Are Mormons Christians

[Judas_Thaddeus]

There are 5700 known variations of the Greek New Testament. None of those manuscripts are original. (Bart Erhman’s book “Misquoting Jesus” provides an excellent description on the state of NT textual scholarship.) It doesn’t seem a stretch to say that an error or two may have crept in over the millennia. LDS believe that the words of the biblical authors were inspired at the time they were written. And yes, we’re grateful to all of those who preserved and compiled what we have today.

But you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit preserved the words of God, who
by the way Mormons believe is separate from the Father, a separate god,
Polytheism. We have the Great Isaiah Scroll, one of the earliest copies of
Isaiah, very well preserved, and it PROVES how Joseph Smith altered his
Isaiah to fit into his religion.

Joseph Smith took away words, added words, changed words, he even added
entire chapters to make his bible work for Mormonism, oy vay! We have many
manuscripts, from antiquity, and there is nothing demonstrating that the bible
of Joseph is in any way correct, not to mention when he was making his bible
he used the King James Version, which is already faulty, there are many other
better translations. So he took one bad bible and made it tons darker.

The JST bible is an 1800s lie, and the burden of proving it otherwise is
for the LDS church so accomplish, which it has not and it never will.

Trust the Holy Bible compiled and organized by the Church established by Jesus Christ, the
Roman Catholic Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, preserved by the Holy Spirit, and
no more of Smith’s con.

I now recommend to you this 1 1/3 hour video:
** youtube.com/watch?v=O44nofylUfQ**

Watch it in your free time.
​

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I’ve never heard any LDS teaching belittling Christ suffering on the cross. LDS believe that the cruxificxion wasn’t the only component in the atonement. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Isaiah 49:16 (KJV)
“Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands…” is a nice concise statement showing the importance (and clearly lots and lots of honor) of Christ’s crucifixion in our lives.

Bruce R. McConkie, an ‘apostle’ (which is Prophet, Seer, & Revelator),
seemed to equated the cross with the satanic "mark of the beast.

In a message from President Gordon B. Hinckley, one of the

Mormon prophets who passed away not too long ago, he said:Following the renovation of the Mesa Arizona Temple some years ago, clergy of other religions were invited to tour it on the first day of the open house period. Hundreds responded. In speaking to them, I said we would be pleased to answer any queries they might have. Among these was one from a Protestant minister.
Said he: “I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?”
I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”
He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”
I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
Ex-Mormon Shawn McCraney, a great presenter of information on
Mormonism, gives us the Mormon attitude towards the Symbol of
Christianity (Click Link Below):Episode 210: The Cross

 

[JonNC]

Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity? Neither do many Protestants,** and many more will at least concede that it is not a necessary doctrine**. Most of those who do believe it do not have any understanding other than phrases such as “three yet one” or “three in one” (which, taken by itself, sound like modalism). When did the definition of “Christian” become “believes in the Trinity?” What about all the other essential doctrines of faith that Protestants reject? Pardon me if I say the application of this term seems inconsistent to my eyes.

The underlined is preposterous.

Of the bolded, I have to ask what your sources are for this. Which communions or denominations state thus?

Jon

 

[gazelam]

If I have time later I may dig up some ECF quotes about Jesus being a second God, but no promises…

Okay, challenge accepted, but don’t go for John 1:1, we already have a good understanding of it.

Until the fifth century it was common to refer to Jesus as either a “second god,” the chief angel, or both. (Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146)

During the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the “first-begotten,” the Logos, is the “first force after the Father:” he is “a second God, second numerically but not in will,” doing only the Father’s pleasure. (Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268)

Justin also maintained that the Son is “in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third . . . . (Justin Martyr, First Apology 13, ANF 1:167)

Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3, in ANF 2:527)

Peter in the *Clementine Recognitions *not only called Jesus both “God” and “angel,” but also identified Him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:7-8:

For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these He hath appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God . . . . Thus the princes of the several nations are called gods. But Christ is God of princes, who is Judge of all. (Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109)

Around the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus “the Angel of [God’s] counsel” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p. 7)

Origen said " “We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God.” (Origen, Dial Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 231.)

