Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[Old_Ephriam]

I don’t comment very often. More of a lurker, but I feel I should point out that some of Toms statements about LDS beliefs are inaccurate.

It is official LDS teaching that God was a human who achieved exaltation. The First Presidency issued a statement on this stating that “God himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned and supreme.” This was the 1909 statement on the Origin of Man.

Joseph Fielding Smith also taught in Doctrines of Salvation that God passed through a period of mortality just like we are doing, and that God had a father before him, and each successive father had a father stretching back in time.

It does no good to misrepresent LDS beliefs on this forum or to ignore the prophets of the restoration simply because their teachings may now be inconvenient. D&C 1:38.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
Perhaps by your logic neither Ignatius, nor Irenaeus, nor Tertullian, nor Pope Callistus I, nor Pope Zephyryinus, nor Origen, nor Justin, nor Hippolytus, nor Eusebius is Christian. They all believed in a different Jesus than the RCC teaches today.

Nonsense. You are comparing entirely different things.

None of those Church Fathers expressed belief in an entirely different Christ. Instead, their theology about Him differed because those questions had not yet been settled.

That’s hardly the same thing as saying that the entirely fictional character (who supposedly came to the Americas etc. etc.) invented 18 centuries later is a comparable situation, merely because the author of that fiction choose to use the actual Christ as the basis of his character.

 

[Lemuel]

I don’t comment very often. More of a lurker, but I feel I should point out that some of Toms statements about LDS beliefs are inaccurate.

I don’t either. TOm consistently violates Conduct Rule No. 2, so I don’t even read his posts. I’ll take your word for it about his belief regarding God. Interesting . . .

 

[Stephen168]

That being said, I think monotheism is true, but the LDS understanding of monotheism is the true understanding. The absolute monotheism of Muslims and modern Jews is not true because Jesus Christ is God. The modalistic monotheism is not true because God the Father and God the Son are two persons. And the Augustinian monotheism is not true because it adopts the modalist understanding of homoousian while demanding distinction

This is what I mean when I say your posts are sophistry.
You claim to believe in monotheism and then reject all forms of monotheism.

 

[TOmNossor]

SIMPLE reading, ie, childish (not child-like).

St. Paul criticized the pagan belief that an idol, carved by human hands, became the corporeal (embodied object), in which pagans believed.

Scripture reveals that God is Spirit, is unseen, is unmade.

Rebecca,

I see your “childish (not child-like)” with a

“Like a child” (Matthew 18:3) not “overly wise” (Eccl 7:16) for the “wisdom of their wise men will perish” (Isa 29:14) and God will “destroy the wisdom of the wise.”

Your Origin and Augustine are clearly making arguments that align with the Neoplatonism of Greek philosophy. Tertullian argues against philosophy and its perversion of God.

“God is Spirit” was not understood by early Christians to mean that God was incorporeal. Origin tells us that “God is Spirit” does not DEMAND that God is corporeal as it was most commonly understood THEN.

Mormonism posits that God is created, an embodied, created, object. It is the exact same idolatry that St. Paul literally, called foolish.

NO! That is not true.

LDS do not believe God is created. I do not think any LDS leader has ever made such a statement.

I personally believe God the Father became embodied before God the Son became embodied, but that does not mean that either God the Father or God the Son was created and I do not think any LDS believes that either was created. That God the Father and God the Son are not absolutely immutable is a common believe of LDS that I share.

We like ancient Jews and early Christians believe “God is unchanging” in His Covenantal faithfulness.

I do not recognize your criticism in myself or in my LDS brothers and sisters because it is doesn’t represent any strain of LDS thought of which I am aware.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I don’t comment very often. More of a lurker, but I feel I should point out that some of Toms statements about LDS beliefs are inaccurate.

It is official LDS teaching that God was a human who achieved exaltation. The First Presidency issued a statement on this stating that “God himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned and supreme.” This was the 1909 statement on the Origin of Man.

Joseph Fielding Smith also taught in Doctrines of Salvation that God passed through a period of mortality just like we are doing, and that God had a father before him, and each successive father had a father stretching back in time.

