Are Mormons Christians

[gazelam]

I do not know what is meant by “the great apostasy”. When did this occur? Please give precise date and circumstances.

To get a better understanding of an LDS scholarly view in the Apostacy of the early Church please read the Hugh Nibley essay The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme found here: maxwellinstitute.com/publications/books/?bookid=55&chapid=523

I hope this help…

 

[Stephen168]

Not all the apostles were celibate. The Gospel contains a story of one of Jesus’ miracle healings; the beneficiary was Peter’s wife’s mother.

But no Peter’s wife. Peter, like the all of The Twelve, was celibate while he was an Apostle. Joseph Smith made up the position of Apostle five years after he started his new religion and they could be polygamist. The exact opposite discipline required of real Christian Apostles/leadership. So if Mormons are trying to prove an Apostasy by changing doctrine, on this account they have failed.

 

[eddie_too]

maybe the story of abraham lincoln speaking to the reporters applies to this entire discussion/question of are mormons christian.

supposedly lincoln asked the reporters if they called the tale of a lamb a leg, how many legs would the lamb have? the reporters responded with the lamb would have five legs.

lincoln corrected them and said the lamb would still have four legs because calling a tale a leg does not make it a leg.

similarly, calling a mormon a christian does not make a mormon a christian.

basically, anyone can call themselves anything they want. but calling oneself something does not make one what is claimed. jim jones and david koresh both claimed to be Jesus.

that did not work out well for them or for the people who believed them.

 

[gazelam]

But no Peter’s wife. Peter, like the all of The Twelve, was celibate while he was an Apostle.

On what do you base this statement?

 

[Stephen168]

On what do you base this statement?

History

 

[natistics]

You are going to make a wonderful Catholic! Your faith and use of reason says a lot about you. Stay active and close to the Church and the sacraments…

PnP

All the love, with none of the Jello (green)!!!

Thank you, Porknpie. That’s my goal!

PnP – and shredded carrots! Or, the worst, cottage cheese. :bigyikes:

 

[mtolympus]

I agree with you completely. One of his commands was to eat his flesh and drink his blood. In fact he said if we did not do this that we would have no life in us. He said that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. Do you follow this commandment?

Yes. And I also try to obey the commandment that Jesus gave to Peter, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17) even though I have never fed any sheep.

Jesus is well known for speaking in parables and metaphors. And since there is no physical change in the wine of the Eucharist you must take the doctrine of transubstantiation on faith, while I see it as another evidence of the apostacy.

The Council of Trent in its 13th session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[Council of Trent] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. [Encylopedia Britainica]

 

[TexanKnight]

To get a better understanding of an LDS scholarly view in the Apostacy of the early Church please read the Hugh Nibley essay The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme found here: maxwellinstitute.com/publications/books/?bookid=55&chapid=523

I hope this help…

it doesn’t. It just says, basically, that for Mormonism to be true, Jesus had to be weak, dishonest and cruel

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes. And I also try to obey the commandment that Jesus gave to Peter, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17) even though I have never fed any sheep.

Jesus is well known for speaking in parables and metaphors. And since there is no physical change in the wine of the Eucharist you must take the doctrine of transubstantiation on faith, while I see it as another evidence of the apostacy.

The Council of Trent in its 13th session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[Council of Trent] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. [Encylopedia Britainica]

that would be a fine stand to take, if it was true.

But unlike parables, in John 6, when Jesus said we had to eat His flesh, people left Him because it was too hard a teaching. It is because it was not a parable. You did not see Jesus saying, “don;t go! it was a METAPHOR!” When you couple that with His words at the Last Supper, it is something that cannot be ignored.

But to show the LDS Church is a cult, one has to go no further than its own “Sacrament”. Bread and water are served. The food of prisoners…because if you are in the LDS Church, you are most certainly in spiritual prison.

Now THAT is a metaphor…

or is it?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Yes. And I also try to obey the commandment that Jesus gave to Peter, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17) even though I have never fed any sheep.

Jesus is well known for speaking in parables and metaphors. And since there is no physical change in the wine of the Eucharist you must take the doctrine of transubstantiation on faith, while I see it as another evidence of the apostacy.

