Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[RebeccaJ]

The two go hand in hand, in Catholicism.

Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in Protestantism & Catholicism

Orthopraxy for Catholics is “holiness of life”. Seeking discipleship. Not everyone is a saint and to expect over a billion people to conform to your ideal, is unrealistic. (To be blunt.). A focus on theology without a focus on the spiritual is not Catholic teaching. Here on this sub forum there is a large focus on theology.

The Catholics here are not without spirituality, including myself. We don’t fell the need to be show off about it, and I have never met a Catholic who strives to be a spiritual show,off. We know we are sinners.

Mormonism indeed focuses on right behavior, yet there is a disconnect with rational thought. There also is a large amount of pretending to be perfect. Especially around non-Mormons who are being targeted for conversion.

When I was a kid, in my strictly LDS family, I thought that all Mormons were like an extension of my family. I thought all Mormons were kind and self giving. I figured out before I was 12 that there is a LOT of pretending, particularly around Mormon leaders. There is a large measure of passive aggressiveness among Mormons.

I worked for a couple of decades in the Utah business sector. Mormon behavior changes in the workplace. Mormon business people are some of the most unethical people I know. They are super nice, and super shady.

All that to say, yes, I see what you’re saying. But also a caution to not be naive.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168:

The Mormon’s I knew as a kid had a belief that either Catholicism or Mormonism was “true.”

I firmly believe there are Mormons who believe that proving the Catholic Church wrong equals proving the Mormon Church right. They do this because they can’t prove the Mormon Church to be the ancient Christian Church.

I believe the following would by an example of that thinking:

Much of his departure from modern Catholicism (you suggest it is 30%) are things that he shares with LDS.

The CoJCoLDS was started by God. God said there was a need for restoration and that He (God) was initiating this restoration through Joseph Smith external to any organized religion on Earth at that time. God does not lie, BUT there are those who do not yet believe that God said these things. So, one of the things LDS attempt to show is that there was something amiss in the religions that existed in the 19th century when God restored His church. If there was nothing in need of restoring AND/OR the existing churches were capable of “righting the ship,” there is no need for God to say the things He said to Joseph Smith. As God is a rational being, He either said them and meant them or didn’t say them. To be a LDS is to recognize that something was amiss in the Christian world and had to be fixed by God. So proving Catholicism has something amiss does not prove CoJCoLDS is true, but if there is NOTHING amiss in Catholicism then CoJCoLDS cannot be true.

Catholicism has a different relationship to the CoJCoLDS. If Catholicism can prove there is nothing amiss in Catholicism, then Catholics would have no need to engage in anti-Mormonism (or anti-Protestantism). The problem is the explanations necessary to show Catholicism has “nothing amiss” are complex, convoluted, and in the opinion of MANY informed folks ultimately fail. This is part of the reason Catholic Answers has a large cadre of anti-Mormons who attack my faith.

There are many more reasons for my and MANY LDS seeing a far more worthy claimant within Catholicism than within Protestantism.

All that being said, you seem to miss the impact of what I said.

St. Justin the EARLIEST ECF is 30% heretical per your assessment and the BULK of his heresy (relative to MODERN Catholicism) aligns well with LDS thought. If Christ taught truth and LDS teach Christ’s truth, then the earliest Christians would believe similar truths to that which is taught in the CoJCoLDS. When we look at the ECF, we see a great deal of support for this and St. Justin is on the ground floor.

Furthermore, St. Justin’s 30% departure is a departure from MODERN Catholicism and Protestantism. Most of the ORIGINAL things the reformers claimed needed to be reformed have been reformed and there is much less theological distance between Catholicism and Protestantism than between MODERN Catholicism and St. Justin (or a number of other ECF).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I should include this book by a fellow who posted here long ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Ancient-Church-Joseph-Christianity/dp/1893036006

The whole premise of the book is that unique LDS doctrines should exist in the ECF and they should cluster in the earlier ECF.

