Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[thephilosopher6]

LDS assert that we are monotheistic because God the Father is supreme AND those who are also divine are divine in UNION with Him. Thus there is a single God. This UNION view of monotheism does not align with the Greek OUSIA based monotheism, but it is consistent with the Bible including the Shema AND John 17:22. LDS have rejected 500 years of Christian development (really 2000 as this debate is waging strong in scholarly circles) and believe that revelation and the Bible have given us an original and true understanding of the Trinity.

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. Who is like me? Let them proclaim it… Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.” - Isaiah 44:6-8

“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 God of the earth (though that would still contradict Mormon theology, see Abraham 4:1-3). No, he said “I am the first and the last”, that is, “the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1:8). He being the first and the last contradicts Mormon theology that God is an exalted extraterrestrial man. He specifically says that “there is no god beside me” and that “there is no other.” He rhetorically asks “Who is like me?” and then he says, “Is there any God beside me… I know not one.” He knows not one! Not one! You cannot get more clearer than these statements, it is easily seen that Yahweh is the only God in all of existence. There is no other.

All other “gods” are demons (Deuteronomy 32:17, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20), or idols which neither see, nor hear, nor feel (1 Chronicles 16:26, Psalm 96:5). Nothing else, and no one else, has the right to be deemed God but Yahweh alone (Galatians 4:8, Isaiah 37:19, Jeremiah 2:11, 1 Corinthians 8:4).

Mormon theology even fails at the most basic level.

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, God and Christ have the same nature because they are part of the Trinity. My my son and I have the same nature, but humans do not have the same nature as God; as Mormonism teaches.

Stephen,

I am not sure if you believe heresy or if you are trying to PRETEND there is no distinction in Catholic thought, but I will point out that what you said above is wrong and/or misleading.

God the Father and God the Son have the same nature. This Catholic “truth” since Augustine has defined the ONENESS of God. God the Father and God the Son have numerically the same nature, numerically the same being.

You and your son also have the same nature, but you and your son generically have the same nature, generically have the same being.

There is WORLD of difference in this.

Do you understand this?

Do you see how your above statement obscures this truth?

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not sure why you would say they were never Christian, but Yes, Mormons are polytheist now.

 

[Raxus]

Why? You are certainly not using the original Hebrew or Greek upon which we base the “traditional” words? Do you not know exactly which word corresponds to the word you want? Does the Holy Ghost have a sex? Would not the Catholic church accept these Baptisms as valid? Is you faith that challenged by the words of others with whom you share basic Christian beliefs?

Because what we understand about the nature of God and His relationship to us tells us, objectively, that He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s noting to do with fear or challenge, and everything to do with simple truth. You are welcome to put your combative tone away.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

LDS assert that we are monotheistic because God the Father is supreme AND those who are also divine are divine in UNION with Him. Thus there is a single God. …

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 God of the earth (though that would still contradict Mormon theology, see Abraham 4:1-3). No, he said “I am the first and the last”, that is, “the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1:8). He specifically says that “there is no god beside me” and that “there is no other.” You cannot get more clearer than these statements, it is easily seen that Yahweh is the only God in all of existence. There is no other. And he being the first and the last contradicts Mormon theology that God is an exalted extraterrestrial man.
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). Nothing else, and no one else, has the right to be deemed God but Yahweh alone (Galatians 4:8, Isaiah 37:19, Jeremiah 2:11, 1 Corinthians 8:4).
Mormon theology even fails at the most basic level.

I am not sure if you are Catholic, but when the Catholic Church says, “The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made mean, might make men gods” would you assert that the term “gods” are demons? No!

Also when the Early Church Fathers used Psalms 89:6 (a Biblical passage you neglected to include) and spoke of men becoming gods were they meaning that Christ became man so that men can become demons? No!

And of course when Christ quoted Psalms 89 to the Jews who accused Him of blasphemy was Christ claiming that He was a demon so they shouldn’t think He was claiming to be divine? No!

The Early Church Fathers regularly claim that men can become gods.

In addition to the some ECF spoke of Christ as another God or a second God. St. Justin Martyr spoke of Christ as “another God” and said Christ was in the “second place.” Tertullian said, “I confess that I call God and His Word – the Father and His Son – two. … Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds.” And of course Origen spoke of Christ as a “second God.”
LDS are monotheists in that we embrace the truth that there is ONE GOD. We just reject the post Biblical development that there is one God because God the Father and God the Son are one being. Many in the early church had no concept of this one-being-ness.

And again John 17:22 is not consistent with the ONENESS of God being a product of Father and Son being one being.
Charity, TOm

 

[rIz0]

Usually just lurk. TOm why reference the ECF’s as pseudo-evidence for a belief in deification as understood by mormons when said ECF’s were apostates according to your theology? Also, why references the bible; a book that according to mormon chronology surely was compiled after the apostasy took place? I know what you’ll say btw save me your laboured response. Just food for thought as maybe revisiting what the ECF’s actually taught might do you some good.