The Council of Trent in its 13th session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[Council of Trent] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. [Encylopedia Britainica]

To be clear, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is much older than the Council of Trent. Indeed, this belief is found in all of the most ancient Christian churches (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, etc), no matter where in the world they originated (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Syria, Ethiopia, etc). The Council of Trent has nothing to do with that (history demonstrates that the Real Presence belief is over a thousand years older than that Council). Instead, the Council of Trent is talking about Transubstantiation, which is a philosophical explanation of how the Real Presence, the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ, maintaining the appearance of bread and wine, occurs. A number of the non-Catholic churches that believe in the Real Presence do not believe in Transubstantiation. Believing in Transubstantiation is not necessary to believe in the Real Presence.

The doctrine of the Real Presence is actually convincing evidence that there wasn’t an apostasy, in my view. As mentioned, the most ancient Christian churches, despite their disagreements on various matters, all believe in the Real Presence. No matter how spread out geographically these churches are, they hold to that belief, from the very beginnings of Christianity. It not only comports with what the Bible says, but also the writings of the earliest Christians outside of the Bible. There is no evidence that the earliest Christians understood the Eucharist along the lines of the LDS Church or some Protestant views. Further, the Real Presence continues an important temple context, i.e. the Bread of the Presence, as well as Melchizedek’s sacrificial offering of bread and wine. There is a clear continuity from the Bread of the Presence of the temple in Jerusalem to the Real Presence (in addition to the continuity from the rites and liturgies that occurred there and those that occur in Catholic and Orthodox churches to this day). See these for more on that:

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Dr. Brant Pitre
Consuming the Word: The New Testament and The Eucharist in the Early Church by Dr. Scott Hahn
The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth by Dr.
Scott Hahn
God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life by Pope Benedict XVI
The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity by Dr. Taylor Marshall
Temple Themes in Christian Worship by Dr. Margaret Barker

 

[mtolympus]

I almost forgot. So Mt. Oly, I see that you posted some verses from the bible stating that you believe that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are one, yes? So it would be safe to say you and every Mormon believe that God failed when He made the Catholic Church then? How could God fail? Maybe its because you do not in fact worship the same god as real Christians do. I cant understand why you would want to follow a man made religion rather than follow Christ himself. So when you die and are kneeling before God what excuse are you going to give Him as to why you didn’t worship Him but worshipped a man and his religion?

Was Jesus weak because He was crucified? Did God fail because the apostles were killed who were the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:19-21) and who led the Church by revelation? (Eph. 3:3-5) No! Of course not. God did what the Prophet Amos said God would do:

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:11-12).

 

[gazelam]

To be clear, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is much older than the Council of Trent. Indeed, this belief is found in all of the most ancient Christian churches (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, etc), no matter where in the world they originated (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Syria, Ethiopia, etc). The Council of Trent has nothing to do with that (history demonstrates that the Real Presence belief is over a thousand years older than that Council). Instead, the Council of Trent is talking about Transubstantiation, which is a philosophical explanation of how the Real Presence, the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ, maintaining the appearance of bread and wine, occurs. A number of the non-Catholic churches that believe in the Real Presence do not believe in Transubstantiation. Believing in Transubstantiation is not necessary to believe in the Real Presence.

The doctrine of the Real Presence is actually convincing evidence that there wasn’t an apostasy, in my view. As mentioned, the most ancient Christian churches, despite their disagreements on various matters, all believe in the Real Presence. No matter how spread out geographically these churches are, they hold to that belief, from the very beginnings of Christianity. It not only comports with what the Bible says, but also the writings of the earliest Christians outside of the Bible. There is no evidence that the earliest Christians understood the Eucharist along the lines of the LDS Church or some Protestant views. Further, the Real Presence continues an important temple context, i.e. the Bread of the Presence, as well as Melchizedek’s sacrificial offering of bread and wine. There is a clear continuity from the Bread of the Presence of the temple in Jerusalem to the Real Presence (in addition to the continuity from the rites and liturgies that occurred there and those that occur in Catholic and Orthodox churches to this day). See these for more on that:

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Dr. Brant Pitre
Consuming the Word: The New Testament and The Eucharist in the Early Church by Dr. Scott Hahn
The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth by Dr.
Scott Hahn
God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life by Pope Benedict XVI
The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity by Dr. Taylor Marshall
Temple Themes in Christian Worship by Dr. Margaret Barker

Edwin Hatch asserts that “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” (The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, pg 308)

PS - you’re comments are always of a high quality.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Edwin Hatch asserts that “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” (The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, pg 308)

PS - you’re comments are always of a high quality.

