Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[RebeccaJ]

Well, you have a Christian background so questions about God and Jesus weren’t so hard for you. It is still a requirement of belief, not practice.

My understanding is that #7 is aimed at people affiliating themselves with polygamist groups. Maybe in more recent times it extends to groups advocating SSM and ordination of women. The idea that you can’t hang out with people of other religions, is so 1970s.

Before I was baptized Catholic, I used the Creed as a test for myself, as in, do I believe what Catholicsm claims. I would not have been baptized if I did not. No one asked me if I believed anything or not. Maybe you remember the Mormon guy who hung around here and was baptized Catholic just to say he was baptized Catholic. Totally doable, to just go with the program and get baptized.

 

[TOmNossor]

You distort the conclusions of St. Thomas Aquinas. But you know that already.

No, I present a VERY rational conclusion associated with ALL the historical data. I do not think informed Thomists and uninformed Catholic Answers posters are irrational in their position, but I think my position is a better read of this history than either the uninformed distortions I have seen OR the informed POSSIBLE explanations.
In addition to this, I presented it here and now because it well aligns with what Joseph Smith (who also experienced God first hand) said concerning elaborate dogmatics such as Aquinas produced. Maybe if more people experienced what Aquinas and Joseph Smith did there would be less wrangling about theological points. I know I need more of the Spirit and less of the contention I so easily fall into.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Well, you have a Christian background so questions about God and Jesus weren’t so hard for you. It is still a requirement of belief, not practice.

My understanding is that #7 is aimed at people affiliating themselves with polygamist groups. Maybe in more recent times it extends to groups advocating SSM and ordination of women. The idea that you can’t hang out with people of other religions, is so 1970s.

Historically you are probably correct. I have always thought of it as supporting anti-Mormon minstries.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

Well, you have a Christian background so questions about God and Jesus weren’t so hard for you. It is still a requirement of belief, not practice.

My understanding is that #7 is aimed at people affiliating themselves with polygamist groups. Maybe in more recent times it extends to groups advocating SSM and ordination of women. The idea that you can’t hang out with people of other religions, is so 1970s.

Historically you are probably correct. I have always thought of it as supporting anti-Mormon minstries.
Charity, TOm

LOL and LOL again for 17.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

You distort the conclusions of St. Thomas Aquinas. But you know that already.

No, I present a VERY rational conclusion associated with ALL the historical data. I do not think informed Thomists and uninformed Catholic Answers posters are irrational in their position, but I think my position is a better read of this history than either the uninformed distortions I have seen OR the informed POSSIBLE explanations.
In addition to this, I presented it here and now because it well aligns with what Joseph Smith (who also experienced God first hand) said concerning elaborate dogmatics such as Aquinas produced. Maybe if more people experienced what Aquinas and Joseph Smith did there would be less wrangling about theological points. I know I need more of the Spirit and less of the contention I so easily fall into.
Charity, TOm

Catholic understanding and thought is that we cannot and are unable to describe God. We, as a community of believers over millennia, are certainly verbose in our attempt. But we know we are mere creatures trying to describe the indescribable. The Bible supports the Catholic understanding.

You interpret with a Mormon eye and then claim that is historical CATHOLIC understanding. I’m sure it’s very rational in your head. We see it as presentism, sophistry and with an eye towards reinterpretation.

 

[virgo]

RebeccaJ, I’m so glad you mentioned the term orthopraxy. I’d never heard of it before, so I looked it up. Granted, I’m quoting here from Wikipedia, but I find the definition so useful in articulating how I’ve been feeling lately in my own faith struggle:
“While orthodoxies make use of codified beliefs, in the form of creeds, and ritualism more narrowly centers on the strict adherence to prescribed rites or rituals, orthopraxy is focused on issues of family, cultural integrity, the transmission of tradition, sacrificial offerings, concerns of purity, ethical systems, and the enforcement thereof.”