This book was reviewed by a knowledgeable Catholic (Catholic at the time, not former or current LDS) who was critical of Protestant dismissals of LDS scholarship (it was the scholarship and evidences for/by the CoJCoLDS that lead him to believe that Protestantism couldn’t make a claim against the CoJCoLDS). It was his position that the only potentially true set of doctrines were the “divine developed” doctrine of Catholicism or the “divinely restored” doctrine of the CoJCoLDS.

He often quoted Cardinal Newman saying:

This one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

And yet he also quoted approvingly Protestant scholar Cunningham:

And yet Cunningham’s assessment of Roman Catholicism is equally telling, “Whatever be the Christianity of the New Testament, it is not Romanism. If ever there was a safe truth, it is this, and Romanism has ever felt it.”

Thus, we either have “divinely restored” or “divinely developed.” The Pre-Newman Catholicism that was suspicious of Newman’s theory (in Rome and American and …) cannot compete. The Bible ONLY Christianity cannot compete.

This reviewer offers this brief bit before beginning a more in-depth review:

These are frank admissions, ones that anti-Mormons ignore when they criticize the LDS Church, Enter Barry Bickmore’s book. Is there strong evidence that distinctive LDS doctrine had its counterpart in the early church? The honest investigator, after reading this book, must come to a positive conclusion.

The entire review can be read here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1452&index=13

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

In Mormonism, man became God:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea… He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth.- Joseph Smith

Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is.-Orson Hyde

He is our Father-the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being. How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through.-Brigham Young

Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God-an exalted being-Milton Hunter.

Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms….Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are at different stages of progress.- Stephen E. Robinson

As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.-Lorenzo Snow

 

[Horton]

God does not lie, BUT there are those who do not yet believe that God said these things.

You are correct here, God does not lie. So when he said in Matthew 16:17-19 was God lying? Oh was it when JS claimed God talked to him? The gates of hell have never prevailed against it. I know you will mention the grate apostasy but it, also, never happened.

17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

but if there is NOTHING amiss in Catholicism then CoJCoLDS cannot be true.

This is what we have been telling you all along.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

God does not lie, BUT there are those who do not yet believe that God said these things.

You are correct here, God does not lie. So when he said in Matthew 16:17-19 was God lying? Oh was it when JS claimed God talked to him? The gates of hell have never prevailed against it. I know you will mention the grate apostasy but it, also, never happened.

17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

No, Horton, God was not lying. You merely subscribe to an understanding of this passage that is common in Catholic circles (but not universal among Catholic scholars who have considered it) and is rejected by virtually all non-Catholics.
Let me start with what it means to prevail. One who prevails may lose many battles, but wins the war. This is really quite a solid way of understanding this passage.

Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18

“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”

In this light I would suggest that Matthew 16:18 is a promise that the apostasy would merely be a set back, but the restoration would shine through ultimately.

Did Christ die? Yes He did. Did death prevail over Christ? No it did not.

Did the Bride of Christ apostatize (die)? Yes this happened. Did death prevail over Christ’s Church? No, it was restored through Joseph Smith.

Hope that helps you to understand that that Matthew 16:18 doesn’t mean “the survival of the church,” but instead means the ultimate “triumph” in the end.

That being said, I don’t think there is a different way to view what God said to Joseph Smith other than that there was something amiss in the churches of his day that needed to be restored.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

In Mormonism, man became God:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea… He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth.- Joseph Smith

Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is.-Orson Hyde

He is our Father-the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being. How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through.-Brigham Young

Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God-an exalted being-Milton Hunter.

Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms….Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are at different stages of progress.- Stephen E. Robinson

As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.-Lorenzo Snow

Stephen,
I have told you that I do not embrace these understandings of my faith. Nothing like this has been said by LDS leaders for many years. And numerous LDS such as myself who know the history don’t believe as you wish.
I am convinced that this is another “Something was said that damages what I think is Catholicism, I must distract!” Everyone should read carefully recent comments to find our what so knocked you back on your heels.
I would much rather interact with you about things I say and believe. Perhaps you could start with a promise to interact rather than distract.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

You are wrong. I’m sure there is more context to the quote but I’m sure you won’t provide it. There was nor is any reason to restore Christ’s Church. Your understanding is, once again, flawed and relies on a significant lack of information.