It does no good to misrepresent LDS beliefs on this forum or to ignore the prophets of the restoration simply because their teachings may now be inconvenient. D&C 1:38.

Old Ephriam,

I do not know what is your source for what LDS must believe or if you have even read half of my posts on this thread, but I have been very clear that there are some now and have been in the past LDS who believe that God the Father became God after being a man like us. These views have never ascribed sin to God the Father so there is still a reluctance to claim that God the Father was once a sinful man or a mere man, but these views have existed.

I have been very clear that while these views have existed, they are not taught by LDS leaders today and many LDS are not aware of them. Many LDS like Blake Ostler who wrote Exploring Mormon Thought reject this view as do I.

I am not deceiving anyone WHO IS READING. You are as welcome to condemn LDS for past teachings as former Catholics are welcome to condemn Catholicism for past teachings of Popes. I am not here to convince people to become LDS, I am here to attempt to counter misinformation about my faith. And I would not think it appropriate for folks who do not believe the BOM came from God to become LDS, but it is appropriate (and a miniscule bit preferable IMO) if new LDS do not believe that God the Father was once merely a man.

I myself find the gospel I embrace to be more likely to be true than any version of Catholicism that I have encountered. This happens before I seek a spiritual testimony.

Anyway, you seemed to imply I was trying to deceive folks. I have been clear here and on other threads that I hold a view that was not common 20-30 years ago. But my view is increasingly common today because most LDS don’t know and are not taught what you claim we must believe AND many of those who do know the history do not embrace the belief you claim we must.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

gazelam:

…

Perhaps by your logic neither Ignatius, nor Irenaeus, nor Tertullian, nor Pope Callistus I, nor Pope Zephyryinus, nor Origen, nor Justin, nor Hippolytus, nor Eusebius is Christian. They all believed in a different Jesus than the RCC teaches today.

Nonsense. You are comparing entirely different things.

None of those Church Fathers expressed belief in an entirely different Christ. Instead, their theology about Him differed because those questions had not yet been settled.

That’s hardly the same thing as saying that the entirely fictional character (who supposedly came to the Americas etc. etc.) invented 18 centuries later is a comparable situation, merely because the author of that fiction choose to use the actual Christ as the basis of his character.

FrDavid,

I am not sure if you are trying to present a cogent position or you are merely trying to express disgust for those who believe that the Book of Mormon speaks of an actual visit by the resurrected Christ to the Americas. But, if it is the former, your position is quite unusual.

To be Christian one cannot believe Jesus performed acts such as visiting the Americas that never happened. To believe Jesus did something that He didn’t really do is to “express belief in an entirely different Christ” and to be a non-Christian. This is a criteria for Christianity that I have never encountered and I have been reading and studying these issues for many years. I do not think it is a good or a Christian criteria, but it is a consistent way to draw a line between LDS and Catholic/Protestants.

Is this what you mean to communicate or were you just interested in saying that you believe the BOM is made up fiction?

Charity, TOm

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid,
…

To be Christian one cannot believe Jesus performed acts such as visiting the Americas that never happened. …

Yes. Exactly.

There’s nothing unusual about that.

To be a Christian means that one believes in the Christ Who actually existed (and indeed, continues to exist); not a fictional version merely based loosely on him.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

FrDavid,

…

To be Christian one cannot believe Jesus performed acts such as visiting the Americas that never happened. …

Yes. Exactly.

There’s nothing unusual about that.

To be a Christian means that one believes in the Christ Who actually existed (and indeed, continues to exist); not a fictional version merely based loosely on him.

I am not sure if I was not clear enough. LDS believe that there is one person who was born of the Virgin Mary, lived in Palestine area, healed blind men, was crucified under Pontius Pilot, suffered, died, and was buried. We believe He rose from the dead and spent 40 days with His Old World disciples. The vast majority of things Christians believe about Christ, LDS also believe about Christ.

We happen to also believe that this God/man, after His 40 days went to His “other sheep,” which I understand is something you do not believe.