Growing up Catholic, I found the orthodoxy and focus on tradition to leave me scrambling to understand what that means in my faith journey, as Catholic spirituality can be somewhat mystical and abstract. The opposite of that, orthopraxy, is what I have found so beautiful about my LDS friends. When I read LDS materials, they make it very clear to me on how I can practice my relationship with God, and how I am to treat my fellow human beings. It encourages an ethical lifestyle and certain moral standards, and I find that missing in so many of the Catholic families I’ve known over the years.

Anyway, sorry to get off topic. I just find the difference between orthodoxy an orthopraxy very interesting, and I definitely have a preference of one over the other.

 

[Horton]

Oh but TOm, the burden is not on me to prove Catholicism is true, I know it is true. I know much has been written about the Catholic Church. There is no need for me to refute your misinterpretation of writings about Catholicism. The burden is on you attempt to prove the LDS is true. If all you have is misunderstandings of Catholic writings, then we are pretty secure in knowing the truth of our faith.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, I very much doubt a person’s claim of unique Catholic insight when they can’t give Catholic definitions to words or quote original documents they claim to have read.

But I see he just waits 5 days and starts making Catholic claims again. Amazing.

 

[TOmNossor]

Oh but TOm, the burden is not on me to prove Catholicism is true, I know it is true. I know much has been written about the Catholic Church. There is no need for me to refute your misinterpretation of writings about Catholicism. The burden is on you attempt to prove the LDS is true. If all you have is misunderstandings of Catholic writings, then we are pretty secure in knowing the truth of our faith.

There is no proof nor burden of proof IMO. Had I said I proved Catholicism was wrong or the CoJCoLDS was TRUE, perhaps your non-considered dismissal would be a reasoned response. Maybe that is where we fail to communicate.
I am merely saying that Thomas Aquinas called all of his writings “straw” after he met God. He made this comment to more than just Reginald of Piperno. He refused to offer any explanation for why he called all his writings straw.
I believe the BEST explanation for this is that after meeting God, Aquinas could no longer believe that God was impassible, immutable, and …. This is precisely the position the Joseph Smith, who I also believe met God took AND it is why Joseph Smith found CREEDAL Christianity stifling/wrong.
But not just this, according to Joseph Smith GOD spoke against the CREEDS “there CREEDS are an abomination.” All Christians and I can agree that if God spoke what was claimed, God did not mean that Jesus Christ didn’t suffer under Pontius Pilate, that He didn’t atone for our sins, that He didn’t die on the cross, or …. Instead, I believe God meant that the way CREEDS were used in Christianity ESPECIALLY in the 4th and 5th century was “an abomination.” LDS have very seldom failed to live up to this anti-CREED sentiment expressed by God. In the 4th and 5th century creeds were written.
If Stephen168 was present at the First Council of Constantinople and he maintained (as he did on this thread) that the Holy Spirit was BEGOTTEN of God, and if Stephen168 was unwilling to repent of this declaration (as he has not on this thread), and Stephen168 had a group of followers who believed and continued to believe that the Holy Spirit was BEGOTTEN of God; there would be a heresy today known as Stephen168ism. He and his followers would have been banished by the power of the state/church. The modern church would vilify him and his followers.
The things I have said above are clearly true. There is no proof for hypotheticals such as the above, so I am not offering provable statements and I do not claim such. But, the simplest view of Aquinas’s words are/were that of a complete repudiation of everything he ever wrote. I don’t even view them that way. The simplest view of Stephen168’s words at first were that he misspoke. Now, I think his unwillingness to acknowledge his error is a product of a profound misunderstanding of Catholic thought or a dogged refusal to acknowledge he made a mistake.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, I very much doubt a person’s claim of unique Catholic insight when they can’t give Catholic definitions to words

I said:

Stephen168:

Pondering up the meaning of proceeding and begotten.

You either do not know what these words mean or you are only trying to present a “gotcha.” Their definition is not important to show your error as I mentioned above. In addition to this, there definition in this context is elusive. You should read up on it on your own if you think a definition can be provided. They are words in a Catholic Creed, I think the person who claims to represent Catholic beliefs should define them.
You are distracting from the fact that you either misspoke or don’t understand your faith.

