are Mormons considered Christians?

[Fullsizesedan]

I have searched for a Magisterium statement that denies the title of Christian to LDS. I have not found any.

I have made a similar challenge to the one you put forth and received no responses.

I don’t think that you would ever find anything on it, because there wouldn’t be a point in the Church making a ruling one way or another on it. What would be the purpose to do so?

The issue of the validity of LDS baptism, on the other hand , has some relevance if the church needs to determine whether or not a particular marriage was sacramental or valid and whether or not it needs annulled. If it doesn’t need annulled and the parties are still together, a matrimony between converts from LDS can be done again conditionally, as well as conditional baptism as well.

Any determination from the Catholic Church court system would have to be on the baptism issue alone, I just couldn’t see what the point would be for a diocesan tribunal or the Roman Rota to rule on whether or not LDS is officially Christian or not.

 

[petra]

TOmNossor:

Eternal Progression yes. In that we may progress and become deified. This is binding doctrine. It included the possibility of “eternal increase.” But what “eternal increase” actually is, we do not have binding doctrinal statements on.

Eternal increase involves deification of man, as you stated.

God’s achieving Godhood through eternal progression however, is not binding. LDS must believe this though: “There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” (D&C 20:17).

This quote from the D&C reads like this God is unfamiliar, personally, to Mormons, i.e. “There is a God . . .” Perhaps this is not Elohim, who is the god of this world and the Mormon Heavently Father. If this is the case, the D&C acknowledges a great “unknown” god as the ancient Greeks did, and who preferred to worship lesser finite gods.

That Christ is no different than you and me is absolutely incorrect. Christ never sinned, never was not God. He was first born and pre-ordained to bring to pass the infinite atonement.

Catholics believe that Mary did not sin, but that does not make her God. The Mormon Jesus is not God eternal, but merely a spirit brother to Lucifer, you and I and who was chosen by God to be Savior and who was sinless. That does not make him God.

We believe that God created from eternal matter and eternal intelligences. We do not believe in the creator/creature dichotomy.

This is reflected in the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony (saintsalive.com/mormonism/temple_ritual.htm). The ceremony indicates that our world was not created, but rather “organized.” This truly reflects the fact that the Mormon God Elohim is a lesser god, not a prime mover, and not that which is referred to in D&C 20:17. Interesting to see in this ceremony that the trinity of organizers is Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. Where’s the Holy Spirit?

Eternal Progression: perhaps you would care to comment on my Catholic Deification thread:

A first read of CCC 460 is very disturbing to me. I find the language repugnant. While even the word “Christian” means “little Christ”, this does not mean we are divine. The distinction between Creator and creation is retained. It means we have qualities of Christ’s holiness infused into us. So I would not have a problem with language that we are “godlike”.

But the statement in CCC 460, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God,” is horrifying. The Catechism in general is so carefully written, it is difficult for me to believe that anything other than a plain reading is called for. Brendan’s explaination on the Catholic Deification thread seems a reasonable interpretation of 2 Peter 1:4. But the Catechism’s language excludes such interpretation. This poses a serious problem for me in being able to fully embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church. At best, the language muddies interpretation and facilitates mingling of heresies such as Mormon eternal progression. As JimG pointed out, part of Satan’s lie to Adam and Eve was that they would be like gods. It is an evil temptation.

 

[Pro_Iesu]

Mormonism is not christian

their baptisms and marriage are not valid like other denoms are.

Jehovah is a false derivation of Adonai

Yahweh or Jahweh is God’s proper name in hebrew

They beleive in multiple heavens, polygamy, continuing revelation, They beleive alcohol is evil and that Jesus was a drunkard

 from [www.Catholic.com](http://www.Catholic.com)

Jesus Wasn’t a Teetotaler

The ancient Jews were a temperate people—temperate used in the right sense. They used light wine as part of the regular diet (1 Tim. 3:8). Jesus, you will recall, was called a wine-drinker (Matt. 11:19), the charge being not that he drank, but that he drank too much (that, of course, was false, but the charge itself reflects the fact that he did drink alcoholic beverages, such as the wine that was required for use in the Jewish Passover seder).

The New Testament nowhere says the Jews claimed Jesus should have been a teetotaler. Wine was used also at weddings, and our Lord clearly approved of the practice of wine drinking since he made wine from water when the wine was depleted at Cana (John 2:1–11).

Something Mormons seldom refer to is wine’s medicinal uses (Luke 10:34). You will recall that Paul advised Timothy to take wine to ease stomach pains (1 Tim. 5:23). Such apostolic admonitions co-exist uneasily with Mormonism’s strictures against wine.