TOm the mental gymnastics you must engage in to maintain consistency is frightening. I’ll go back to lurking. But TOm what would really be enjoyable to read would be your journey from Catholicism to Mormonism. You should start a thread about that. I’d love to see what piqued interest and how you came to hold your beliefs.

 

[Stephen168]

The Early Church Fathers regularly claim that men can become gods.

I cannot give quotes from the ECF to show they believed God {the FATHER} was once a man. I know of no such quotes.

making random claims

 

[Horton]

Either John 17 is incorrect or modern Catholics are.

John 17 is absolutely correct. If it wasn’t it would not have been included in the canon, you know the one the Catholic Church compiled? The issue for you is you are not understanding what it means.

The words of Jesus Christ and St John will never align with what LDS believe as the LDS are a false cult. You can continue to spew your twisted words at the questions but you will never be able convince anyone here that the Word of God supports anything LDS.

CCC460 has verbiage that was almost never spoken or written from 500AD to 1900AD.

Have you read EVERYTHING written between 500AD and 1900AD?

 

[Horton]

This is in complete alignment with LDS. And not only with LDS thought as formulated by reflective trained theologians like Blake Oster, but with virtually every LDS who has ever put pen to paper. I don’t even know what you are critiquing here?

God the Son is speaking about having been with God the Father before the world began. The LDS believe God the Father is an exalted man who would have had a beginning and the Jesus Christ is his literal son who would have had a beginning. A LDS author does nothing in way of adding credibility to your premise.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm why reference the ECF’s as pseudo-evidence for a belief in deification as understood by mormons when said ECF’s were apostates according to your theology? Also, why references the bible; a book that according to mormon chronology surely was compiled after the apostasy took place? …

TOm the mental gymnastics you must engage in to maintain consistency is frightening. I’ll go back to lurking. …

Hello RLZ0,

I didn’t “reference the ECF’s as pseudo-evidence for a belief in deification as understood by Mormons.”

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.

Now, concerning the ECF, a LDS scholar named Barry Bickmore (he used to post here) wrote a book where he traced the beliefs of the ECFs from more in alignment with unique LDS views to less in alignment with LDS views. His book was reviewed by a Catholic scholar favorably. His conclusion was the either Christianity DEVELOPED guided by God or it was divinely RESTORED, but that, “This one thing is at least 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 Protestant.”

LDS have no official theory of the apostasy, but most believe that the AUTHORITY ceased to function in the early church and over time SOME teachings were perverted. I would hope to find myself worshiping with Irenaeus if I was a contemporary of his, or with the Cappadocian Fathers if I was alive later on. I doubt very seriously God would ask me to start my own church, I lack the faith.

I remember when I first started learning about the great anti-Mormon arguments, there were some LDS who claimed that the ECF proved that the CoJCoLDS was true, but that the Catholic Church kept this hidden in the Vatican. I have attempted to trace this and I NOW believe this was something that grew from a small number of LDS first encountering the ECFs as the ECF began to first become available. These LDS sharing that the ECF regularly said, “men can become gods” and LDS were universally and unequivocally condemned for saying the same phrase, “men can become gods.” This knowledge was not so much hidden as it was obscure and forgotten. When my mother first heard CCC 460 she screamed, “we do not believe that.” She went to Catholic High School and Catholic College and grew up on the Baltimore Catechism. She had never heard language like CCC460.

So, the ECF do witness to things that LDS believe and pointing this out is not a denial of the absence of authority that I believe existed early on.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Also, why references the bible; a book that according to mormon chronology surely was compiled after the apostasy took place? …

TOm the mental gymnastics you must engage in to maintain consistency is frightening. I’ll go back to lurking. …

Now concerning the Bible. I have answered this before too. LDS do not believe that the Church that preserved the Bible did so PERFECTLY. There are books that perhaps should have been in the Bible like the Pastor of Hermas and books that perhaps could have been left out. LDS merely believe that the Bible as constituted is sufficient and is a good point of common ground with the rest of Christianity.

I TRULY believe the amount of mental gymnastics to be a Catholic would be far greater.

I believe that most folks who say what you say have learned about being a LDS from anti-Mormons (probably here). Being a LDS is nothing like what folks here claim it is.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Either John 17 is incorrect or modern Catholics are.

John 17 is absolutely correct. If it wasn’t it would not have been included in the canon, you know the one the Catholic Church compiled? The issue for you is you are not understanding what it means.

The words of Jesus Christ and St John will never align with what LDS believe as the LDS are a false cult. You can continue to spew your twisted words at the questions but you will never be able convince anyone here that the Word of God supports anything LDS.

John 17 is a prayer where Christ asks that His followers become ONE as He and His Father are one.

LDS believe this oneness is possible.

Catholics believe that this oneness is impossible.