You ignored.
When you, Stephen168 claim the Holy Spirit is begotten and the Athanasian Creed and almost 1600 years of Catholic teachings claim the Holy Spirit is NOT begotten, definitions are not important. They say “not begotten” for a very specific Trinitarian reason that you may not understand. As I said to Horton, you would be labeled a heretic and banished if you refused to recant your error.
As I said to you, the definition is “elusive.” I think you believe “begotten” and “proceeding” are synonymous so there is no problem with what you said, but in the context of what you said, you DESTROY Trinitarianism. You would be declared a heretic.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

or quote original documents they claim to have read.

Here is what I told you concerning your request for sources. I am still waiting for your response, so I can provide quotes from primary sources, provide you a reading list, or continue to wait because I believe you are not really interested anything but casting doubt upon what I say.

I told you concerning Nicea that you may declare your ignorance and ask for references at which time I will give you some reading OR you may define a point of disagreement and agree to interact with primary sources I offer. If you do neither, I am well experienced with your response to CLEAR teachings from primary sources. You ignore that which you cannot undermine and interact superficially with that which you think you can undermine. I claim scholars agree with my position because you regularly imply that I am too stupid to read the documents and understand them. This is an “appeal to authority,” but it is a reasoned and rational response to your non-arguments.
I do not know if you have read none of Augustine or parts of Augustine, but there are parts of Augustine that you seem to evidence you have not read. Augustine did present that the Manicheans misrepresented Christians to him. BUT he also explains that simple Christians believed God was embodied AND groups of Christians believed God was embodied AND scripture points to an embodied God.
…
So, Stephen like what I told you about Nicea, do you have no idea what Augustine wrote and would like reading suggestions? Or do you have a specific point of disagreement you would like to voice AND a PROMISE to interact with primary sources I bring up. I will await your response.

But I see he just waits 5 days and starts making Catholic claims again. Amazing.

I am waiting for you to point to an error in what I said OR ask me for a reading list because you have no reason to believe I made an error. I have experienced your ignoring things I labor to quote and reproduce, I just want to avoid that. I can wait on your assurance that it will be different this time and comment on other things just fine.

Stephen, I think you either know what I claim is in the documents and definitions is true and you just hope to distract OR you don’t know and hope to distract. But, I have read the documents so unless you give me something you believe that I can CORRECT for you AND promise to pay attention to the correction, I am not interested in reproducing quotes.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

You ignored.

I explained how irrational your reasoning was to claim conclusions about ideas when you don’t understand the words used. I also revealed your sophistry when claiming ancient Christian beliefs are Mormon. You did not response that explanation.

I also asked for quotes from the primary documents of Augustine to support your claim. You didn’t answer. Then I pointed out the sophistry of your claim. You responded with the a modified claim with no quotes from the primary sources.

I ignored nothing, but I am getting bored with your false unsupported claims about Christian belief and history.

You might want to review the Creed said by most Christians every Sunday.

The ancient Christian Church is not Mormon. It does not contain the many unique beliefs of Mormonism including the Mormon god.

 

[gazelam]

I just want to point out that this post is quite problematic.

“The Baptist church in 1609 by John Smyth. Mormons? 1830 by Joseph Smith. Jehovah witnesses? 1872 Charles Taze Russell and Fundamentalism was founded in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. Each church CLAIMING IT WAS RESTORING something that was LOST [THE KEYS]. Each denomination CLAIMING it professed THE TRUTH of the Bible.”

What point is even being made here? Are there any denominations that profess Christ and reject the Bible? Do each of these denominations listed actual claim priesthood keys? If so, how about some references?

