Are Mormons Christians

[iepuras]

iepuras, that is the saddest part of the LDS church, the way families so believe in Joseph Smith and his teachings that they will shun their children and/or divorce their spouses.

There are a number of ex mormon sites on the web and the stories I read are heartbreaking.

The stories are heartbreaking. My experience has been a cakewalk compared to others. I really can’t complain all that much.

I wonder what happens if their priest holder husband is mad at them. Do Mormon wives then go to the telestial kingdom?

If Mormonism were true, this is what would happen to me.

And if I were a Mormon woman and had to spend eternity pregnant I might get just a bit irritated. Not only that but she will be among many wives. Polygamy is doctrine in their celestial kingdom.

Tell me about it! To me, hell would be being pregnant for eternity (after re-living 7th grade). I love my babies, but it was not fun baking them. My first one carried out, so it wasn’t too bad. My second carried in (I am also 5’ 2", so not much room) and it was awful, especially during the Texas summer! And then to have all those toddler spirit children… The worst part is that since I would be one of who knows how many wives, I wouldn’t be around my husband long enough to make him as miserable as me!

 

[iepuras]

And when a family member becomes a Mormon. Their relatives can not attend weddings, etc.

This happened to me this summer when my youngest sister got married in the Mormon temple. My sister was engaged when I decided to leave the LDS church. I actually did consider putting up a front for 6 months in order to attend the wedding. I simply couldn’t do it. I had to be honest.

Like a good sister, I waited outside the temple, but I was able to actaully see and understand why this policy is so offensive to people who were never Mormon and excluded from weddings.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you for your excellent explanation. So then, (even though it is true), would you agree with me that is would be inappropriate to characterize the Jesus that Catholics worship as: “Jesus the creator of Satan”?

I see what you are doing!

But what you are doing doesn’t work for Christian Trinitarian theology. Jesus IS GOD, and so to say, as Mormons do, that Satan is the brother of Jesus, is to Catholic ears saying that Satan IS GOD. That’s why we go !!!

Putting aside the Mormon implication that the Trinity is a Quadrinity, with Satan as the fourth person… We are created, as the angels are created. We are NOT God, or gods. Creatures failing and turning evil is not the same as saying GOD failed and turned evil.

So do you see how comparing Creator to brother doesn’t work in a Catholic/Trinitarian framework?

It goes to TK’s posts, that seem largely ignored. The Mormon God was once a man, who could choose to sin, but did not. The only difference between God and Satan, to a Mormon, is the once-man God you worship, made righteous choices.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your Bible quotes teach us about Christ, but they say nothing about the term “Christian”. According to the Bible a Christian is a disciple of Christ. Jesus Himself tells us how to know a disciple/Christian:

1. The Biblical definition of a Christian- “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch”. (Acts 11:26). “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”. (John 13:35) “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.” (John 8:31)

You can do anything you want with your own definition but you can’t deny that an English language dictionary definition of “Christian” exists. Mormons didn’t write the definition but it is there:

1. The dictionary definition: “Christian - A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.”

Perhaps quoting C.S. Lewis will help here.

People ask: “Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?”: or “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - “Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”

This is what you are seeking to do, to spiritualize (with good intent) the meaning of the word Christian, making it a meaningless word.

 

[SteveVH]

Perhaps quoting C.S. Lewis will help here.

C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”

This is what you are seeking to do, to spiritualize (with good intent) the meaning of the word Christian, making it a meaningless word.

Excellent, Rebecca!

 

[CarolNoel]

Not sure I understand your statement. Yes, Jesus created Satan. Why would we ever want to shy away from that reality? He created him as the most beautiful of angels and gave him free will. The fact that Satan used his free will to rebel against God was not Jesus’ doing. Remember, he also created Nero and Hitler and Stalin and the rest of the gang.

I like what you said!

 

[SteveVH]

I like what you said!

Thanks, Carol.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Excellent, Rebecca!

Thank Mr. Lewis!

 

[SteveVH]

Thank Mr. Lewis!

Absolutely. Thank you Mr. Lewis. It has been awhile since I read “Mere Christianity”. He had incredible insight and the ability to express it well.

 

[Stephen168]

This happened to me this summer when my youngest sister got married in the Mormon temple. My sister was engaged when I decided to leave the LDS church. I actually did consider putting up a front for 6 months in order to attend the wedding. I simply couldn’t do it. I had to be honest.

