Is Mormonism Christian ?

[RebeccaJ]

Nobody does that, nor is it possible.

Those people were already confused. They don’t need our help to be more confused. How many religions have you joined in your life? They all have joined at least two. Could that be a sign of confusion?

Says the cradle Catholic turned atheist turned mormon.

Perhaps you are blind to the fact that all conversation about mormonism eventually devolves to ignoring the facts and focusing on former mormons and how just oh so messed up we are.

Sorry to bust your all former mormons are lost bubble. I am not confused. I am Catholic. And I thank you for not questioning the level of my faith or commitment to it.

That it took a while to get to where I am, and that I made it at all, is in my view a miracle. A gift of Grace that you or any other mormon can’t diminish or remove with your pop psychology and personal attacks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Uhm…Rebecca?

I’m not attacking the Catholic faith. You are attacking the Mormon faith, the Mormons, and me.

Therefore your comments are a bit incongruous.

uhm, Diana. Stop pretending to be so confused. You attacked me personally. The reasons are clear. Mormons seek to silence those who speak out against your lies. You are taught to believe that God has left me in the dark. When the truth is, Mormonism leaves you in the dark. All of you.

Attacking Mormonism? You better believe it. I will speak out against those lies until the day I die. And people like you will seek to silence me.

 

[1holycatholic]

uhm, Diana. Stop pretending to be so confused. You attacked me personally. The reasons are clear. Mormons seek to silence those who speak out against your lies. You are taught to believe that God has left me in the dark. When the truth is, Mormonism leaves you in the dark. All of you.

Attacking Mormonism? You better believe it. I will speak out against those lies until the day I die. And people like you will seek to silence me.

 

[dianaiad]

Jesus wants you to repent and be baptized.

Yep. Did that. Still doing that… (the repenting part)

The words of the first Pope straight from a book proceeding from the Catholic Church.

You should become Catholic.

I once thought that, should I ever come to believe that the CoJCoLDS was not true, that I would become atheist–because if it isn’t true, then nothing is.

I have since changed my mind. Should I ever discover that the CoJCoLDS is not ‘true,’ then Catholicism would probably be the first choice of alternatives.

I couldn’t become atheist, anyway. (shrug)

However, after all this time, and having dealt with some of the things that have turned others away from the church (and realizing that the actions of the members of a belief system who break its rules do not disprove the truthfulness of that belief system) I can safely say that I’m LDS to the bone and the spirit.

 

[dianaiad]

uhm, Diana. Stop pretending to be so confused. You attacked me personally. The reasons are clear. Mormons seek to silence those who speak out against your lies. You are taught to believe that God has left me in the dark. When the truth is, Mormonism leaves you in the dark. All of you.

Attacking Mormonism? You better believe it. I will speak out against those lies until the day I die. And people like you will seek to silence me.

Rebecca, I wasn’t confused. I was reminding you of something rather important. I have never once attacked you personally. In fact, I believe the word ‘projection’ is appropriate here, as is proven in your second paragraph.You have attacked me, and my faith, constantly. “Ad Hominem” is one of your favorite tactics.

I have not once attacked Catholic doctrine or the level of your faith or criticized it. Come to think of it, the only time I chimed in on the matter of any Catholic doctrine, it was in DEFENSE against erroneous attacks upon it.

I have not sought ‘to silence [you]’ …unless you believe that someone who disagrees with you and actually says so is ‘seeking to silence’ you. Be my guest; talk and write as much as you wish, because your writing argues my points better than anything I could ever say or do.

 

[dianaiad]

WHAT is 'relativism?"

 

[jake23]

Of course. I have been LDS for 30 years. It has been the subject of books and books discussion and threads. The papyri are not “translations”. They were catalysts for revelations. Their literal contents are directly relevant to our temple ceremonies which we don’t discuss. That is why we don’t go around attacking back on this distortion. If you become a member of our church and attend the temple, you will see what the papyri literally point to.

If you are really interested, this will get you started:
en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham_papyri

This is also an excellent site for anyone interested in the controversial distortions that people make about Mormonism.

I just happend by this thread and don’t really have time to discuss this further at this time, but go ahead and use that site all you like obviously.

Wow! Truely brain washed! I am sorry to hear that you refuse to hear the truth. A pray one day you take God seriouse enough to open your eyes and your heart!

