term “gods” in the Bible referred to “false gods” or demons. This claim made by thephilosopher6 is not accurate for the Bible and for the ECF.”

I made no claim that every reference to “gods” was only for demons.

Kainosktisis,

I agree you didn’t claim that every referenced to “gods” was for demons. I said it was thephilosopher6 who made this claim. Which he did.

All other “gods” are demons (Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20), or idols which neither see, nor hear, nor feel (1 Chronicles 16:26, Psalm 96:5).

Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians? Non-Catholic Religions

This is false. You cannot be monotheistic and partake in the worship of three separate deities while also affirming the existence of other deities in the universe(s). God quite specifically told Isaiah, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” - Isaiah 44:6 “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” - Isaiah 45:5 And Moses, “See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me.” - Deuteronomy 32:39 He did not say that he is the only the…

What I see from reading the ECF is as follows:

The ECFs from Irenaeus and after believed that God created ex nihilo. St. Clement of Rome and St. Justin Martyr didn’t believe this, but after this belief was universally accepted it placed an additional barrier between God and man. Until the 4th century the ECF continued to speak of men becoming gods without reservation or limitation upon the FINAL STATE of deified man. Today, LDS believe the exchange formula as it is stated, “God became man so that men may become gods.” But Catholics believe that how God became man is profoundly different than how men can become gods. I think the early ECF agree with the LDS position and as they dealt with creation ex nihilo and other philosophical concepts they move from being believers in “full deification” to being believers in “men becoming gods in a certain sense.”

I recommend to Catholics the book:

Deification and Grace by Daniel Keating.

Keating invites Catholics to a far greater view of deification than typically embraced in the pews, but he uses 4th century ideas to disconnect “the exchange formula” making how God become man different from how man becomes god. This makes those who wrote the exchange formula multiple times either not in agreement with Keating and later Catholics OR unconcerned with how their words would be read by rational people.

Anyway, I still am waiting for someone to comment on how the ONENESS of God the Father and God the Son aligns with Jesus’s call the we become ONE as He and His Father are one. Either He means we are to become ONE BEING, or He means we are to become ONE as He and His Father are ONE and that not one being.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168:

Tom has said more than once that he can become a god just like Christ did.

This is not true … I have always claimed the Christ was eternally divine. … I agree that what Christ is we will become.

The Mormon website says …

The LDS website doesn’t say what you said I said either.
Stephen,

You have reviewed my words on Catholic Answers from 2004 until today.

You claimed I said something that I never said. I told you that you made a false claim and you are moving on to other claims. You should correct your false claim! You are misrepresenting me and my faith (unrepentantly).

I am of the opinion that you made this claim because you read with profound anti-Mormon bias. This is also why you accuse me of lying regularly and trying to deceive, not because I have ever lied on this board.

Furthermore, I think you distract from simple questions like those in this thread.

You implied that your son and you were the same nature in the same way that Catholics believe that God the Father and God the Son are the same nature. This is not true.

When Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one as He and His Father are one, He did not mean that they would become One Being as Catholic today believe the Father and Son are. He may have meant exactly what I believe concerning the Trinity because Christ believes exactly as I do regarding the Trinity, but He did not embrace the modern Catholic belief and witnessed such in His words.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The LDS website doesn’t say what you said I said either.

I know, that is the point. You are claiming something about the Mormon Church which it does not claim itself.

You claimed I said something that I never said. I told you that you made a false claim and you are moving on to other claims. You should correct your false claim!

My claim wasn’t false and I’m sticking with the same claim.
You are claiming something about the Mormon Church which it does not claim itself.

During a recent discussion, I claimed the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood was not Biblical, and an invention of Joseph Smith.

This is what the Mormon Church teaches on its website. Well they call it a “revelation” of Joseph Smith.

The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

My argument is that the LDS view is solidly Biblical, not that it is impossible to read the Bible in the Catholic way.

Tom claimed it was biblical. Of course he never did quote the bible, because it isn’t there. A proselytizing effort it seems.

The Mormon god is a created being of flesh and bone. Christ, like all human beings, lived with god in a pre-mortal existence before coming to earth. So there is nothing unique about Christ. Tom has said more than once that he can become a god just like Christ did. Therefore Mormonism believes there are many many gods.

I watch as Tom beats this one Mormon cherry picked verse to death while claiming the Mormon belief is much more biblical. The Mormon Church says their belief about god comes from Joseph Smith and one bible verse; John 17:21-22. Much of the beliefs about a pre-mortal existence, man becoming god, and plurality of gods comes from Joseph Smith’s translation of an Egyptian funeral text into Mormon scripture. In other words, Joseph Smith made it up.