 

[Stephen168]

In Mormonism, not only was God once a man, but in the same way Mormons believe they can become a God.

Logically and naturally, the ultimate desire of a loving 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

 

[TOmNossor]

Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18
“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”

You are wrong. I’m sure there is more context to the quote but I’m sure you won’t provide it. There was nor is any reason to restore Christ’s Church. Your understanding is, once again, flawed and relies on a significant lack of information.

Aside from you suggesting I am a being dishonest lets see what we have here.
I claim that Michael M. Winter directly refutes your suggesting that Mathew 16:18 if said by Christ means that the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church can be God’s church because Christ promises that there will be no apostacy.
I do not claim that Michael M. Winter is not a Catholic. I do not claim that he does not believe that Pope John XXXIII (in 1960 not 1410) was that Vicar of Christ.
Perhaps you like another Catholic poster here think I am saying that a Catholic author believes nothing of Catholicism is true. That would be silly. I am just saying that Michael M. Winter does not believe Matthew 16:18 should be applied to the “survival of the church,” which was what you did.
Now, what is it that you think I am wrong about that will be demonstrated via “more context.”
I am not sure if I can provide more context, but I am sure I will put in some effort to do so. I am not sure I have ever read Winter’s book, but it supposedly is about 10 miles down the road at a local university library so I think I can check the context. I even think I will put in time and effort to do so. I would most like for you stake out a claim rather than imply I am being dishonest. But I don’t think you will do this, because I think all you want to do is detract from the undermining of something you said WITHOUT having any knowledge to base this detraction upon.
Anyway, we will see if I can find the “context” of the quote with only a few hours of effort on my part. I find it unlikely that there is anything to change the impact of this Catholic scholar’s opinion, but I am not certain, so I want to know.
Charity, TOm

 

[kristaok]

If they serve / make up another Jesus then the One of the Bible, then no they’re not saved / Christians.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m sure there is more context to the quote but I’m sure you won’t provide it.

I think you are right. This partial sentence only seems to be quoted by Mormons, including the website, Fairmormon. If it holds true to my personal experience with Fairmormon, it means nothing like what a Mormon claims it to mean.

The “proof” of his claim is a partial sentence from one author that he has never read.
And he has not been able to support any other claims from this thread about the Mormon claims about the nature of God.

All of his quotes from St. Justin were also directly copied and pasted from other places on the internet.

 

[TOmNossor]

Horton:

I’m sure there is more context to the quote but I’m sure you won’t provide it.

I think you are right. This partial sentence only seems to be quoted by Mormons, including the website, Fairmormon. If it holds true to my personal experience with Fairmormon, it means nothing like what a Mormon claims it to mean.
The “proof” of his claim is a partial sentence from one author that he has never read.
And he has not been able to support any other claims from this thread about the Mormon claims about the nature of God.
All of his quotes from St. Justin were also directly copied and pasted from other places on the internet.

Stephen168,
Thank you for chiming in and for your vote of non-confidence.
An honest observer interested in learning something rather than blinding defending Catholicism will note that there was a marked difference in how I responded to Horton as compared to how I responded to you OR to Rebecca. For you and Rebecca, I was clear that I knew I had read the books/material in question and as you said earlier in post #400 I proved I was correct concerning Justin. For you I claimed I had read and could absolutely support my understanding, but that you were uninterested in dialogue or understanding only undermining truth if it conflicted with your understanding of Catholicism.
This is contrasted with my reply to Horton where I said I find it “unlikely” that context will change the impact of the quote, but “I was not sure I had ever read Winter’s book.”
I hope to stop at the library before work today and see what I can figure out.
I still find it very likely that the quote says what it means, but I am now almost positive I have not read Winter’s book. I read Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Dalgren, Butler, and Hess which I had partially convoluted with Winter’s. And part of Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church by Stephen Ray. Both of these have similar subject matter (and reference Winter BTW though not as I did).
It seems to me that I have read almost all the books and ECF I reference. You have only claimed that I do not understand and frequently done so without any basis except your hope that I did misunderstand.
I will report back concern Winter’s book AND if I find it and I think the context indicates I have misused it I will say so. It is my hope that readers of this thread can discern honesty from admitted errors as well as from claims of certainty.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

My first 4 posts on this thread were refuting the Mormon claim, from cherry picked ECF quotes, that the early Church believed that God was made of flesh and bone. It did not.