 

[Arandur]

As well, just from a practical standpoint, you have to examine your motives for criticizing another belief system; if you want to bring someone to truth, then you show them truth–and don’t worry about whatever untruth you think THEY believe. You’ll probably get it wrong anyway.

There’s often quite a bit of overlap. I’m not sure what you mean by “you’ll probably get it wrong anyway,” but when dealing with Protestants, for instance, showing them the truth that the Church was founded with an authoritative priesthood, that the Scriptures tell us to follow the apostolic office and tradition, overlaps quite a bit with refuting sola scriptura.

Likewise, showing the Truth of the Church by explaining some of the tremendously deep evidences and truths of Christ’s promises to the Church, how it was instituted, and that it is a part of him, overlaps quite a bit with opposing any heresy (and particularly ideas of a great apostasy).

So, often, “showing the truth” just happens to refute the opposition. We show the truth of a particular matter that someone disagrees with the Church about–for why would we spend time showing the truth of something we agree on, unless we’re just studying together?

That is, they are unless the religion they convert TO is Mormonism. My point is that this ‘ex-’ phenomenon simply is not found there. Period. When someone converts TO Mormonism, they are encouraged to remember the truth they found in their old faith, because it was real truth…and to be grateful that they were taught that. They are strongly DISCOURAGED from dwelling on the wrongs that may have been done them, and encouraged to keep relationships strong–and to not make snarky comments about them.

You have too generous a view of your converts. I’ve heard from ex-Catholic Mormons directly, second hand, and even through www.mormonapologetics.org discussions bashing Catholicism freely, distorting it through the very misunderstandings or personal grievances that caused them to leave it.

(and realizing that the actions of the members of a belief system who break its rules do not disprove the truthfulness of that belief system)

This is interesting. In my experience, Mormons use a variation of the opposite of this to claim support for the great apostasy and the loss of priesthood authority. I have even heard the opposite (that the actions of members can or do break the truth or authority of the belief system) applied to individual priests within the Smithian groups (yes, I have experience with Mormons, RLDS/CoC, Remnant branches, and Restorationists) to say that those priests do not validly perform ordinances.

If you believe what you said you do, what’s your other argument for the great apostasy?

 

[look3467]

Another way to look at this ‘falling away’ is that possibly the Church began to break apart - first East/West but more particularly, (especially where people began to self interpret and teach so many erroneous doctrines), at the reformation, and what has stemmed from that point.

All I can tell you is that I feel blessed beyond words to have been led by the Spirit to the Catholic Church. Especially grateful her Sacraments, and most importantly the Holy Eucharist.

God bless,
Tami

A side note on “falling away”.2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Except the Mosaic law falls away, meaning unless the Jewish nation falls away from their Mosaic belief, that day, shall not come to them until the man of sin (The one condemned shall be the only one that perishes) be revealed to them.

That day did come, the day Jesus was crucified, and the falling away is pictured by Jesus’ apostles and the Romans soldiers when they came to arrest Jesus. (The apostles scattered)

Joh 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

The wall around Jesus is also a picture of the seated religious government, mainly the high priests: Eze 43:8 In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger.

They were all consumed, in mine anger is a way of speaking, by God whose love is an all consuming fire.

Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Not a physical fire, but a fire that burns in the hearts of mankind as God pricks at the heart.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Arandur]

Rebecca, I understand your bitterness and those of ex-Mormons to the LDS church. I do think Dianaiad has a point in that you let it go a bit far and get too personal. It’s understandable and forgivable.

Dianaiad, I have appreciated some of your qualifications and what respect you have for the Catholic Church. I don’t agree with many of your characterizations and less with your arguments, but do recognize the hurt and sensitivity of ex-Mormons. It’s something we Catholics must try to be respectful of among ex-Catholics.

Regarding the OP and some of the more recent statements people have made about Mormonism and Christianity, what really makes the situation dubious from a Catholic standpoint is the method of your baptism, which stems from a very different belief in the godhead.

Yes, I agree, there are many similarities we share (since JS wanted to re-create an authority aside from the Bible ), but the real disparity is a huge one. Mormons do not believe that Jesus was God. You believe in multiple gods, and the possibility of achieving full deification (not just being elevated to co-heir status and sharing in the kingdom). This appears to most other Christians as a regression into polytheism, and one of an especially prideful brand (most polytheists didn’t think they could become gods).