Origen also explained in what sense the Father and the Son are One. “And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will." (Origen, Against Celsus 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644)

Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a “second God”. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105)

In the fourth century, Methodius of Olympus could say that Christ was filled with the “pure and perfect Godhead,” but also designated Him as first among the Archangels:
And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the Aeons and the first of the Archangels, when about to hold communion with men, should dwell in the oldest and the first of men, even Adam. (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins 3:4, in ANF 6:318)

Eusebius compared the hierarchy of being to the sun, moon, and stars spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42:

For there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars,” says the divine Apostle; “for one star differeth from another star in glory.” In this way, therefore, we must think of the order in incorporeal and intelligent Beings also, the unutterable and infinite power of the God of the universe embracing all of them together; and the second place, next to the Father, being held by the power of the Divine Word . . . . And next after this second Being there is set, as in place of a moon, a third Being, the Holy Spirit, whom also they enroll in the first and royal dignity and honour of the primal cause of the universe . . . . But this Spirit, holding a third rank, supplies those beneath out of the superior powers in Himself, notwithstanding that He also receives from another, that is from the higher and stronger, who, as we said, is second to the most high and unbegotten nature of God the King of all . . . (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp. 351-352)

 

[andrewstx]

Mormons are not Christian by the same manner the Christians are not Jewish.

The view of God is very different in both instances

Actually Mormons do not believe in God by either the Christian definition, or the Jewish definition. In fact during my Mormon period I never heard one even use the word ‘God’, it was heavenly Father every time.

They believe that ‘heavenly Father’ was just an ordinary human male that worked his way up to Godhood. They believe as well that we can work our way up to becoming ‘Gods’ by following the Mormon commandments, getting your endowments in a temple, and being married ‘for time and all eternity’ in a temple.

Mormonism is completely different from Christianity. Even if they use a few of the same terms they redefine them.

That’s why they are in a big rush to baptize converts before the converts find out about the
unusual and bizzare teachings. It is easy to become Mormon but not so easy to get out.

 

[Marie5890]

Mormonism is completely different from Christianity. Even if they use a few of the same terms they redefine them.

.

Yes.
And with the doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity is very different from Judaism.

 

[twopekinguys]

Mormon’s own “prophet” has made it clear they are NOT Christian.

Gordon B. Hinckley publicly stated*** “The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.”***

So, if mormons don’t worship the traditional Christ (the one in the Bible), which one do they worship?

Or, maybe it is time to throw a past “prophet” under the bus?

 

[iepuras]

Question. Why in the world would a member of the LDS church quote the Early Church Fathers to support Mormonism? Doesn’t the LDS church believe Christianity fell into apostacy after the apostles died? Isn’t that the reason Joseph Smith said that a restoration was necessary? Then doesn’t that mean the ECF were the ones that brought about and continued the apostacy? If so, why should a Mormon value what they have to say? According to them, the ECF are apostates and should be listened to as much as any modern day apostate.

Last year, the LDS church was singing the praises of the Protestant reformers and celebrating the translation of the Bible in the common vernacular. The Mormons claim that the Protestant reformers prepared the world for the restoration brought about by Joseph Smith in much the same manner John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus Christ.

I will say that I am very grateful that I can read the Bible in my native language and all the effort that was and is made so I can read and understand the word of God. But why not also praise the efforts made by the early Christians to copy and distribute the books that now make up the New Testament? The first Christians were the ones who were living and celebrating the New Covenant before it was ever written down in the books that now make up the New Testament. Where is the praise for the ECF in their gathering the books and actually putting together the Bible? Oh wait, there are errors in the Bible either by mistake or on purpose. It is true that Mormons believe and are taught that “many plains and precious truths” of Christ’s Gospel were removed from the Bible by evil men. It is in the Book of Mormon.

For the life of me, I don’t get why a Mormon would ever quote the ECF in support of Mormonism when, according to Mormon teachings, they are the reason there was a need for a restoration. I get that Mormons want to show that they teach the same things as the early Christian church that supposedly fell into apostacy to give them some credibility. They are reaching for something that just isn’t there, especially since they have little knowledge of Greek, the terminology used at the time, or context.

 

[gazelam]

Mormon’s own “prophet” has made it clear they are NOT Christian.

Gordon B. Hinckley publicly stated*** “The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.”***

So, if mormons don’t worship the traditional Christ (the one in the Bible), which one do they worship?