As they always do when they can no longer defend Mormonism, the conversation shifts to pointing out the less then orthodoxy beliefs of a couple of the early church fathers; suggesting they were more Mormon than Catholic and ignoring all the other early church fathers.

Christians believe that Christian baptism was created by Christ during his earthly ministry. Mormons believe their baptism was created before Christ’s ministry, so it is not a Christian baptism.

The God of Christianity:
-There is one God (one being)
-The Father is God
-God the Father is spirit
-Jesus is God
-God became man
-The Holy Spirit is God

The God of Mormonism:
-There is one Godhead (Three separate beings)
-God the Father is flesh and bone
-Jesus is a God
-Man became God
-The Holy Spirit is a God

Justin Martyr does not believe in the god of Mormonism; not even 30%. The idea that God was once a man or is made of flesh and bone has never been Christian.

The Mormon belief in the nature of god is totally foreign to Christianity

 

[RebeccaJ]

“TOmNossor, post:405, topic:479718, full:true”
The CoJCoLDS was started by God. God said there was a need for restoration and that He (God) was initiating this restoration through Joseph Smith external to any organized religion on Earth at that time. God does not lie, BUT there are those who do not yet believe that God said these things.

That’s because he didn’t.

To be a LDS is to recognize that something was amiss in the Christian world and had to be fixed by God. So proving Catholicism has something amiss does not prove CoJCoLDS is true, but if there is NOTHING amiss in Catholicism then CoJCoLDS cannot be true.

Yes, Mormonism is founded on Protestant concepts, and Smith just took those concepts to an ultimate conclusion. Creating a religion that is a mishmash of beliefs, while overlaying foreign concepts onto everything he borrowed from. Most especially evident in his treatment of the Bible.

The followers of a fickle God are a fickle people. Simultaneously claiming that a right understanding does not a Christian make while claiming a wrong understanding is an abomination to God.

Catholicism has a different relationship to the CoJCoLDS. If Catholicism can prove there is nothing amiss in Catholicism, then Catholics would have no need to engage in anti-Mormonism (or anti-Protestantism). The problem is the explanations necessary to show Catholicism has “nothing amiss” are complex, convoluted, and in the opinion of MANY informed folks ultimately fail. This is part of the reason Catholic Answers has a large cadre of anti-Mormons who attack my faith.

Self centered poppycock. There is no one here assigned to interact with Mormons, maybe you think because that’s how Mormons do it that’s how everyone does it.

Obviously, it grates on Mormons to have a counter voice. It’s much easier to lure people into falsehoods when there is no opposing voice.

There are many more reasons for my and MANY LDS seeing a far more worthy claimant within Catholicism than within Protestantism.

That is because there’s only a one step difference between Mormonism and Protestantism. For Mormonism, Protestantism is a competitor, Catholicism is the aspiration (with a mix of aspiring Jew thrown in).

Why aspire when you could be the real thing?

Furthermore, St. Justin’s 30% departure is a departure from MODERN Catholicism and Protestantism. Most of the ORIGINAL things the reformers claimed needed to be reformed have been reformed and there is much less theological distance between Catholicism and Protestantism than between MODERN Catholicism and St. Justin (or a number of other ECF).

Gosh, here we are at the development of doctrine again. Justin Martyr was not a “departure”, he was a man of his time.

 

[TOmNossor]

My first 4 posts on this thread were refuting the Mormon claim, from cherry picked ECF quotes, that the early Church believed that God was made of flesh and bone. It did not.

