K
- Status
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Henotheism (Greek ἑνας θεός henas theos “one god”) is the belief in and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be served.
To me this is what Mormons are, they are not monotheists.
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
I have never met a mormon I did not like. 
I used to have two American mormons visit every fortnight for 10months. Polite, well mannered, well presented young gentlemen.
They told me all about their faith and gave me a mormon bible. I told them I’ll be Catholic for eternity, nothing they say will change that. I taught them what I knew about Catholicism which was not a lot for a 1month old Catholic convert, I also gave them Catholic bibles. I’d feed them and send them on their way.
Whole conversations were had where nobody understood what the other was saying but I think we all looked forward to the visits.
I used to have two American mormons visit every fortnight for 10months. Polite, well mannered, well presented young gentlemen.They told me all about their faith and gave me a mormon bible. I told them I’ll be Catholic for eternity, nothing they say will change that. I taught them what I knew about Catholicism which was not a lot for a 1month old Catholic convert, I also gave them Catholic bibles. I’d feed them and send them on their way.
Whole conversations were had where nobody understood what the other was saying but I think we all looked forward to the visits.
H
Horton
Guest
Looks like I need to study up on my theisms.
C
commenter
Guest
Mormons consider themselves Christians. Everyone agrees they are not Catholic or EO. Those bodies rule them out. They pose a problem for Protestants. If you are committed to Sola Scriptura, how can you rule out any group? If you say “Mormons don’t follow traditional teaching on the Trinity, etc” Mormons respond they are following Scripture, in fact they usually use the KJV, and that your traditions are not authoritative or binding. They would say much of what Methodists or Baptists believe is really based on tradition, so they can use their own tradition, but again, Mormons rely heavily on the Reformation era KJV.
If you argue that they added books to the traditional canon of Scripture, they would argue “why should Lutherans or Mormons, obey the RCC, which supposedly closed the NT canon?” In any event, they could use KJV to support much of their doctrinal framework anyway. Who’s to say they are inaccurately interpreting KJV? Sola Scriptura? You claim Sola Scriptura has to be applied within the context of tradition, but in a way, they do that, within their own tradition, not necessarily the Presbyterian tradition.
The reality is that any group can claim to be Christian, but Christians outside the RCC and EO can’t rule them out. If you don’t like the word Mormons Protestant, use any other term you want to categorize the world of Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and other Christians outside RCC and EO.
If you argue that they added books to the traditional canon of Scripture, they would argue “why should Lutherans or Mormons, obey the RCC, which supposedly closed the NT canon?” In any event, they could use KJV to support much of their doctrinal framework anyway. Who’s to say they are inaccurately interpreting KJV? Sola Scriptura? You claim Sola Scriptura has to be applied within the context of tradition, but in a way, they do that, within their own tradition, not necessarily the Presbyterian tradition.
The reality is that any group can claim to be Christian, but Christians outside the RCC and EO can’t rule them out. If you don’t like the word Mormons Protestant, use any other term you want to categorize the world of Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and other Christians outside RCC and EO.
H
Horton
Guest
I would consider most protestant faith traditions as Christian. As far as the LDS using the KJV as scripture, they do, but they also use the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and other writings to support their religious claims. In regards to the KJV of the bible, they add a little disclaimer to explain any discrepancies, “as far as it’s translated correctly”.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This is where your own notion becomes problematic. Is it merely the name “Jesus Christ” that is important or the reality behind the name?
Suppose someone claims to be following “Jesus Christ” but thinks that the person behind the name is an alien visitor from space who happened to come to Earth 2000 years ago, got himself embroiled in the political scene between Romans and Jews and was subsequently crucified. If that person then denied Jesus Christ was God in any sense of the word but merely an alien who taught worthy moral principles. Do you suppose, then, that this person “follows” Jesus Christ so he MUST BE a Christian? Period?
I suppose you could insist that he is, but that does not mean anyone else is under any compulsion to follow your example.
The entire point of following Jesus Christ is because of his being worthy of being followed – i.e., that he has the authority to make certain prescriptions and determinations with regard to human living because of WHO he is, the Second Person of the Godhead and it is that and THAT alone which makes following him the correct thing to do.
We have every reason to question when individuals or groups develop some alternative conceptualization of who Jesus was and then make claims that it is their conceptualization of him that is worthy of discipleship. Nah. The concept is not the reality and merely because the name Jesus Christ is applied to the concept does not make the referent worthy of acknowledgement and authority over us. In fact, such a view comes very close to using the divine name in vain by applying a name clearly reserved for God to a human-developed concept.
The name Jesus Christ derives from the name Yeshua (ישוע) a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (“Yehoshuah” – Joshua) which means “salvation” in Hebrew. The Christ is Ancient Greek for Χριστός, Christós, meaning “anointed” and is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ). These, together, are used as the title for one person, Jesus in the New Testament. Together, the two names refer to a specific role within a well-defined reality and to a specific person which means the two names can only be applied with respect to that reality, that role and how it was fulfilled by one and only one specific person in history.
Now you can go ahead and claim words and names can be freely applied by anyone to anyone they choose, as they choose, but that completely ignores the reality behind what the names signify. People can go around calling dogs “cats” and slugs “elephants,” if they choose, but that does not mean the rest of us need to take them very seriously. You can if you wish.
G
gazelam
Guest
Here’s my LDS 2 cents worth…
The answer to question #2 is yes.