But, how does believing the God/man Jesus Christ did things that in your opinion he did not make LDS non-Christians?

Do you believe the infant Jesus performed miracles, including one to feed His mother fruit? I lean away from believing this to be true, but I wouldn’t dream of suggesting those who think this are not Christian because they think Christ did something Christ did not really do? Do you believe Christ’s first human miracles were during his infancy? If not, do you believe all men and woman who incorrectly believed these things were not Christians?

Charity, TOm

 

[Old_Ephriam]

Tom,

Since you brought it up, it’s not me arbitrarily deciding what we LDS must believe or not. It’s the prophet and the quorum of the 12 who do that.

Perhaps you are familiar with the publication of the Seer. The brief version is that way back in 1865 Orson Pratt presented some false doctrine about the nature of God. That prompted a response from the prophet and the rest of the 12 who clarified when something is doctrine and when it is not. If a doctrine is taught as such by the prophet or is ratified and approved by the first presidency and the 12 then its doctrine. There are warnings in that same statement about teaching doctrines that have not been submitted to the 12.

And the doctrine that God is an exalted perfected man and that man is likewise capable of evolving into a god are doctrines that have been presented as such jointly and quite clearly by the first presidency and the entire quorum of the 12.

I do not condemn any of my church’s prior teachings as you suggest, but I do have concern that so many are forgetting the doctrines for expediency purposes or espousing “views” (your term) that are at odds with such doctrine. Frankly I’m worried that by doing so my chruch is itself drifting into apostasy. Members who reject doctrine and present their own “views” are placing themselves in the same position as Elder Pratt. But Elder Pratt repented and eschewed his false doctrine, and accepted the doctrines of the restoration as taught by the prophets and apostles. I wonder if you will do the same.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Orson Pratt’s “false doctrine” was a repudiation of Young’s Adam-God doctrine. The Adam-God doctrine of Young, is rejected by Mormon leaders today as an “opinion” of Young’s. So, Orson Pratt’s views are in line with LDS view of today, while Young’s are not.

 

[TOmNossor]

Old_Ephriam,
As a faithful and committed LDS, I welcome many who have unconventional views concerning the CoJCoLDS to worship with me. You sometimes claim to be a LDS and other times seem to speak of “them” (when you speak of “Mormons” who “present” themselves as Christians). All LDS, who have ever spoken with me as we worshiped together in LDS worship services would say that WE BELIEVE we are Christians.
That being said, my returned missionary son is a faithful LDS who would ALWAYS refer to himself as a “we, the Mormons,” and he leans in the direction of an Eternal Regression of Gods. That being said, he is well enough versed in the theological SPECTRUM that he would never say that he was “correcting my view with the Mormon view” as you did.
I want to say that I have no desire or intent to come across as requesting or advocating theological purity from you or other LDS who MAY be less convinced of the various truth claims of the CoJCoLDS than I am (or than my son is). There is room for doubters and seekers and …. I recently gave a talk where I spoke of how St. Thomas “the doubter” was with the Saints when his doubt became one of the clearest statements of faith in Christ’s divinity in the entire Bible. My point however is that when you claim to tell of “the Mormon view” as opposed to TOm’s view, I think you are speaking as someone less connected to “the Mormon view” than I am.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The early church had numerous believers in an embodied God. Augustine refused to become a Christian because Christians believe in an embodied God. Origin also witnesses to this belief.

When most people read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they would believe they are reading what the Catholic Church teaches and believes. It would be assumed that there are people who disagree.

Tom would try to make the case that the CCC is a “witness” to the fact that people do not believe what the Church teaches, therefore the CCC is not about what the Catholic Church believes but the opposite of what the Church believes.

Unless there is a paragraph like 460, that he can agree with, then that part would be about what the Church believes.

Therefore, the writings of the early church agree with Mormonism or they are a “witness” to Mormonism. I would call this more sophistry.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

The early church had numerous believers in an embodied God. Augustine refused to become a Christian because Christians believe in an embodied God. Origin also witnesses to this belief.

When most people read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they would believe they are reading what the Catholic Church teaches and believes. It would be assumed that there are people who disagree.