As they always do when they can no longer defend Mormonism, the conversation shifts to pointing out the less then orthodoxy beliefs of a couple of the early church fathers; suggesting they were more Mormon than Catholic and ignoring all the other early church fathers.

Christians believe that Christian baptism was created by Christ during his earthly ministry. Mormons believe their baptism was created before Christ’s ministry, so it is not a Christian baptism.

The God of Christianity:
-There is one God (one being)
-The Father is God
-God the Father is spirit
-Jesus is God
-God became man
-The Holy Spirit is God

The God of Mormonism:
-There is one Godhead (Three separate beings)
-God the Father is flesh and bone
-Jesus is a God
-Man became God
-The Holy Spirit is a God

Justin Martyr does not believe in the god of Mormonism; not even 30%. The idea that God was once a man or is made of flesh and bone has never been Christian.

The Mormon belief in the nature of god is totally foreign to Christianity

You refuted nothing concerning the ECF who witnessed to the COMMON Christian belief that God was embodied. Tertullian who we haven’t mentioned believed in an embodied God and like Augustine and Origin witnessed to this common belief among Christians. Tertullian also spoke against the philosophy that CHANGED the Christian faith (which Origin celebrated).
You evidenced that you had read none or only part of Augustine’s writings by your comment so I told you the other things that were present in Augustine’s work.

You also insist on criticizing a belief in Mormonism that Blake Ostler, many informed members, and I do not embrace AND one that has not been taught by LDS leaders for years. But that is because you are not interacting with what I a saying and only trying to distract.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, Origen argued for an incorporeal (not embodied) God. He also was a man of his time, and held to Platonic ideas of Spirit having a material substance. Origen never argued that God the Father had a human body. That is you overlaying a foreign concept onto Origen.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, Origen argued for an incorporeal (not embodied) God. He also was a man of his time, and held to Platonic ideas of Spirit having a material substance. Origen never argued that God the Father had a human body. That is you overlaying a foreign concept onto Origen.

Your not reading me. What I said and what you said are both true.
Origin claims that Christains believe in an embodied God, he argues against it.
He claims that scripture CAN be read as he reads it rather than as the Christians and Jews with whom he interacts read it.
He also explains that it is philosophy that motivated his view in opposition to the embodied view, not scripture.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

You refuted nothing concerning the ECF who witnessed to the COMMON Christian belief that God was embodied.

You have provided zero evidence [quotes from primary sources]
to refute. Except the quote from Origen, which I refuted already.

I have provided Mormon belief from quotes from Mormon authority.

I know you don’t believe that God was once a man as declared by Mormon authority, but you have also claimed that you can become a God. I don’t see how you can believe B and reject A, because they are consistent with each other. Both A & B are the teachings for Mormon authority; especially its founder Joseph Smith.

You refuted nothing concerning the Mormon authorities witness to the COMMON Mormon belief about the nature of God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

Tom, Origen argued for an incorporeal (not embodied) God. He also was a man of his time, and held to Platonic ideas of Spirit having a material substance. Origen never argued that God the Father had a human body. That is you overlaying a foreign concept onto Origen.

Your not reading me. What I said and what you said are both true.
Origin claims that Christains believe in an embodied God, he argues against it.
He claims that scripture CAN be read as he reads it rather than as the Christians and Jews with whom he interacts read it.
He also explains that it is philosophy that motivated his view in opposition to the embodied view, not scripture.
Charity, TOm

Greeks influenced by Stoicism and Pagan ideas, yes, always envisioned God, or gods, as embodied. Origen argues from scripture and uses his training in metaphysics to make a reasoned argument against this. His arguments can’t be refuted by Mormonism, without destroying the underlying assumptions that Origen has…God is immutable, transcendent, etc. Traits of God that Christians held, and still hold. Origen rightly points out that an embodied God is none of these things.

There is no argument coming from Origen that supports Mormonism. His argument is against Pagan and Stoic ideas of an embodied God, not aligning to what scripture reveals about God. His position being, that only scripture reveals what we know about God…stil the position of Christianity today.