Or, maybe it is time to throw a past “prophet” under the bus?

I think it’s safe to say that Gordon B. Hinckley believed that the traditional Christ of Orthodox Christianity is not the Christ found in the Bible.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The underlined is preposterous.

Of the bolded, I have to ask what your sources are for this. Which communions or denominations state thus?

I might as well quote your post, although you are not the only one who asked this.

I’m not so much speaking of any denominations or communities. I can think of few demoniations that reject the Trinity in their creed. I am referring mostly to individual Baptists. Keep in mind that I live in the South, so I live around a certain fringe (though numerous) demographic down here which has a very individualistic mindset. My source for saying this is only first-hand conversations with individuals. Some reject the essentiality of the doctrine of the Trinity, holding that it is not clearly and explicitly taught. Some reject the doctrine outright, holding various opinions: for example, that the Son is the incarnate Father, or that Jesus is not God at all.

This should not be too surprising. For many, the doctrine of the Trinity is no more clearly taught in Scripture than the doctrine of Purgatory, and was obviously a historical development, being imposed on Christendom by Pope Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. If we reject Purgatory, why not the Catholic Trinity too?

Even among those belonging to creedal denominations, we would have to be naive to suppose there are no individuals among their ranks who hold to similar opinions.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I think it’s safe to say that Gordon B. Hinckley believed that the traditional Christ of Orthodox Christianity is not the Christ found in the Bible.

I’ll agree to that he might have believed that, but what’s you’re point?
The Traditional Christ is NOT of Joseph Smith’s bible, I’ll agree, look: In the beginning was the gospel preached through the
Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was
with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son
was of God.

• John 1:1, JST
  
  http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/confused-8.gif
  ​

​

Yeah, not the Eternal Creator God as described in the
**Holy Bible **(which again Mormons don’t believe in):In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word
was God.

• John 1:1, NAB
  Now here’s my challenge: Find the OLDEST manuscript
  containing John 1:1 and demonstrate how Joseph Smith
  was even CLOSE to being right. Fair, yes?

 

[gazelam]

Bruce R. McConkie, an ‘apostle’ (which is Prophet, Seer, & Revelator),
seemed to equated the cross with the satanic "mark of the beast.

Looks like I need to put on my LW7 hat…

Do you have a context or full text for the McConkie quote? My 1966 version of Mormon Doctrine under the entry for “Cross” (pg 172) says among other things that “Paul correctly used the cross of Christ to identify to the mind the whole doctrine of the atonement, reconciliation, and redemption”, (pg 173) “…Such afflictions or trials are regarded as crosses which test Christian patience and virtue”, and (pg 173) “… the gospel cause commands every man to take up his cross and follow Him who carried his own cross to Golgotha”. These three quotes show that Elder McConkie accepted scriptural symbolism of the cross. It’s possible that the quote you reference was referring to a corrupt usage of the cross, but I don’t know that for certain.

As an aside, Elder McConkie generally prefaced his publications by stating that he alone was responsible for the contents of his writings.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Looks like I need to put on my LW7 hat…
Do you have a context or full text for the McConkie quote? My 1966 version of Mormon Doctrine under the entry for “Cross” (pg 172) says among other things that “Paul correctly used the cross of Christ to identify to the mind the whole doctrine of the atonement, reconciliation, and redemption”, (pg 173) “…Such afflictions or trials are regarded as crosses which test Christian patience and virtue”, and (pg 173) “… the gospel cause commands every man to take up his cross and follow Him who carried his own cross to Golgotha”. These three quotes show that Elder McConkie accepted scriptural symbolism of the cross. It’s possible that the quote you reference was referring to a corrupt usage of the cross, but I don’t know that for certain.
As an aside, Elder McConkie generally prefaced his publications by stating that he alone was responsible for the contents of his writings.

You have yet to answer the following:In a message from President Gordon B. Hinckley, one of the
Mormon prophets who passed away not too long ago, he said:

Following the renovation of the Mesa Arizona Temple some years ago, clergy of other religions were invited to tour it on the first day of the open house period. Hundreds responded. In speaking to them, I said we would be pleased to answer any queries they might have. Among these was one from a Protestant minister.
Said he: “I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?”
I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”
He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”
I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
Ex-Mormon Shawn McCraney, a great presenter of information on
Mormonism, gives us the Mormon attitude towards the Symbol of
Christianity (Click Link Below):Episode 210: The Cross​

 

[LivingWaters7]

Looks like I need to put on my LW7 hat…

Thanks for the reminder!