Mormons practice tithing, yet would be shocked to learn that in a key Old Testament passage where tithing (the practice of donating 10% of one’s income for religious use) is discussed, God says: “you shall turn [your tithe] into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen, or sheep, or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household” (Deut. 14:25-26). We’re also told, “Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more” (Prov. 31:6–7).

As is so often the case when founders of new religions get an idea into their heads, they take it to an extreme. So Joseph Smith confused the misuse of wine with its legitimate use. The Bible does condemn excessive drinking (1 Cor. 5:11; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Pet. 4:3), but the key here is the adjective “excessive.” This is why Paul says Church leaders must not be addicted to wine (1 Tim. 3:8).

When Hinckley refers to the “evils of alcohol,” he gets it wrong. Alcohol itself is not evil, but the misuse of it is, just as a hammer, which can be used to pound in nails, can be misused to pound in skulls.

Another thing Mormons will use words such as Trinity and Mother of God etc… with different meanings from the catholic and protestant meanings.

They also have various other practices that are more pagan than christian.

I suggest purchasing Beginning Apologetics 2 and 2.5 published by San Juan Catholic Seminars and they will tell you the stance of the church on mormanism and Jehovahs witnesses

Peace and God Bless

 

[TOmNossor]

[/color:

petra

]This quote from the D&C reads like this God is unfamiliar, personally, to Mormons, i.e. “There is a God . . .” Perhaps this is not Elohim, who is the god of this world and the Mormon Heavently Father. If this is the case, the D&C acknowledges a great “unknown” god as the ancient Greeks did, and who preferred to worship lesser finite gods.

In truth I had contemplated this interpretation in the past. I have never seen a LDS put forth this interpretation of this passage and I reject it. Perhaps someone might be able to show were a LDS has provided this interpretation of this passage, but I have never found it.
[/color:

petra

]

Catholics believe that Mary did not sin, but that does not make her God. The Mormon Jesus is not God eternal, but merely a spirit brother to Lucifer, you and I and who was chosen by God to be Savior and who was sinless. That does not make him God.

I maintain that it is the fact that Jesus Christ never separated from the Father, always knew and understood this truth, was foreordained to be God, carried out the infinite atonement (which required sinlessness), was the only begotten Son in the flesh, and …; that makes Jesus Christ wholly unique and God.

Also, Lactantius, a third century Christians apologist wrote in Divinac Institutines 11.9:

Before creating the world, God produced a spirit like himself replete with the virtues of the Father. Later He made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil. He was jealous of his older brother who, remaining united with the Father, insured his affection unto himself. This being who from good became bad is called devil by the Greeks.

The subordination of Jesus Christ to Heavenly Father was actually pre-Nicean orthodoxy.
[/color:

petra

]

A first read of CCC 460 is very disturbing to me. I find the language repugnant. While even the word “Christian” means “little Christ”, this does not mean we are divine. The distinction between Creator and creation is retained. It means we have qualities of Christ’s holiness infused into us. So I would not have a problem with language that we are “godlike”.

But the statement in CCC 460, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God,” is horrifying. The Catechism in general is so carefully written, it is difficult for me to believe that anything other than a plain reading is called for. Brendan’s explaination on the Catholic Deification thread seems a reasonable interpretation of 2 Peter 1:4. But the Catechism’s language excludes such interpretation. This poses a serious problem for me in being able to fully embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church. At best, the language muddies interpretation and facilitates mingling of heresies such as Mormon eternal progression. As JimG pointed out, part of Satan’s lie to Adam and Eve was that they would be like gods. It is an evil temptation.

TOm:

The CCC is not irreformable, but it does point to ideas Catholics should make room for. In fairness while I do not find any words in the Gospel Principles repugnant, on occasion I also wish different words would be used.

Anyway, I am sorry you do not like CCC460. I believe properly understood it is wonderful, but I will not cause any more stress.

Charity, TOm

 

[Monicathree]

Tom,

Boy oh boy do you have your hands full with all these detailed postings

I have to take things bit by bit in order for me to comprehend and remember what is being said, so if I seem to break things down too slowly, please bear with me…Here I go…

1. Tom, you said, to paraphrase: LDS do believe Jesus is the founder of the earth and all creation and Jehovah of the OT.

To be consistent with LDS theology, God the Father would be founder of the earth and all creation therein. Also, LDS, actually believe that God did not create the earth from nothing, but rather organized it from already existing matter.