Like a good sister, I waited outside the temple, but I was able to actaully see and understand why this policy is so offensive to people who were never Mormon and excluded from weddings.

My brother converted to Mormonism. His daughter was 14 when he died last spring. If she doesn’t wake up to the lies of Mormonism, she will not have ANY relatives at her wedding. So much for valuing the family.

 

[JHow]

… I have never met a Mormon who I did not think was a very good person…

I have. But he was also a lawyer. I blame his legal training for this.

 

[mtolympus]

while Jesus created Satan it would be inappropriate to characterize him as creating Satan. Better to say “Jesus the creator of all things”.

PnP

Yes. That is my point. It would also be better to say Mormons believe that “Jesus is the Brother of all our Father in Heaven’s spirit children”. Sometimes at CAF, LDS posters are asked to answer “yes” or “no” to something that may be true, but blatently and purposefully mis-represents our position.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes. That is my point. It would also be better to say Mormons believe that “Jesus is the Brother of all our Father in Heaven’s spirit children”. Sometimes at CAF, LDS posters are asked to answer “yes” or “no” to something that may be true, but blatently and purposefully mis-represents our position.

The only thing that really bothers me about the LDS calling Satan the brother of Jesus is the erroneous theology. Jesus is eternal. Satan is not. Jesus is God. Satan is an angel. Jesus is the Creator. Satan is the created.

We have no reason to hide from the fact that God created Satan. And you have no reason, considering your theology, to hide the fact that you believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. As I said, it says more about your theology, and therefore your belief in the nature of Christ and the nature of angels than anything else. If you held the Christian view of the nature of God then you would realize that it is impossible for Jesus and Satan to be brothers.

 

[Porknpie]

Not sure I understand your statement. Yes, Jesus created Satan. Why would we ever want to shy away from that reality? He created him as the most beautiful of angels and gave him free will. The fact that Satan used his free will to rebel against God was not Jesus’ doing. Remember, he also created Nero and Hitler and Stalin and the rest of the gang.

Steve, implied was the word “only”. Our God created everything it’s best to characterize or describe him in that light.

 

[nmgauss]

Did Jesus exist during the time of Moses? Satan is mentioned in the Torah. Is this the same Satan that Jesus was supposed to have created?

 

[Stephen168]

How does your denomination answer those questions?

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes. That is my point. It would also be better to say Mormons believe that “Jesus is the Brother of all our Father in Heaven’s spirit children”. Sometimes at CAF, LDS posters are asked to answer “yes” or “no” to something that may be true, but blatently and purposefully mis-represents our position.

Yet you continue dodging the points about your god being adam and your god once being a sinful man and your god having intercourse with Mary…

why?

 

[batman1973]

Yet you continue dodging the points about your god being adam and your god once being a sinful man and your god having intercourse with Mary…

why?

Because several of those are moot points with Mormons. Those teachings have been sanitized. It won’t do any good to press them. Latter Day Saint theology has more issues and holes than “adam god”, or blood atonement.

 

[Irish_Kathy]

Which world? Is it the human world. It also might be the world of animals and plants. It also might be the world of Earth as it relates to the Moon and the Sun.

That’s just my point. The Mormon idea of God is that world is only the God of this world. But His Father is the God of another world, often known as Kolob. I know this for a fact because a particular fairly famous musical family who are Mormons use to use the symbol for Kolob on all their albums. It’s a picture of God’s hand holding a planet in his hand.

Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work that is traditionally held by adherents of the Mormon faith as having been translated from an Egyptian papyrus scroll by Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. It is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne of God. While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a “star”, it also refers to planets as stars, and therefore, some LDS commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.

Kolob has never been identified with any astronomical object by modern science and is not recognized by scholars as a concept associated with any ancient civilization. The idea appears within LDS culture, including a reference to Kolob in an LDS hymn.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Thank you for your excellent explanation. So then, (even though it is true), would you agree with me that is would be inappropriate to characterize the Jesus that Catholics worship as: “Jesus the creator of Satan”?

Jesus is the creator of Lucifer. Lucifer became Satan as the result of his own willful rebellion against God. That is not Jesus’ fault any more than it is His fault when I rebel against God (aka: commit sin).

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)