CHURCH WAS LOST TO SATAN PREVAILING AGAINST HER, BUT THE MORMONS RESTORED THEM! “Mormon President Kimball turned to the STATUE OF PETER and POINTED to the LARGE SET OF KEYS in Peter’s right hand, he proclaimed: ‘The keys of priesthood authority which PETER HELD as President of the Church I NOW HOLD AS PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH in this dispensation.’ - ldsscriptureteachings .org --(BWAHAHAHHA)

“CHURCH” is singular. “THEM” is plural. A singular something was lost and multiple somethings were restored? And how about providing a link instead of forcing an interested CAFer to search through the site?

MORMON CHURCH AS A CATH CHURCH REPLACEMENT (typical in all American cults/lodges - Washington replacing Rome etc): “What better way to RECOVER ALL THE KEYS, ORDINANCES and DOCTRINES from PREVIOUS dispensations [churches] than to have [ANGELS] appear to AND TUTOR…” -ldsmag .com

Again, how about a direct link? An issue number? A page number? An article name? Anything meaningful? And why do you say the LDS church is replacing Rome and not Constantinople?

-(lol like Islam, trying to overtake Christianity by claiming to be the KEY HOLDERS what else is new)

Any links about Islamic keys you refer to?

A hilarious quote from a comment I found once: “I have the KEYS to death and Hades!!! I AM the One!!!”

Perhaps you found this “quote” when reading Revelation 1:18? Journalism teaches who, what, where, when, why. All we have here is a “what” with no context.

MORMON GOD: “The Father has a body of FLESH and BONES as tangible as MAN’S” [Doctrines and Covenants 130:22]

What is “Doctrines and Convenants”?

MORMON TRINITY: “we know that both the FATHER and the SON are in form and stature PERFECT MEN; [Articles of Faith (1899), 38.]

Mormon Trinity? What could that possibly be?

MORMON GOD: Joseph Smith: “God himsef…is an EXALTED MAN, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens… [Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 3-4.]

What does “himsef” mean? Whatever point you’re attempting to make, the presentation is a tad sloppy.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

You ignored.

I explained how irrational your reasoning was to claim conclusions about ideas when you don’t understand the words used. I also revealed your sophistry when claiming ancient Christian beliefs are Mormon. You did not response that explanation.

I do understand the words and why your claim that the Holy Spirit is begotten is theologically problematic. I don’t think you understand. But after you say something directly contradicted by the Athanasian Creed and 1600 years of Catholic history, I would think either a retraction or explanation from you would be the reasonable response. Instead you attack me, question my understanding and intelligence, and ask ME to define words.
Your IGNORING was that I offered CONDITIONS upon which I would dig up primary sources for the ideas I was sharing. You are not interested in refuting the ideas or learning about the primary sources, just creating some question about if my reading and interpretation is solid. It’s solid.
In addition to the CONDITIONS I set before concerning providing sources for you, you ignored this:

Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians? Non-Catholic Religions

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 …

I also asked for quotes from the primary documents of Augustine to support your claim. You didn’t answer. Then I pointed out the sophistry of your claim. You responded with the a modified claim with no quotes from the primary sources.

I didn’t change my claim at all. You COMPLETELY misunderstood what I claimed the first time. The second time you understood. There was NO AMBIGUITY in what I said the first time.
Here is where you evidence you misunderstood my claim the first time. You quote my words and still misunderstand them:

Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians? Non-Catholic Religions

Yes, your quote (a fraction of sentence) is commonly used by Mormons to try and make a case that early Christians believed that God has a body. And like all Mormon quotes of the Early Church Fathers, it does not mean what you suggested it meant. This gives weight to SnoopSword’s claim. After you get done proving your claims about the Council of Nicaea from primary sources, I’d like to see the actual quotes from the writings of St. Augustine which prove that as a Christian he believed that God …

The ancient Christian Church is not Mormon. It does not contain the many unique beliefs of Mormonism including the Mormon god.