Can you please provide the surrounding context of the statement in Harper’s Bible Dictionary? Thank you.

 

[gazelam]

You have yet to answer the following:In a message from President Gordon B. Hinckley, one of the
Mormon prophets who passed away not too long ago, he said:

Following the renovation of the Mesa Arizona Temple some years ago, clergy of other religions were invited to tour it on the first day of the open house period. Hundreds responded. In speaking to them, I said we would be pleased to answer any queries they might have. Among these was one from a Protestant minister.
Said he: “I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?”
I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”
He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”
I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
Ex-Mormon Shawn McCraney, a great presenter of information on
Mormonism, gives us the Mormon attitude towards the Symbol of
Christianity (Click Link Below):Episode 210: The Cross​

All I see is a quote from Gordon B. Hinckley. Is there a question I’m supposed to infer from this?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

All I see is a quote from Gordon B. Hinckley. Is there a question I’m supposed to infer from this?

It’s not a question, just answer to it, words of you prophet.

 

[TexanKnight]

Looks like I need to put on my LW7 hat…

Do you have a context or full text for the McConkie quote? My 1966 version of Mormon Doctrine under the entry for “Cross” (pg 172) says among other things that “Paul correctly used the cross of Christ to identify to the mind the whole doctrine of the atonement, reconciliation, and redemption”, (pg 173) “…Such afflictions or trials are regarded as crosses which test Christian patience and virtue”, and (pg 173) “… the gospel cause commands every man to take up his cross and follow Him who carried his own cross to Golgotha”. These three quotes show that Elder McConkie accepted scriptural symbolism of the cross. It’s possible that the quote you reference was referring to a corrupt usage of the cross, but I don’t know that for certain.

As an aside, Elder McConkie generally prefaced his publications by stating that he alone was responsible for the contents of his writings.

Hinkley was correct. The lds Jesus was the brother of Satan and the son of a god who was once a sinful man.

To say that the lds jesus is not the one from the Bible is 100% correct

 

[CarolNoel]

Hinkley was correct. The lds Jesus was the brother of Satan and the son of a god who was once a sinful man.

To say that the lds jesus is not the one from the Bible is 100% correct

Right on.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think it’s safe to say that Gordon B. Hinckley believed that the traditional Christ of Orthodox Christianity is not the Christ found in the Bible.

Exactly. Your prophet made that claim while being interviewed as the prophet of the mormon church. Therefore, he was not merely speaking as a man. Something mormons love to throw around in order to discredit sticky statements such as this.

So, your prophet flat out stated mormons do not worship the God of the Bible, but evidently another one.

Thanks for agreeing!!

 

[andrewstx]

I might as well quote your post, although you are not the only one who asked this.

I’m not so much speaking of any denominations or communities. I can think of few demoniations that reject the Trinity in their creed. I am referring mostly to individual Baptists. Keep in mind that I live in the South, so I live around a certain fringe (though numerous) demographic down here which has a very individualistic mindset. My source for saying this is only first-hand conversations with individuals. Some reject the essentiality of the doctrine of the Trinity, holding that it is not clearly and explicitly taught. Some reject the doctrine outright, holding various opinions: for example, that the Son is the incarnate Father, or that Jesus is not God at all.

This should not be too surprising. For many, the doctrine of the Trinity is no more clearly taught in Scripture than the doctrine of Purgatory, and was obviously a historical development, being imposed on Christendom by Pope Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. If we reject Purgatory, why not the Catholic Trinity too?

Even among those belonging to creedal denominations, we would have to be naive to suppose there are no individuals among their ranks who hold to similar opinions.

That has been very true with my experience in the Southwest as well, and not just among Baptists either. It’s common among fundamentalists in general.

As a rule they will speak of Jesus as the “son of God” which is true as far as it goes. But they don’t as a rule speak of Jesus as God the Son.

I was raised and dunked in a fundamentalist denomination that gave the name 'the churches of Christ" to it’self. They did not believe in the Holy Trinity because that term is not reffered to verbatim in the pages of it’s God, the bible.