Thank you .

Yes, he does assert that (I’ve seen that quote before), however I haven’t seen substantiation to the claim. He goes on to say: “The fact that they were so regarded is found in Justin Martyr.”, however I have not found anything in Justin Martyr’s writings that indicates anything of the sort. Hatch’s footnote from that sentence isn’t even a reference to Justin Martyr’s writings, but something from St. Basil (and a search for the word “Gnostic” in Basil’s De Spiritu Sancto doesn’t turn up anything).

Instead, we have Justin Martyr, and many other ancient Christians, talking about the Real Presence, and not a symbolic or other view of the Eucharist. Further, they talked about the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist (again, something that further ties Catholic and Orthodox liturgical rites to the Jerusalem Temple). For example, Justin Martyr has said:

***“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”-Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."-“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151])."**

For there to be evidence of the Real Presence doctrine being the result of apostasy, it would have to be demonstrated that another view of the original, and then there was a change to the Real Presence. I personally have never seen that. Hatch’s quote does not provide actual substantiation for his assertion, so I’d appreciate it if you could cite any references from that time period that show that the Gnostics were the first to believe in the Real Presence, and that this was adopted by the early Christians, causing a change in doctrine on the matter.**

 

[TexanKnight]

Was Jesus weak because He was crucified? Did God fail because the apostles were killed who were the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:19-21) and who led the Church by revelation? (Eph. 3:3-5) No! Of course not. God did what the Prophet Amos said God would do:

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:11-12).

Jesus ALLOWED Himself to be crucified…and He made no promise He would NOT be crucified. Yet another horrible example.

Your Church is only true if Jesus was a dishonest, weak, cruel God.

 

[eddie_too]

should not we first define the word christian before evaluating whether or not a particular faith tradition fits that definition.

unless we agree on the definition of the word christian, we cannot answer the question this thread posed at its beginning. it is a futile and wasteful effort.

i guess it is doubtful that most of the people who are contending in this thread can agree upon the meaning of the word.

it is safe to say that members of the mormon religion do not meet most traditional christians’ definition of the word christian.

but, if you change that definition to mean something different than the meaning given by most traditional christians, mormons could meet that differing definition.

if two engaged in debate cannot reach agreement on a definition of terms, no true debate can occur.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Was Jesus weak because He was crucified? Did God fail because the apostles were killed who were the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:19-21) and who led the Church by revelation? (Eph. 3:3-5) No! Of course not. God did what the Prophet Amos said God would do:

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:11-12).

What a fickle god you worship.

Jesus established a church and then watched it fail so people would run to and fro so that Joseph Smith could claim he established it again? Sort of self serving for Smith, don’t you think?

 

[Telstar]

Was Jesus weak because He was crucified? Did God fail because the apostles were killed who were the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:19-21) and who led the Church by revelation? (Eph. 3:3-5) No! Of course not. God did what the Prophet Amos said God would do:

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:11-12).

I think if you look at the entire chapter of Amos, it becomes very clear who God was referring to in your small quote, taken out of context (as usual).

Prophecy Of Amos
Chapter 8

"[1] These things the Lord shewed to me: and behold a hook to draw down the fruit. [2] And he said: What seest thou, Amos? And I said: A hook to draw down fruit. And the Lord said to me: The end is come upon my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more. [3] And the hinges of the temple shall screak in that day, saith the Lord God: many shall die: silence shall be cast in every place. [4] Hear this, you that crush the poor, and make the needy of the land to fail, [5] Saying: When will the month be over, and we shall sell our wares: and the sabbath, and we shall open the corn: that we may lessen the measure, and increase the sicle, and may convey in deceitful balances,

[6] That we may possess the needy for money, and the poor for a pair of shoes, and may sell the refuse of the corn? [7] The Lord hath sworn against the pride of Jacob: surely I will never forget all their works. [8] Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein: and rise up altogether as a river, and be cast out, and run down as the river of Egypt? [9] And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that the sun shall go down at midday, and I will make the earth dark in the day of light: [10] And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation: and I will bring up sackcloth upon every back of yours, and baldness upon every head: and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the latter end thereof as a bitter day.