Tom would try to make the case that the CCC is a “witness” to the fact that people do not believe what the Church teaches, therefore the CCC is not about what the Catholic Church believes but the opposite of what the Church believes.

Unless there is a paragraph like 460, that he can agree with, then that part would be about what the Church believes.

Therefore, the writings of the early church agree with Mormonism or they are a “witness” to Mormonism. I would call this more sophistry.

Again, I am not lying or attempting to decieve and you should not claim this.
Again, your claim evidences that you are either totally unfamiliar with the CCC and the writings of the ECF or some combination of one or the other.
The CCC does not say that some Christians believe in an embodied God and then argue for a non-embodied God. Origin says this.
The CCC does not present a history were an individual grew up as a Christian, had a mother who became a Catholic saint, and yet refused to be a Christian after his philosophical education because Christians beleive in ridiculous things such as an embodied God. This is Augustine’s autobiographical presentation.
So, I suspect you have no idea what is in the ECF and/or you are not thinking clearly about it. Alternatively, you might just think calling me a liar is good Catholic apologetics.
I keep asking you to stop.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

TOmNossor:

Again, I am not lying or attempting to decieve and you should not claim this.

Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that Church never taught that God was an embodied being of flesh and bone.
When that claim was made you responded with stories of heterodox belief as if that proved the Church’s teaching was the opposite of what it is.

TOmNossor:

The CCC does not say that some Christians believe in an embodied God and then argue for a non-embodied God.

I said the CCC teaches what the Church believes, and we naturally assume not everyone believes it. They are not a “witness” that the Church believed the opposite.

TOmNossor:

Origin says this.

Origen taught what the Church taught.

TOmNossor:

The CCC does not present a history were an individual grew up as a Christian, had a mother who became a Catholic saint, and yet refused to be a Christian after his philosophical education because Christians beleive in ridiculous things such as an embodied God. This is Augustine’s autobiographical presentation.

Again, Augustine taught what the Church taught.

Because someone believes something, it doesn’t mean the Church teaches it. Just like the fact you believe something doesn’t mean the Mormon Church teaches it.

The Mormon Church teaches that man became god, while Christianity teaches that God became man.

 

[Stephen168]

Again, your claim evidences that you are either totally unfamiliar with the CCC and the writings of the ECF or some combination of one or the other.

So, I suspect you have no idea what is in the ECF and/or you are not thinking clearly about it.

Yet, you don’t know the meaning of the words used by the Early Church Fathers, as you demonstrated earlier in the thread.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Again, I am not lying or attempting to deceive and you should not claim this.

Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that Church never taught that God was an embodied being of flesh and bone.
When that claim was made you responded with stories of heterodox belief as if that proved the Church’s teaching was the opposite of what it is.

Perhaps you are speaking of a different “church” than I am. I am speaking about the Christians who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Folks who lived and worshiped in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century. Folks who taught that God was embodied like Bishop Melito of Sardis (2nd Century) who Origin speaks against. Or Tertullian (3rd Century whose words we have). Or Augustine’s mother and the congregation Augustine grew up in as a Christian (4th Century). Or Desert Father Serapion (4th – 5th Century who records his dismay as he becomes convinces that his understanding of God as embodied is wrong). These people taught in Christ’s Church. Maybe they didn’t teach in your church.

The truth is your church has regularly taken beliefs ones prevalent and declared them heretical. Has cut off those who refused to CHANGE what they taught before these declarations. Presumably after this CHANGE your church no longer includes the teachings it once did.

Until the 20th Century EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN TEACHER taught that Jews and Muslims who didn’t seek or receive Catholic baptism or die defending Christ would go to HELL FOREVER. By your understanding NONE OF THESE teachers are members of your church. So I guess your church started in the 20th century and has CUT-OFF all those who taught and believed differently than this (which is basically everyone who claimed to be Catholic for more than a dozen centuries).