Regarding question #1, I’m aware of two verses where Jesus tells us who His followers are:
John 13:35 (KJV) By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Matthew 7:20 (KJV) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I hope this helps…
H
Horton
Guest
The LDS love Matthew 7:20, somehow believing it is proof of their faith but in reality, when taken in context, it means something very different.
Matthew 7 15-23
False Prophets.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So by their fruits you will know them.
The True Disciple.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day,o ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.
K
kimg901
Guest
Scripture is not a bag of trail mix. You cant pick and choose what you want.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I thought I might offer a tiny bit here.
I am a LDS.
I consider myself Christian.
I consider myself a monotheist.
I am not radically opposed to the idea of a fourth monotheistic, a fourth Abrahamic, … religion as being an appropriate way of describing the CoJCoLDS from the outside, but that of course is not something we embrace. We might say that modern Christianity is a 2nd or 3rd Abrahamic religion and we are the restoration of the Abrahamic religion that was elucidated by Jesus Christ in Palestine (the same “religion” that Moses and all the ancient Patriarchs embraced albeit with a far better understood doctrine of Christ).
I find much effort expended to define the CoJCoLDS by those who are not member. Some effort in this vein is inevitable as thinking humans who take seriously the idea that there is a God who love all of us. Some of this effort IMO is driven by fear and other less than Christ like motivations.
I am of course guilty of such things too. The difficulty I have found making an air-tight case as to why I am right and other are wrong has given me pause. The frustration I feel when I see my faith presented in a way that is unflattering (be it unflattering through focus upon specific truths or unflattering through focus upon things that are less that truths), drives me to comment or at least think in a way less than Christ like.
Anyway, merry Christmas all!
Charity, TOm
I am a LDS.
I consider myself Christian.
I consider myself a monotheist.
I am not radically opposed to the idea of a fourth monotheistic, a fourth Abrahamic, … religion as being an appropriate way of describing the CoJCoLDS from the outside, but that of course is not something we embrace. We might say that modern Christianity is a 2nd or 3rd Abrahamic religion and we are the restoration of the Abrahamic religion that was elucidated by Jesus Christ in Palestine (the same “religion” that Moses and all the ancient Patriarchs embraced albeit with a far better understood doctrine of Christ).
I find much effort expended to define the CoJCoLDS by those who are not member. Some effort in this vein is inevitable as thinking humans who take seriously the idea that there is a God who love all of us. Some of this effort IMO is driven by fear and other less than Christ like motivations.
I am of course guilty of such things too. The difficulty I have found making an air-tight case as to why I am right and other are wrong has given me pause. The frustration I feel when I see my faith presented in a way that is unflattering (be it unflattering through focus upon specific truths or unflattering through focus upon things that are less that truths), drives me to comment or at least think in a way less than Christ like.
Anyway, merry Christmas all!
Charity, TOm
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I just can’t agree that Mormonism is monotheistic.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Considering a “Council of Gods” and “plurality of Gods” are canonized Mormon doctrine, I don’t know how anyone could make a claim that Mormonism is monotheist.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I think those are fine passages that describe discipleship, but that is not all that Jesus had to say about being a disciple.
A disciple must love Jesus even more than his immediate family. (Luke 14:26)
A disciple requires self-denial, complete dedication, willing obedience, and total commitment – even unto death (Luke 14:27)
A disciple surrenders everything for Jesus. (Luke 14:33)
A disciple loves others as Jesus has loved him. (John 13:34-35)
A disciple remains true to Jesus’ words and teachings. (John 8:31)
This last one is where the agreement or disagreement lies, when there are discussions about who is or is not a Christian. Obviously, at a Catholic forum the position is that the words and teachings of Jesus are preserved and handed on in the Church He established, and modifications to His words and teachings are either heresy or something entirely different.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The LDS teachings regarding the words and teachings of Jesus are so far removed from the Apostolic teachings, that the Catholic Church views Mormonism as a different religion than Christianity. Mormonism is not a heresy as heresy arrives at that point by varying from the teachings of the Apostles. Mormonism has never been at a point where Apostolic teachings existed in the religion. It is a religion that arose, in the 19th century. Not an offshoot of the same vine, such as mainline Protestantism, but a different vine altogether.
By this we can say, Mormonism is not a Christian religion.
That being said, there is in its adherents a true and strong desire to be disciples of Jesus. With that desire, and a strong belief in what they have been taught about Jesus, of course, LDS view themselves as Christians. Why wouldn’t they?
S
steido01
Guest
To continue visualizing the metaphor, Mormonism is like a winding weed that wraps itself around the strong vine, trying desperately to suck the life out of it. It’s a similar shade of green, and its leaves are a similar shape. If you don’t look closely, one could easily mistake it for the actual vine.
H
Horton
Guest
H
Horton
Guest
:clapping:To continue visualizing the metaphor, Mormonism is like a winding weed that wraps itself around the strong vine, trying desperately to suck the life out of it. It’s a similar shade of green, and its leaves are a similar shape. If you don’t look closely, one could easily mistake it for the actual vine.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I still find it confusing to understand what Mormons actually believe because of the constant changing of the presentation of their beliefs.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
And waking up this am, there are Mormons out there that give the impression that Christ is not fully God and left before He finished the job of establishing the true faith and His Church through the apostles and their successors.
‘I aint finished yet’…not 1800 years later with incomplete teaching and only now…with all the people between His time and ours, He wasn’t shepherding His flock.
‘I aint finished yet’…not 1800 years later with incomplete teaching and only now…with all the people between His time and ours, He wasn’t shepherding His flock.
- Status