[11] Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will send forth a famine into the land: not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. [12] And they shall move from sea to sea, and from the north to the east: they shall go about seeking the word of the Lord, and shall not find it. [13] In that day the fair virgins, and the young men shall faint for thirst. [14] They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say: Thy God, O Dan, liveth: and the way of Bersabee liveth: and they shall fall, and shall rise no more."

This is a prophecy about the fulfillment of the Old Covenant of Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ that began on the day of His crucifixion. So, please don’t try to claim it as a sign that His Church would fail and be abandoned by the Father. It’s obviously referring to the Jews that would wander aimlessly, and no longer hear the voice of God after that day, because they rejected His Son.

 

[sszorin]

Mormons are an offshoot of the Freemasonry.

 

[Irish_Kathy]

Here’s a great website I ran into quite a while ago. It’s well worth taking a look at by both Catholics and Mormons alike:

transporter.com/Images/Mormonism.jpg

 

[mtolympus]

I think if you look at the entire chapter of Amos, it becomes very clear who God was referring to in your small quote, taken out of context (as usual).

Prophecy Of Amos
Chapter 8

"[1] These things the Lord shewed to me: and behold a hook to draw down the fruit. [2] And he said: What seest thou, Amos? And I said: A hook to draw down fruit. And the Lord said to me: The end is come upon my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more. [3] And the hinges of the temple shall screak in that day, saith the Lord God: many shall die: silence shall be cast in every place. [4] Hear this, you that crush the poor, and make the needy of the land to fail, [5] Saying: When will the month be over, and we shall sell our wares: and the sabbath, and we shall open the corn: that we may lessen the measure, and increase the sicle, and may convey in deceitful balances,

[6] That we may possess the needy for money, and the poor for a pair of shoes, and may sell the refuse of the corn? [7] The Lord hath sworn against the pride of Jacob: surely I will never forget all their works. [8] Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein: and rise up altogether as a river, and be cast out, and run down as the river of Egypt? [9] And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that the sun shall go down at midday, and I will make the earth dark in the day of light: [10] And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation: and I will bring up sackcloth upon every back of yours, and baldness upon every head: and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the latter end thereof as a bitter day.

[11] Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will send forth a famine into the land: not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. [12] And they shall move from sea to sea, and from the north to the east: they shall go about seeking the word of the Lord, and shall not find it. [13] In that day the fair virgins, and the young men shall faint for thirst. [14] They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say: Thy God, O Dan, liveth: and the way of Bersabee liveth: and they shall fall, and shall rise no more."

This is a prophecy about the fulfillment of the Old Covenant of Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ that began on the day of His crucifixion. So, please don’t try to claim it as a sign that His Church would fail and be abandoned by the Father. It’s obviously referring to the Jews that would wander aimlessly, and no longer hear the voice of God after that day, because they rejected His Son.

Excellent observation! Amos was prophesying of the downfall of Israel. Israel had always been the source of revelation of God to man, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) It is clear, as you pointed out, that this downfall would happen shortly after the death of Christ. (Amos 8:10)

Jesus established the true church of Israel with a foundation of apostles and prophets that could guide the church by revelation from God. We enter the Church by repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Chirst for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:36) This is the new coventant that had been promised to the house of Israel. (Jer. 31:31-34) When we enter this covenant by baptism we “put on Christ” and we also take part in the ancient Abrahamic covenant:

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:26-29)

The Abrahamic covenant was passed down through Isaac and Jacob (Israel) and the twelve sons of Israel. The downfall of Israel prophesyed by Amos included the removal of revelation from Israel and therefore the entire world. We learn from Amos 8:11 that the absence of revelation was not a good or normal situation. It was a famine sent from God!