Is Mormonism Christian ?

[dianaiad]

There you go hijacking another term from us. You do remember the old primary song, “I’m a Mormon”, right? You do remember particularly in the 70’s the call of SWK to differentiate yourselves from all others, right? You do remember GBH talking about the “other Christ” he served, right?

Would you like to into a comparison on what the CATHOLIC Jesus is? Or would you like to tell us all exactly WHAT the characteristics of the jesus you are taught in the LDS church?

We can do that. We’ve all done it before. You know how HUGE those differences are.

Can’t we all just get along? Can’t you just be a Mormon and leave the term Christian to those who indeed are?

in Christ
Steph

Because, Steph, we are Christians. We are also Mormons. You are Christians. You are also Catholics.

I’m not asking you to abandon your conviction that you are Christian, even though we disagree with each other on some of our ideas about Him.

…and think about it: if we are correct about Him (as we obviously believe we are) then you are not correct about Him. Under your view of what “Christian” means, wouldn’t that make US the Christians, and you…not?

Yet we, who obviously think we are right and you are wrong, do not deny you the right to call yourselves Christians–because you, like us, have faith in Christ as you believe Him to be. We certainly don’t think He loves you any less.

…and really; come the judgment day, which position would you rather be in; the one where Christ looks at you and says: “here is someone that you treated as a fellow Christian, fellowshipped, aided and taught, worked beside and helped the best you could: he is not Mine, thoug you did the best you could; well done, my good and faithful servant.”

Or…

“here is a soul who, because you would not treat him as a fellow Christian, nor even allow him to call himself by my blessed Name, turned away from the truth and is lost…because of you, he is not mine; and neither are you.”

Here’s the thing, Steph:

Christ said stuff like ‘turn the other cheek,’ and ‘forgive your enemy seventy times seven’ and to be very careful of unrighteous judgment. I can think of nothing more unrighteous than to take upon yourself the decision of who is Christian and who is not–especially if to you “Christian” means “he who is Christ’s” or “he who is saved” or even “he who believes nothing but the truth about Christ.”

 

[Paul_G]

There were hundreds of settlements in Illinois, only five others had charters.
So what? we are talking about cites not settlements. Nauvoo became the largest city in Illinois. Special rights were given to the Saints to help protect them. However, it appears to have been more of focal point for contention with its neighbours.

The powers given to the city were such that they could create laws that were in direct conflict with state and US Constitution. Essentially, they were federated. Also unique was that the city was granted the ability to build a militia, which militia also had the same powers as the city council, to create laws.

Are you saying that they decided, “hey everyone is going in the tank why don’t we as well”. There was a banking crash in 1837 that started in New York city and spread west. It wasn’t solely responsible but it was a contributing factor.

What you, and most Mormons fail to recognize, is that it was not a bank. It never had a legal charter.

We know it was not a bank a charter was applied for but refused.There was no attempt at doing something which they knew to be illegal,

It was nothing but an illegal front that Smith and Rigdon were using to raise cash.

This is a simplistic polemic. It was hoped that the KSS would help LDS with their cash problems as most of their assets where in land. But very little cash for purchases. Joseph smith put more money in this endeavour than anyone except one. He came out of it with $100,000.00 debt and much in the way of legal matters as a result. Furthermore Joseph Smith continued to make good on his debts resulting form the KSS right up to the time of his death.

Let alone the dodging of the point that Smith claimed he received a prophecy, that his bank would be the greatest in the country. A failed prophecy, which is a sure sign that the person claiming to be a prophet, is no such thing.

Perhaps you could give us the record of it. As far as I know Joseph Smith did not claim to have received any prophecy about this.

Paul

 

[1holycatholic]

Because, Steph, we are Christians. We are also Mormons. You are Christians. You are also Catholics.

Mormons are not Christians. Merely saying that they are doesn’t make it so.

 

[Paul_G]

Sorry your religion has been proved a fraud. I reckon I’d be a bit upset, too.

I suppose when a person feels they don’t need to communicate what those proofs might be, I suppose it leaves one free to say anything thing they want. That’s ok, but it’s not very interesting.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

Once the last Apostle died, all prophecies ended. I only mention that because of St.John and Revelation.

In reality and as a matter of logic, especially for Christians or those who profess (or imagine) themselves Christians, there are no more prophets, since their purpose had been fulfilled!

All who claim to be prophets or lauded as prophets since Christ, are…delluded.

The same kind of language is in the Old Testament, does that mean the New Testament is invalid?

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

:sad_yes:
This does not mean that all Mormons are terrible people. It does not mean that there will not be any Mormons in Heaven.

Is that for you to say?

But, it does mean that Mormons are not Christian, because Christian=validly baptized.

Again give me a scriptural definition of what makes a person a Christian

Paul

 

[mfbukowski]

Didn’t he just give an explanation of the scripture in question? See above about extrapolating to “total” apostasies. .

Did you read my post at all?
I guess not.

He said the falling away was when Jesus was crucified.

That is not possible

The prophecy is from Thessalonians which was written AFTER the crucifixion, and it even then refers to a FUTURE event.

Get it now? Quit blowing smoke and answer the question.

 

[1holycatholic]

Again give me a scriptural definition of what makes a person a Christian

Regardless of whether it is in the Bible or not, why should someone have to show you from the Bible?

 

[Paul_G]

Regardless of whether it is in the Bible or not, why should someone have to show you from the Bible?

What other sources would you accept?

Paul

 

[1holycatholic]

What other sources would you accept?

Paul

That doesn’t answer the question.

 

[tundramom]

Because, Steph, we are Christians. We are also Mormons. You are Christians. You are also Catholics.