Joseph Smith used this some tactic. He claimed he was going to prove it from the Bible that God was once a man, but then rambled on never actually proving anything from the bible; just like Tom and gazelam.

To summarize just for you Tom.
-Mormon beliefs about the nature of God are not biblical according to the Mormon Church; they are from the mind of Joseph Smith.
-Tom makes claims about Mormon beliefs that are contrary to the Mormon Church.
-Mormons from Joseph Smith to Tom have claimed Mormon beliefs to be biblical, but never prove it from the Bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

"TOmNossor:

When Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one as He and His Father are one, He did not mean that they would become One Being as Catholic today believe the Father and Son are.

Agreed

He may have meant exactly what I believe concerning the Trinity because Christ believes exactly as I do regarding the Trinity,

lol.

but He did not embrace the modern Catholic belief and witnessed such in His words.

Charity, TOm

I’m sorry that you are so confused.

The High Priestly Prayer of Jesus is a Trinitarian prayer.

Entering into the life of the Holy Trinity is the very definition of what it means to be Christian. By our baptism, in the name (not names) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we enter this life. By our confirmation the Holy Spirit seals our baptism and we are thus sealed to Jesus Christ. What is His is ours. This is very Biblical.

By receiving the Eucharist we are made One with Jesus, Body, Divinity and Soul. John 17:22 is part of the blessing of sanctification that Jesus gave to His disciples. I find it sad, that Mormons are unable to accept what Jesus has blessed us with: UNITY, with each other and with God. This is realized through His Church, which Mormonism rejects whole heartedly and fights against.

The Accuser is not of God.

It is also Biblical that we are made sharers of the divine nature. Mormonism is unable to get past the understanding of sharing and becoming. Every quote you make for the ECF you place a Mormon spin that changes Christ sharing with us to us becoming God. Not to mention leaves out the Eucharist (purposely I think). Then declare “ha!”, and “beat that”.

Out of charity, I’ll let you know that you look foolish…and you should just stop.

 

[TOmNossor]

"TOmNossor:

When Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one as He and His Father are one, He did not mean that they would become One Being as Catholic today believe the Father and Son are.

Agreed

He may have meant exactly what I believe concerning the Trinity because Christ believes exactly as I do regarding the Trinity,

lol.

but He did not embrace the modern Catholic belief and witnessed such in His words.

Charity, TOm

I’m sorry that you are so confused.

The High Priestly Prayer of Jesus is a Trinitarian prayer.

Entering into the life of the Holy Trinity is the very definition of what it means to be Christian.

Let me offer this quick summary. I think you think John 17:22 is explained because the entire prayer is about uniting with God eternally and through the Eucharist. That this union the disciples are called into is only the union that Catholics believe really occurs. And thus John 17 teaches the Catholic understanding of union with one another and union with God. I hope that was close …

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The High Priestly Prayer of Jesus is a Trinitarian prayer.

Entering into the life of the Holy Trinity is the very definition of what it means to be Christian.

Now what I think (backed up by the text, the Greek, and the history):

I agree that this is a Trinitarian prayer (but not your Trinity). You do not believe that you can enter into the Trinity AS Christ exists in the Trinity. I believe that we are called to enter into the Trinity. That we are called to be one as Christ and the Father are one. You reject what the words say.

You might say you believe that you sort-of get to a ONENESS like God the Father and God the Son, but you do not believe that you get to a ONENESS as (also JUST AS and EVEN AS which are good Greek translation of kathos) God the Father and God the Son which was what was prayed.

And as I have pointed out, ECFs for centuries claimed that Christ became what we are so that we could become what He is. It took till the 4th century for folks to start claiming that while Christ became completely what we are we are to only become in a limited sense what He is.

In fact the arguments I am making here were made post Nicea during the great purge of any non-developed ideas

In 341 the Council of Antioch took place with a number of Bishops who participated in Nicea present. They condemned the idea that Christ was originate, but used the same arguments I am using to express the ONENESS of God (in addition to some oneness arguments from Nicea that I find acceptable). The Athanasian party in the Council of Sardica two years later condemned the 341 Council of Antioch, using an interpretation of John 17:21 that scholars acknowledge conflicts with John 17:22 (how I am using John 17:22 as in the OBVIOUS way of reading John 17:22). St. Hillary speaks approvingly of the Council of Antioch and it is quoted at the Council of Chalcedon because it was very solid even though the Athanasian party condemned it. Over time what I call the NeoModalist way of defining God the Father and God the Son’s oneness would win the day. But, it does not align with the original understanding of John 17:21 or John 17:22 or John 17 in general as evidenced by the early wrangling and the OBVIOUS Greek meanings of the terms.

