https://www.quora.com/What-do-Protestants-and-Catholics-think-of-Mormons/answer/James-Hough-1

  • Thread starter Thread starter lokisuperfan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The term “Gods” when used in that way is simply referring to Elohim and Jesus.
 
lokisuperfan said:
It doesn’t really matter.
Click to expand...
It would seem to matter that a “false gospel” was preached and adhered to within a church if you take these words seriously:
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16: 18-19
 
lokisuperfan said:
The term “Gods” when used in that way is simply referring to Elohim and Jesus.
Click to expand...
No. Mormons are literally not monotheists. People can become Gods proper in nature in Mormonism. God himself has a Father who created him, and so on in an eternal cycle. God is not the principle origin of all reality in Mormonism, just another being among other like beings, like a genus with multiple members.
 
Last edited:
lokisuperfan said:
The term “Gods” when used in that way is simply referring to Elohim and Jesus.
Click to expand...
Whether or not that is true, and I don’t believe that it is, it sounds like you’re admitting that you were wrong and that Mormonites believe in a plurality of Gods.
 
The BoM does teach that God cursed the Lamanites by making their skin dark/black. (RE: 2 Nephi 5)

Now if that is not racist in people’s mind, I don’t know what to say
 
Last edited:
Reading gold plates out of a hat…twice,
And the spaceman underwear.
I want to know more about those…please I’m genuinely interested!
 
It’s not reading gold plate out of a hat…
It’s looking at a stone in a hat and saying it was how he translated gold plates.
That fact (stone in a hat) came out officially just a few years ago. When I was Mormon, the story was he looked thru a device called the Urim and Thumin (sp?) at the gold plates and translated them with someone acting as scribe.

No mention of sticking his head in a hat and staring at a stone . :roll_eyes:
 
ChristMyLife said:
Every religious demographer would agree with me.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t 🙂 Admittedly, I don’t have my PhD in “religious demographics” (yet), but I am quite the expert. (Take my word for it!)

Qualifications aside, I think the term “protestantism” is best reserved for those forms of Christianity that are either historically derived from the “great” protestant movements of the reformation, or if they aren’t, are at least theologically similar to them.

LDS and the JWs really don’t meet these criteria, and neither do the Rastafarians. Yet they all worship Christ and acknowledge the NT as scripture, so they meet the broader definition of “Christians” that you gave in your earlier (and very good) post. So I’d say there is a 4th category in addition to Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant.

The distinction between the fourth category and the protestants isn’t meaningless: they really are quite different, while the similarities among different forms of protestantism are quite strong.
 
Last edited:
lokisuperfan said:
Mormonism was founded in a time of racial prejudice, so that explains the racist rules regarding blacks gaining priesthood. But I’ve read through the Mormon Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price, and not one of them says to do anything but treat everyone as an equal within the church, so it was probably something one of the priests made up and no one ever thought to fact check it. And Joseph Smith wouldn’t have started it, because he was from the North, which was highly against slavery.
Click to expand...
Key words there ^^^ . I think you should do some “fact checking” in your organization.
 
Roguish said:
So I’d say there is a 4th category in addition to Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant.
Click to expand...
Neo-Christian?

Fringe Christianity?

Pseudo-Christianity?

Neo-Christian sounds nice and seems the most charitable.
 
Last edited:
Salmonslayer said:
Pseudo Christian
Click to expand...
How about “peripheral Christianity.”

Then we’re acknowledging them to be on the far out boundaries of Christianity, but not uncharitably labeling them “false Christians.”

And I don’t mean theologically uncharitable, I mean ecumenically uncharitable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top