I’m not asking you to abandon your conviction that you are Christian, even though we disagree with each other on some of our ideas about Him.

…and think about it: if we are correct about Him (as we obviously believe we are) then you are not correct about Him. Under your view of what “Christian” means, wouldn’t that make US the Christians, and you…not?

Yet we, who obviously think we are right and you are wrong, do not deny you the right to call yourselves Christians–because you, like us, have faith in Christ as you believe Him to be. We certainly don’t think He loves you any less.

…and really; come the judgment day, which position would you rather be in; the one where Christ looks at you and says: “here is someone that you treated as a fellow Christian, fellowshipped, aided and taught, worked beside and helped the best you could: he is not Mine, thoug you did the best you could; well done, my good and faithful servant.”

Or…

“here is a soul who, because you would not treat him as a fellow Christian, nor even allow him to call himself by my blessed Name, turned away from the truth and is lost…because of you, he is not mine; and neither are you.”

Here’s the thing, Steph:

Christ said stuff like ‘turn the other cheek,’ and ‘forgive your enemy seventy times seven’ and to be very careful of unrighteous judgment. I can think of nothing more unrighteous than to take upon yourself the decision of who is Christian and who is not–especially if to you “Christian” means “he who is Christ’s” or “he who is saved” or even “he who believes nothing but the truth about Christ.”

Here’s the real thing dianiad.

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ’I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I pray that I am NOT on that “side”. You see I don’t profess to “know” anything that is not written in the Word of God and taught by the apostolic succession of the seat of Peter.

in Christ
Steph

 

[dianaiad]

I can accept that, personally. I’m not asking you to accept us as one of yours, or to accept our baptisms. After all, we don’t accept yours.

We are not Catholics. We are not Protestants. We are LDS–and inasmuch as our belief systems are all about Jesus the Christ, then we are Christians. If you want to describe that as “cultural,” hey, that works. I have been describing “Christian” as a classification of belief and a dictionary definition, not as a divine stamp of approval. For THAT…only Christ has any say.

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

Mormons are not Christians. Merely saying that they are doesn’t make it so.

And merely saying that they are not doesn’t make that so, either. Doesn’t the FACT that so many Christians deny YOU the right to call yourselves that ring any warning chimes about who may, and who may not, decide what ‘Christian’ means?

 

[dianaiad]

Regardless of whether it is in the Bible or not, why should someone have to show you from the Bible?

Because that is the source that most of those who deny us the right to be Christians insist that we use when we make any claims about doctrine at all.

Something about double standards would apply here, I believe.

 

[dianaiad]

Please show us in the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers where baptism need be performed by a priest as you describe.

Well…given that Jesus Himself was baptized by John–who had that authority, and given that Jesus made rather a point of conferring ‘the keys of the kingdom’ upon Peter so that whatever he sealed on earth would be sealed in heaven…that sort of follows.

It seemed to be rather important to Him.

 

[dianaiad]

That doesn’t answer the question.

Perhaps not. It DOES, however, ask for clarification of the question. Do you have a problem with such things?

 

[dianaiad]

Here’s the real thing dianiad.

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ’I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I pray that I am NOT on that “side”. You see I don’t profess to “know” anything that is not written in the Word of God and taught by the apostolic succession of the seat of Peter.

in Christ
Steph

That’s fine, Steph. You believe as you wish. The problem isn’t with what you believe to be true. The problem is that you are condemning others simply because they don’t believe the same things you do, consigning them to judgment–and that, m’friend, is a problem for you.

You are not expected to accept the views of others, or their beliefs. I would certainly be the last to do so. Considering yourself as somehow more righteous, better, more accepted by Christ ("Christian’) than others because their beliefs are different?

That could be a problem.

As well, there is that whole “He whom one would persecute must first be made ‘other’.” thing.

Catholics should know this by now: you have been on the receiving end of it often enough yourselves. Before fundamentalist evangelistic protestant types can justify their attacks upon Catholicism, or justify their cruelest remarks, their discrimination, or physical action taken against you, the first step is ALWAYS to declare you ‘not Christian.’ It’s the first red flag flown by the anti.

In fact, history tells us that this is the first thing that the Catholics did, too, whenever they went after a heretic group.

Step one: kick 'em out of the “Christian” club–excommunicate them, declare them ‘not one of us.’
Step two…pretty much anything they wanted to do became acceptable; after all, “they” are not like “us,” are they?

And I’m quite certain that Christ loves that sort of thing, doesn’t He? (no sarcasm smilies…just picture one and consider it posted)

 

[zaffiroborant]

Concerning dictionary definitions…

Not total. None of us argue that. What we DO argue is that the priesthood authority was lost.

The above is not the real, true, definitive dictionary definition of apostasy, if you want to insist on the dictionary.

 

[dianaiad]

Concerning dictionary definitions…

The above is not the real, true, definitive dictionary definition of apostasy, if you want to insist on the dictionary.

It is 1. Abandonment or renunciation of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance.

Oddly enough, I would call claiming to have priesthood authority when one does not an ‘abandonment’ of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance.

Now I realize that Catholics do not believe that this happened. You can’t, not and remain Catholics…and that’s fine. However, we do believe that this happened, and so does every single Protestant that exists on the planet–and who you still consider to be Christian.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It is 1. Abandonment or renunciation of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance.

Oddly enough, I would call claiming to have priesthood authority when one does not an ‘abandonment’ of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance.

.

Oh ya that’s a stretch. And I guess you are saying they deliberately deceived people by claiming a priesthood they knew they didn’t have. This is a new understanding of the apostasy. It was intentional deception.