1. Tom, you said, to paraphrase: The belief that God the Father was once a man…is not binding doctrine:

Your founding prophet, Joseph Smith himself, stated this, I believe in the Journal of Discourses or the King Follet Discourses, if you would like specifics, I understand and will most certainly get that for you.
So, this being said, when the prohet, JS, spoke about the nature of God is that not binding, and if not why not he is after all the prophet and is speaking on the nature of God, not just giving an opinion on worldly issues…?!?

Peace to you

 

[Fullsizesedan]

No doubt about it, everyone would agree with this. The church has ruled that there is insufficient common understanding of intent for LDS baptism to be considered valid, the same with the other LDS sacraments.

But there has never been any official Catholic labeling of LDS as ‘nonchristian’ , and I doubt that there ever would be. What would be the purpose of doing so, what possible good could come of it?

 

[Calvin]

Fullsizesedan:

But there has never been any official Catholic labeling of LDS as ‘nonchristian’ , and I doubt that there ever would be. What would be the purpose of doing so, what possible good could come of it?

“All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, #818

A) Those who have been justified by faith in Baptism have a right to be called Christians
B) The Mormon baptism is not a valid Baptism
C) Therefore Mormons do not have the right to be called Christians

Q.E.D.

-C

P.S. The foregoing was a Protestant attempt at Catholic theology and, as such, there is no promise of inerrancy.

 

[julietsmom]

1. No
2. Yes

 

[TOmNossor]

Monicathree:

Tom,

Boy oh boy do you have your hands full with all these detailed postings

I have to take things bit by bit in order for me to comprehend and remember what is being said, so if I seem to break things down too slowly, please bear with me…Here I go…

1. Tom, you said, to paraphrase: LDS do believe Jesus is the founder of the earth and all creation and Jehovah of the OT.

To be consistent with LDS theology, God the Father would be founder of the earth and all creation therein. Also, LDS, actually believe that God did not create the earth from nothing, but rather organized it from already existing matter.

TOm:

Around the turn of the century LDS began to be very consistent in the names they applied to Jesus Christ. LDS began to use Jehovah as for God the Son and Elohim for God the Father. Before this there was really no consistency in this practice. However, if I understand correctly it has been regularly taught that God the Son created the world.

Now we do believe that God created from eternal matter and eternal intelligence not creation ex nihilo. St. Justin Martyr in the early 2nd century also rejected creation ex nihilo. Gerard May a pr.

Monicathree:

1. Tom, you said, to paraphrase: The belief that God the Father was once a man…is not binding doctrine:

Your founding prophet, Joseph Smith himself, stated this, I believe in the Journal of Discourses or the King Follet Discourses, if you would like specifics, I understand and will most certainly get that for you.

So, this being said, when the prohet, JS, spoke about the nature of God is that not binding, and if not why not he is after all the prophet and is speaking on the nature of God, not just giving an opinion on worldly issues…?!?

Peace to you

When the Pope speaks on the nature of God is he just giving his opinion? The answer is yes unless he is speaking from the Chair of Peter and in agreement with tradition. (This assumes that the nature of God is associated with FAITH or morals).

I can give you examples of heretical Pope statements if you would like.

Now, I am not saying that Joseph Smith’s KFD is heretical because it is not. I am not saying that the KFD is untrue, but the current prophet has said that we do not know very much about this subject. So what I am saying is that the KFD is not canonized/excepted by common consent and therefore is not binding LDS doctrine.

Charity, TOm

 

[Monicathree]

Hey Tom,

1. Why would the first born spirit child of the Heavenly Father and Mother/s be the one to create the earth that they were given for their reward and eternal glory. That doesn’t make sense.
2. You said, " When the Pope speaks on the nature of God is he just giving his opinion? The answer is yes unless he is speaking from the Chair of Peter and in agreement with tradition. (This assumes that the nature of God is associated with FAITH or morals). I can give you examples of heretical Pope statements if you would like.

No Pope has, nor ever will claim to be a Prophet of God. Joseph Smith called himself seer, revelator, and prophet. There is a big difference here, Tom. JS claimed to receive direct private revelation from God. This is the man, the prophet, the one, according to your beliefs, to whom God chose to give the restored church. Why wouldn’t, when he spoke of the nature of God, saying this is how it is, why would anyone, be it the prophet and/or all of the church, not back that up…(as not to offend) do you think Joseph Smith was wrong??? Do you understand my logic here???

Peace

 

[TOmNossor]

Monicathree:

Hey Tom,

1. Why would the first born spirit child of the Heavenly Father and Mother/s be the one to create the earth that they were given for their reward and eternal glory. That doesn’t make sense.