Stephen, you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to misunderstand what I am saying about the ECF & to claim that your church has NEVER taught that God is embodied. I know of no Council or Papal statement that teaches that God is embodied. But history makes it clear that during the 2nd and 3rd century the embodiment of God was believed and taught by many or most Christians AND the philosophically minded folks such as Origin RESISTED this prevalent view based on philosophy NOT scripture. That is my point. You can acknowledge it or reject it, but your CURRENT rejection leaves you with a church that started in the 20th century and jettisoned 1900 years of Christian Tradition (or perhaps tradition).

I hope you can apologize for accusing me of lying now!
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, they (Bishop Melito, Tertullian, and Augustine) taught in Christ’s Church. And they did not teach the God taught by the Mormon Church. You make claims with no support. Catholics on this thread support the teachings of Bishop Melito by quoting the Bishop, not Origen’s misunderstanding of him.

The story of the Egyptian monk named Serapion seems to be popular in Mormonism, but like most stories it is incomplete and twisted to their desires. The story comes from the Conferences of St. John Cassian.
In Conference 10, he talks about how common the heresy of anthropomorphism is among the Egyptian monks and that it is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church.
When John Cassian asked the monk Isaac how Serapion could believe, and continue to believe this heresy, Isaac said, “We need not be surprised that a really simple man who had never received any instruction on the substance and nature of the Godhead could still be entangled and deceived by an error of simplicity and the habit of a longstanding mistake, and (to speak more truly) continue in the original error which is brought about, not as you suppose by a new illusion of the demons, but by the ignorance of the ancient heathen world, while in accordance with the custom of that erroneous notion, by which they used to worship devils formed in the figure of men, they even now think that the incomprehensible and ineffable glory of the true Deity should be worshipped under the limitations of some figure, as they believe that they can grasp and hold nothing if they have not some image set before them, which they can continually address while they are at their devotions, and which they can carry about in their mind and have always fixed before their eyes. And against this mistake of theirs this text may be used: “And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.”-Romans 1:23”

Basically, simple men with no instruction need an image, they understand, as an object of prayer.

John Smith, a simple man with no instruction, changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.

TOmNossor:

I know of no Council or Papal statement that teaches that God is embodied.

You also don’t know of any person with teaching authority who teaches that God is made of flesh and bones; and was once a man.

All you have is a “witness” that there are people who disagree with the teaching of Christ’s Church.

You continue to equate the belief of a few to the teachings of the Church founding by Jesus Christ; sophistry.

The god of Mormonism has never been Christian.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
I continue to not see how calling me a liar (claiming I am intentionally deceiving by calling my words, “sophistry”) is appropriate or necessary.
It should be clear to those reading that my claims are true.
It is certain that Tertullian believed in an embodied God and claimed that philosophy was perverting the true faith. He claimed this during his “Catholic” days.
It is certain that Origin claimed that SOME Christians (“our people”) believed in a corporal God and Origin rejected it based on philosophy. Origin like you called these folks “simple,” but at other places he acknowledges that some of them held the view and were not simple believers.
It is certain that Origin knew more of the writing of Bishop Melito than we do as an unusually large percent of it has been lost and it is likely that Origin correctly reported the views of Bishop Melito (though this is not certain).
It is certain that Augustine grew up as a Christian with his mother who is a Catholic saint and close to certain that his mother and the congregation he worshiped within as a Catholic boy taught God was embodied.
It is certain that Father Serapion believed and lived in a community that believed in an embodied God until they were forced to become “sophisticated” instead of “simple.”
Augustine and Origin and the ECF who argue against the view of an embodied God employ the same arguments from philosophy against the view of God’s embodiment that Celsus used against the “Christian view” (Celsus’ target) of an embodied God. Whereas Tertullian says that philosophy is changing the clear teaching of scripture. Origin even points out that scripture does not demand that one believe in an embodied God that you can read it figuratively.
I do know of ECF with teaching authority that taught that God was embodied. I can and did acknowledge that there is no Papal or Conciliar statement supporting an embodied God, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that there were volumes of faithful (simple and otherwise) Christians who believed in an embodied God UNTIL this believe was purged over almost 4 centuries. Why?
Charity, TOm

 

[twoboys]

Have you had “yes” answers?