The development away from an understanding of the ONENESS of God is why you read this passage differently than John or Jesus would have meant it when they wrote it and said it. I am a heretic for the same reason and in the same way the early Bishops after Nicea and before who didn’t embrace Athanasius’s neo-modalism were.

I do not believe you understand John 17 as Christ intended it or offered it (maybe you understand it “like” or similarly to how He intended it), but I do appreciate that you provided an answer. The words divorced from developed Catholic theology mean what I claim they mean (in English and in Greek as best I can tell).

The comments about how I look foolish are not nice, but I don’t come here to be treated with respect anyway. Still, perhaps you might consider changing how you talk to me some?

Charity, TOm

 

[Theo520]

What I see here is they don’t follow Catholic doctrine, especially on points that are more esoteric, teachings that even most Catholics have never studied. Not being in communion with Catholics doesn’t mean they don’t comply with the broader definition of Christian.

What I don’t see is how they are not following Christ’s essential teachings as laid out in the Bible, the basic belief in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Resurrection, Salvation, life after death. etc.

Catholics didn’t really define the Trinity until the 3rd century.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Repeating your opinion doesn’t make it truth.

 

[RebeccaJ]

What I see, is a consistent attack on the God who Christians worship, and then the hubris to claim to be of the same religion.

I think by definition, rejecting the God of any religion, says one is not of that religion.

I recommend the book, “The God of Jesus Christ”, by (then) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

 

[Theo520]

I think by definition, rejecting the God of any religion, says one is not of that religion.

So you are saying they aren’t Catholic, got it.
I already knew that.

 

[Stephen168]

You reject what the words say.

We accept the words meaning when taken in the full context of the Farewell Discourse, the Gospel of John, the New Testament, and the Bible. I think the Gospel of Mark is the only Gospel without a Christmas story.

No where in the High Priestly Prayer do you find: God is flesh and Bone, God was a Human Being, and Human Beings can become God. Therefore your claim that the Bible has a greater support for the Mormon belief in God is not true. I don’t think you could “show it from the Bible” as Joseph Smith would say. Joseph Smith could not do it, so you are in good company.

This is a common false dichotomy that Tom falls into ALOT; trying to prove Mormonism is right by trying to prove Catholicism is wrong.

The comments about how I look foolish are not nice, but I don’t come here to be treated with respect anyway. Still, perhaps you might consider changing how you talk to me some?

When you consider the writings of scripture scholars, you look foolish. I thought it was good advice. Remember books have been written about the Gospel of John. But I do enjoy you ignoring any mention of the nature of the Mormon god in scripture.

 

[kainosktisis]

Jesus is Our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, which is Biblical, but our understandings of it differ. Hebrews 5-7 would reference Christ as High Priest, but just as patterned in the Aaronic Priesthood of the OT, there can be only one High Priest, while there can be many other priests/bishops/deacons, & there is the laity (the common Priesthood of believers).

From Catholic Answers Website -“Are We Gods?”:

Are We Gods? | Catholic Answers Magazine

"The distinction between God and creation could not be clearer. The Church rejects pantheism.

The Church also condemns polytheism: “The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God” (CCC 2112). The Catholic Church has always condemned both pantheism and polytheism. Neither is being taught in CCC 460. Moreover, the Church also condemns the error of henotheism, i.e., the idea that we worship one main God but there may be many other lesser or even greater “gods” in the universe. (This is akin to what Mormonism espouses.) The Fourth Lateran Council tells us:

We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature (Constitutions, ch. 1, “On the Catholic Faith”).

The Catechism says it this way:

God is unique; there are no other gods besides him. He transcends the world and history. He made heaven and earth. . . . God is ‘HE WHO IS,’ from everlasting to everlasting, and as such remains ever faithful to himself and to his promises (CCC 212).

If you look at the context of CCC 460, it is clear that the Church is teaching the biblical concept of theosis (divinization), or that man is called by grace to participate in the divine nature. We do not become God in the sense that we become equal with God. That would be absurd and antithetical to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. In fact, the context of CCC 460 makes this clear—when it says “The Word became flesh to make us ‘partakers of the divine nature’” and “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature”—that it is talking about man participating in divinity by gift, not being equal with God. In footnote 78, the Catechism refers to 2 Peter 1:4 as biblical support:

. . . by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

The Catholic Church is simply being faithful to Scripture in teaching man to be partakers of the divine nature by grace."

For Catholics the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist in which we consume the Body & Blood of Our Lord as Our Great Paschal Lamb (The Lamb of God) brings us into communion with Him. We give ourselves to Him as He gave Himself for us (See John 6).

On the Effects of the Holy Eucharist:

5 Real Effects of Receiving the Eucharist – EpicPew