I guess I do not see why this does not make.

Monicathree:

1. You said, " When the Pope speaks on the nature of God is he just giving his opinion? The answer is yes unless he is speaking from the Chair of Peter and in agreement with tradition. (This assumes that the nature of God is associated with FAITH or morals). I can give you examples of heretical Pope statements if you would like.

No Pope has, nor ever will claim to be a Prophet of God. Joseph Smith called himself seer, revelator, and prophet. There is a big difference here, Tom. JS claimed to receive direct private revelation from God. This is the man, the prophet, the one, according to your beliefs, to whom God chose to give the restored church. Why wouldn’t, when he spoke of the nature of God, saying this is how it is, why would anyone, be it the prophet and/or all of the church, not back that up…(as not to offend) do you think Joseph Smith was wrong??? Do you understand my logic here???

Peace

And no prophet will ever claim to be infallible. In fact, far from taking approximately 18.5 centuries to develop, the belief that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such was put forth by the Prophet Joseph within a decade of the forming of the church.

The D&C speaks of the acceptance by common consent of teachings. I would suggest that weaved through the D&C is the following truth concisely expressed by President Harold B. Lee-
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

So, what I suggest is the best test to know when the prophet is speaking as a prophet is the test of common consent. This test has been applied to a number of revelations. This test has been neglected and not preformed for a number of statements from the prophet.

If you expect Catholics and non-Catholics to evaluate the doctrine of infallibility with the caveats put forth during Vatican I, do you not think it fair that I expect you to evaluate the prophetic call with the caveats that have been witnessed by the CoJCoLDS from its earliest prophet?

Charity, TOm

 

[Monicathree]

Hey there Tom,

For my 1st issue, I will try to make this analogy and show you my logic here. Don’t have time tonight for the 2cnd…

Say you and your wife are faithful Mormons and receive your eternal salvation and godhood in the celestial kingdom…you would then be given a world of your own, and you would be able to create your own spirit children with her. Would it make sense for one of your spirit children to be the creator of that world?i.e. If Jesus, as you say, is to be the creator of this earth, this according to LDS theology, would be the case and does not make sense to me.

Peace to you

 

[TOmNossor]

Monicathree:

Hey there Tom,

For my 1st issue, I will try to make this analogy and show you my logic here. Don’t have time tonight for the 2cnd…

Say you and your wife are faithful Mormons and receive your eternal salvation and godhood in the celestial kingdom…you would then be given a world of your own, and you would be able to create your own spirit children with her. Would it make sense for one of your spirit children to be the creator of that world?i.e. If Jesus, as you say, is to be the creator of this earth, this according to LDS theology, would be the case and does not make sense to me.

Peace to you

I think I understand now.

Jesus Christ created the Earth under the direction of God the Father.

The spirit children were from God the Father. The first bodies the first spirits inhabited were created by God the Father and God the Son.

Anyway, Jesus Christ created this earth because it was the will of his Father.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

Jesus Christ created the Earth under the direction of God the Father.

The spirit children were from God the Father. The first bodies the first spirits inhabited were created by God the Father and God the Son.

Anyway, Jesus Christ created this earth because it was the will of his Father.

So you don’t affirm the “three persons, one essence” formula of the early Church?

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

So you don’t affirm the “three persons, one essence” formula of the early Church?

-C

Pre-Nicea there was virtually universal subordination of Jesus Christ to God the Father. LDS subordinate Jesus Christ to God the Father.
As the Nicene Creed was originally understood, I personally believe that LDS can subscribe to doctrine of homoousian.

As the Trinity developed post Nicea and moved ultimately to the Augustinian Trinity, the church moved away from what LDS generally do (and generally can) espouse.

Plantinga’s Social Trinity is a pretty good read on the CoJCoLDS Trinity in my opinion.

LDS believe that the Father and the Son each have a body of flesh and bones. The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit without a body. All three are God. There is only one God. To explain this the concept of the Social Trinity works quite well. Here is a link if you would like a great deal of detail.

http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

Charity, TOm

 

[wifeNmom.02]

Tom of Assisi:

If we could keep the thoughts here concise and coherent it would be great:

two questions:

1. are Mormans Christian?
2. do they consider themselves Christian?

I understand they do not believe in the Trinity, and therefore Christ’s divinity, so this would put them in the non-Christian camp, right?