The ancient Christian Church was not theologically aligned perfectly with the CoJCoLDS and I can admit this. The ancient Christian church was not theologically aligned perfectly with the MODERN Catholic Church. Often times you cannot admit this. I have pointed to “divine embodiment” as a place where the BULK of the ancient Christian church was aligned with LDS thought and against MODERN Catholic thought. The ECF witness that they rejected the Christian, Jewish, and … belief in an embodied God BECAUSE it was not philosophically sophisticated. Concerning scripture Origen argues against Christians and Jews of his day that scripture does not DEMAND an embodied God. He argues this because scripture teaches an embodied God.
Anyway, if you are really tired you can do something other than claiming I am wrong. Or you can stake out a SPECIFIC CLAIM concerning an error I have made and promise you will respond to my evidence, THEN I will provide sources and arguments and await a SUBSTANTIVE response.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I do understand the words and why your claim that the Holy Spirit is begotten is theologically problematic.

Cool. Then give the definitions and explain it to us.

The ancient Christian Church was not theologically aligned perfectly with the CoJCoLDS and I can admit this.

Show (quote primary documents) us where the ancient Christian Church held the Mormon belief that man became God as oppose to the Christian belief that God became man.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I do understand the words and why your claim that the Holy Spirit is begotten is theologically problematic.

Cool. Then give the definitions and explain it to us.

This should be easy for you to accept or reject. If you ignore it, I will assume you reject it.
I will explain what “begotten” and “proceeding” mean. I will explain why your statement that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are begotten is problematic.
You will promise to agree with me and claim you were wrong to begin with (which is what I have been claiming and what you have refused to acknowledge) OR you will disagree with me and explain how what you said was perfectly orthodox and I don’t understand.
If you agree to this, I will step out into the thankless place of explaining Catholic theology to you and then put on my Kevlar underwear and brace for your response.
As to your other request on the post to which I am responding, I have already told you that is not something that I embrace or demonstrate from the ECF (because I know what is there having read much of them).
That being said, I am correct about Nicaea and Justin Martyr’s lack of orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and divine embodiment information from Augustine.
So again:
I will explain what “begotten” and “proceeding” mean. I will explain why your statement that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are begotten is problematic.
You will promise to agree with me and claim you were wrong to begin with (which is what I have been claiming and what you have refused to acknowledge) OR you will disagree with me and explain how what you said was perfectly orthodox and I don’t understand.
If you agree to this, I will step out into the thankless place of explaining Catholic theology to you and then put on my Kevlar underwear and brace for your response.
And if you don’t like that, I hope you get tired of claiming I will not or cannot respond to you because I am not interested in you changing the subject or ignoring these things after I explain them to you.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I do understand the words and why your claim that the Holy Spirit is begotten is theologically problematic.

Cool. Then give the definitions and explain it to us.

…

The ancient Christian Church was not theologically aligned perfectly with the CoJCoLDS and I can admit this.

Show (quote primary documents) us where the ancient Christian Church held the Mormon belief that man became God as oppose to the Christian belief that God became man.

As to your other request on the post to which I am responding, I have already told you that is not something that I embrace or demonstrate from the ECF (because I know what is there having read much of them).

That being said, I am correct about Nicaea and Justin Martyr’s lack of orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and divine embodiment information from Augustine.

The Bible tells us that God became man, Mormons believe a man became God. I know you don’t “embrace” many Mormon beliefs, but I am claiming Mormons are not Christian, not whether Tom is Christian.

And you have not proved you are correct about anything, except Justin Martyr. As I said before;

Some of the early church fathers may have had heretical understands of Christian orthodoxy, but to be a heretic you must get most things right. Mormons are not heretics, they are a different religion. The Mormon god has never been believed by the Christian Church.

On a 1-10 scale of orthodoxy, Justin might be a 7, while Mormonism is a zero.

I once had a Mormon say they would not prove their false claim because I didn’t ask nicely. I know they could not prove their claim, and even if I asked nicely they would come up with some other reason. I don’t play games. You can prove your claim or you can’t. I say you can’t, but it is up to you.