Catholics have an incorrect understanding of God’s oneness. An understanding that does not align with John 17:22.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

This is in complete alignment with LDS. And not only with LDS thought as formulated by reflective trained theologians like Blake Oster, but with virtually every LDS who has ever put pen to paper. I don’t even know what you are critiquing here?

God the Son is speaking about having been with God the Father before the world began. The LDS believe God the Father is an exalted man who would have had a beginning and the Jesus Christ is his literal son who would have had a beginning. A LDS author does nothing in way of adding credibility to your premise.

I probably should know this, but I cannot remember whether you are a former Mormon or not. Either way, you do not know LDS theology.

ALL LDS must acknowledge that Jesus Christ was with God the Father before the world was. There are multiple scriptures and teachings that point us to this conclusion.

I am not sure why you believe it to not be true. But you are mistaken.

It is also beyond question that God the Father and God the Son are eternal in LDS thought so they did not have a beginning either.

A number of ECF taught that God the Son had a beginning and that God the Father did not. At Nicea this was condemned. In fact it was because Arius believed this that the council was solidly against him from the very beginning. But Arius stood in a tradition that was ancient and viewed as orthodox during their day.

I am not sure what your source for LDS thought is. And I could frame this out for you so that you would not be so wrong, but having just been told I belong to a “false cult” by you, I do not think you are interested in being correct. And I would “spew … twisted words” according to you anyway, so I will merely tell you that you are wrong.

I invite you to not throw around the term “false cult” and say that I “spew your twisted words.” It is not conducive to good dialogue.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholics believe that this oneness is impossible.

Catholics have an incorrect understanding of God’s oneness. An understanding that does not align with John 17:22.

Charity, TOm

This is absolutely false.

 

[Horton]

There is so much more to this passage than this. Because you are unable to understand what the words mean, what this passage means, only means you don’t get is. You saying it is wrong does not make it so.

The LDS use the bible compiled by the Catholic Church as a way to prove Catholicism false. Priceless!

 

[Stephen168]

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.

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.

 

[TOmNossor]

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.
Tom claimed it was biblical.

This is not an accurate presentation of what was discussed.
The Biblical passages were not in question, the interpretation of them was the question.
I showed that Mark Shea (a prominent Catholic Apologist) and Father Kyle Schnippel (a random Catholic Priest) believe Catholic priests are “priests after the order of Melchezidek” just as LDS believe.

The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God Non-Catholic Religions

That’s rather an oddity. It’s a popular poetic reference, but we do not make much of a big deal about it spiritually speaking. That’s important to note. Melchizedek was actually a priest in the Old Testament who met with Abraham. He was a “priest of God Most High” We know practically nothing about him. We really don’t know what exactly that means. We have to keep it in context here. He lived at the time of Abraham. The Jewish priesthood would not exist until the Exodus many centuries l…

This part of the discussion started when you virtually quoted anti-priesthood Protestant arguments typically used to attack the Catholic Church. I discovered not only was the Biblical reference to “priests after the order of Melchezidek” obvious to LDS, it was claimed to be the priesthood Catholic priests possess by some Catholics (presumably because they read the Bible not because they secretly want to be LDS).

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

This is not true because I have NEVER claimed that Christ BECAME a god/God. I have always claimed the Christ was eternally divine. I have claimed that I have not been eternally divine and am called to become divine through Christ in union with the Father. I have also claimed that EVERY ECF before the 4th century when writing about deification claimed that what Christ is we will become without offering any qualifications. I agree that what Christ is we will become.
It is you who do not read and understand. If you did you could not honestly continue to misrepresent what I say. It is frustrating to me.

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.

You continue to not offer any explanation for this verse. I incorporate this verse, John 17:11, the Shema, all the oneness and all the distinctiveness and …. Verses from the Bible. It is you who are ignoring John 17:11 and John 17:22 and insisting that God the Father and God the Son are one in ways two humans can never be one.
Making incorrect statements about old threads does not address the clear teaching of Jesus Christ in John 17.

You did obscure the truth in the post I was responding to. You implied that you and your son were one being just like God the Father and God the Son are one being. This is not Catholic teaching. This is what Eusebius of Caesarea (the historian) believed after he signed the Nicene documents, but it was not what Athanasius believed. It was not what Augustine believed. And it is not what modern Catholics believe.

Instead of responding you distract.
Charity, TOm

 

[KyPerson]

I know quite a number of unitarians. Most of them are atheists. The local minister at the unitarian church in my home town admits he does not believe in God. A friend of mine goes there (she is culturally Jewish but does not practice) and she admits most people go there as a social thing, not religious.

 

[Theo520]

The Trinity seems to be the only thing that all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox) hold in common.

No, it’s that Christ is our savior, that’s what Christians hold in common.

Christ talking about his family unit isn’t actually a big part of what the Bible teaches. I think if accurately articulating Christ’s familial relationships was essential to our salvation, it would have gotten more coverage.

That’s why the Trinity is deemed a Mystery, it’s something we don’t really comprehend.

 

[Stephen168]

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.