God Bless

Hello, my mother and father in law are mormon, (husband…convert to catholicism ) and I must say they can be wonderful christians. So I must say yes. But, I do not agree with there philosophy… doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[jdobbins]

I just joined today (hello folks) so please forgive me for jumping in out of nowhere.
I do not accept LDS as Christians, in spite of the claim that they are. When the olympics were in SLC, Tom Brokaw interviewed the head of the Mormon church and asked if they are Christians. The reply was, “Of course. The name of our church proclaims us as the Church of Jesus Christ.’” Other Mormons I have heard say the same thing, using almost the same exact words. As to whether they think they are Christians, I’m not sure they can answer without a clear understanding of what being Christian means, and I do not think most Mormons have that. Most say yes because that is what they have been told.

However, Mormons have universally said and taught that if there was no Great Apostacy there would be no need for the Mormon Church, yet here is no evidence whatever for a Great Apostacy. Since the Catholic Church was started by and has existed without interruption since the time of Christ, and teaches about the nature of Christ as it always has, to be Christian one would have to have a concept of Christianity consistent with that of the Apostles, since all public revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle. If you look at the gospel of John to see what the early Church taught about Jesus, you see that the Mormon notion is inconsistent with a true Christian belief.

When you add to that the Mormon notion that God is not infinite, is not perfect, changes his mind to suit the political realities of the day, plus the notion that the Father has a flesh and bones body and had that before all of material creation (why?, one might ask. What did he stand on?), that he was subject to some council of Gods, that Jesus was not the Incarnate Word of God but became God after His life on earth, that he was perhaps responsible in some way for the creation of earth but not of the entire universe - in spite of John which says nothing that was made was made without Him, then you have a notion of Christ that is decidedly non-Christian. Mormon doctrine also implies we are not subject to God, and will be co-equal with Him after death, which makes Jesus’ discussions of hell meaningless. And if this is true, then prayer and worship have questionable meaning.

 

[jdobbins]

I just joined today (hello folks) so please forgive me for jumping in out of nowhere.
I do not accept LDS as Christians, in spite of the claim that they are. When the olympics were in SLC, Tom Brokaw interviewed the head of the Mormon church and asked if they are Christians. The reply was, “Of course. The name of our church proclaims us as the Church of Jesus Christ.’” Other Mormons I have heard say the same thing, using almost the same exact words. As to whether they think they are Christians, I’m not sure they can answer without a clear understanding of what being Christian means, and I do not think most Mormons have that. Most say yes because that is what they have been told.

However, Mormons have universally said and taught that if there was no Great Apostacy there would be no need for the Mormon Church, yet here is no evidence whatever for a Great Apostacy. Since the Catholic Church was started by and has existed without interruption since the time of Christ, and teaches about the nature of Christ as it always has, to be Christian one would have to have a concept of Christianity consistent with that of the Apostles, since all public revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle. If you look at the gospel of John to see what the early Church taught about Jesus, you see that the Mormon notion is inconsistent with a true Christian belief.

When you add to that the Mormon notion that God is not infinite, is not perfect, changes his mind to suit the political realities of the day, plus the notion that the Father has a flesh and bones body and had that before all of material creation (why?, one might ask. What did he stand on?), that he was subject to some council of Gods, that Jesus was not the Incarnate Word of God but became God after His life on earth, that he was perhaps responsible in some way for the creation of earth but not of the entire universe - in spite of John which says nothing that was made was made without Him, then you have a notion of Christ that is decidedly non-Christian. Mormon doctrine also implies we are not subject to God, and will be co-equal with Him after death, which makes Jesus’ discussions of hell meaningless. And if this is true, then prayer and worship have questionable meaning.

 

[darcee]

I spent 8 years in the LDS church including a “temple” marriage LDS temple endowments.

Lorenzo Snow a prophet of the LDS church was the one who coined the phrase “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become” You can read much more on the topic here exmormon.org/mormon/mormon140.htm Other teachers in the LDS Church have not been in complete accord with this teaching.

The whole concept of exaltation, becoming a god and thus allowing God, our Heavenly Father to be a god of gods is very central to the teachings of the LDS church.

Leaving the LDS church was hard. Mostly because the structure of the LDS church makes it very overwhelming to leave. There is a strong emotional disincentive to look at facts surrounding the LDS doctrine, the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the leaders of the church. And they don’t just let you go they keep tracking you down and trying to revert you. But the issues with the faith are overwhelming once one starts looking at them.

Books about the problematic teachings have been written about it and info on-line is very easy to find.

-D

 

[jdemelo]

1. No … different Jesus
2. Yes … they dont know they have a different Jesus