 

[TOmNossor]

I once had a Mormon say they would not prove their false claim because I didn’t ask nicely. I know they could not prove their claim, and even if I asked nicely they would come up with some other reason. I don’t play games. You can prove your claim or you can’t. I say you can’t, but it is up to you.

Stephen168,
I am not placing a “nice” requirement upon you. I am asking you to INTERACT with the efforts I put into ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.
This is a reasonable and a decent request. It is not a game. You frequently suggest that I make “false claims” or that I am lying or trying to deceive folks or trick them. Then I jump through hoops to prove I am not and you move on to some other stupid thing like “Mormon’s believe God was once a man.” This is a waste of my time.
You have asked for me to define “begotten” and “proceeding” a number of times, but you don’t want that. I think frequently you have not read the ECF and/or have no idea what the modern Catholic position is. I make a claim about one or both you find damaging to what you think Catholicism is so you throw up the specter that I don’t know what I am talking about and/or ask me to prove something. I then give evidence which you ignore. I honestly believe people on this thread can see that this is happening, but it has been happening for years.
So here is my request that has nothing to do with being NICE (I even joked that I didn’t expect nice in response).
I will explain what “begotten” and “proceeding” mean. I will explain why your statement that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are begotten is problematic
You will promise to agree with me and claim you were wrong to begin with (which is what I have been claiming and what you have refused to acknowledge) OR you will disagree with me and explain how what you said was perfectly orthodox and I don’t understand.
If you agree to this, I will step out into the thankless place of explaining Catholic theology to you (or quoting ECF or … it is all thankless) and then put on my Kevlar underwear and brace for your response.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The Bible tells us that God became man, Mormons believe a man became God. I know you don’t “embrace” many Mormon beliefs, but I am claiming Mormons are not Christian, not whether Tom is Christian.

I am happy you consider me Christian. I am a faithful LDS. My beliefs align almost perfectly with the theology outlined in the Exploring Mormon Thought book series. So I guess Blake Ostler is a Christian and so are volumes of thoughtful LDS who reject what you claim Mormon’s believe (and imply that it is ONLY what Mormon’s can believe). I will acknowledge there are LDS (often ones that have not dug deeply in the scriptures and issues but sometimes folks who have but just disagree) who believe differently than I do AND I consider them Christian too, but you considering numerous thoughtful LDS who have interacted with the questions Christian is a great start. LDS are of course orthopraxic so our theology is not a demarcation line for who is and who is not a LDS.

And you have not proved you are correct about anything, except Justin Martyr. As I said before;

Stephen168:

Some of the early church fathers may have had heretical understands of Christian orthodoxy, but to be a heretic you must get most things right. Mormons are not heretics, they are a different religion. The Mormon god has never been believed by the Christian Church.

On a 1-10 scale of orthodoxy, Justin might be a 7, while Mormonism is a zero.

I proved I was correct about Justin Martyr because it was someone else who claimed I was not correct. Who suggested that “reading all of St. Justin” would vindicate Justin’s thought from the criticisms I and another LDS were offering.
I am thrilled you can see that I proved my case about St. Justin. The Catholic who claimed reading all of Justin was necessary NEVER acknowledged this. This person has acknowledged an error on their part in the past so they are not incapable of doing so. That is why I responded to their comments with bits of St. Justin’s words (instead of a condition upon which I would respond as I did for you).
Let me also point out something. St. Justin is VERY EARLY (in fact St. Justin wrote more theology that we have than anyone before him who was not considered an author of scripture, Ignatius of Antioch is the closest, but I don’t think he has near the volume AND he does not engage in sustained theological explanation like St. Justin). Justin subordinates the Son to the Father. He uses the term “ANOTHER GOD.” He does not believe in “Creation ex Nihilo.” Much of his departure from modern Catholicism (you suggest it is 30%) are things that he shares with LDS. I claim that the early church was not IDENTICAL in theology to the CoJCoLDS, but it was much closer. St. Justin is a witness.
Charity, TOm

 

[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.