From that belief comes your lack of Trinitarian baptism. We believe that that Baptism is the true initiation point of Christianity, and that was prescribed pretty clearly in Matthew 28:19 as being Trinitarian (you must be reborn under the proper name of your new family, hence “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”).

This leads to the conclusion that in the Scriptural and true sense of the word, Mormons are not Christian. In the wider, cultural definition of Christian, yes, Mormons are Christian, because the culture can make no distinction upon that appellation. The cultural definition must recognize even someone who philosophically admires and tries to follow the teachings of Christ, while rejecting any idea that there even is a God much less that Christ was divine.

 

[tundramom]

…and what does “Christian” actually MEAN?

It’s a label. A classification of belief. When it was first used, it was a pejorative–and a classification of belief.

It does not mean ‘saved.’
It does not mean ‘correct.’

It simply means “someone whose religious system is based around Jesus the Christ.”

That’s it.

Any other ‘add on’ is committing a ‘true Scott’ fallacy, and is the reason for wars, persecution and all sorts of other mayhem.

You know it and I know it.

You are Catholic.
I am Mormon.

We both base our religious ideas around a certain Jesus the Christ, and that makes us Christian, by definition.

One of us has more religious truth than the other–which one is which depends upon who you ask.

Now, if you ask 'which is RIGHT?" well, that’s an entirely different question.

The answer to THAT one, of course, is…well, “the one I belong to.”

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

 

[mfbukowski]

A side note on “falling away”.2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Except the Mosaic law falls away, meaning unless the Jewish nation falls away from their Mosaic belief, that day, shall not come to them until the man of sin (The one condemned shall be the only one that perishes) be revealed to them.

That day did come, the day Jesus was crucified, and the falling away is pictured by Jesus’ apostles and the Romans soldiers when they came to arrest Jesus. (The apostles scattered)

I really really really do not want to get into a discussion of the apostasy here. I have been through that, many many times and my conclusion for those who care, is that neither Catholics nor Mormons can “prove” or “disprove” that an apostasy occurred.

But since you brought up this scripture, I was curious why you brought it up. It is a classical scripture Mormons use to show that the apostasy was inevitable.

You seem to say that it applies to the Roman soldiers arresting Jesus and the apostles scattering.

The only problem is that it is in Thessalonians which was written by Paul much after the crucifixion, so could not be about what you are mentioning since it is in future tense and written after the crucifixion.

So again, I don’t want to get into the apostasy, just your interpretation of this scripture.

Do you want to take a second shot on what it describes? What is the Catholic belief about this scripture? When will the prophecied falling away be?

Anybody? Just curious, honestly.

 

[1holycatholic]

However, after all this time, and having dealt with some of the things that have turned others away from the church (and realizing that the actions of the members of a belief system who break its rules do not disprove the truthfulness of that belief system) I can safely say that I’m LDS to the bone and the spirit.

What are those things?

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Mormon Church in the ordinary sense cannot be classified as Christian unless one wanted to twist the term until it did not mean anything anymore.

There are certain basics to true Christianity such as the One God, the Trinity, Creation, Jesus Christ, Redemption and Resurrection doctrines which one will find among Eastern Christians and the Western as well. Mormonism has brought into Christianity elements that come from another source.

. Actually when one begins a study of the history and doctrines of Mormonism, the presupposition is that Mormonism is a unified system of doctrine. But in fact it is a hybrid of so many aspects, some from Christianity, some from the fantasy of Joseph Smith, and some aspects directly contrary to Christianity (pre-existence of souls, polygamy, a divine curse on the Negro).

I must also alert the reader to a fact that I only painfully discovered in my discussions with Mormon missionaries. The missionaries use the same terminology as Christians do but with a different meaning entirely. For example: The Mormon will say Jesus is “Lord”. So would the true Christian. Yet to the LDS this statement means that Jesus is just one of many lords or gods and not the one, true, incarnated God of orthodox Christianity.

 

[peary]

Despite Mormons insisting that they are Christians, the sad fact is that they are not. They may hold to some Christian beliefs but their baptisms are not valid.

 

[1holycatholic]

I really really really do not want to get into a discussion of the apostasy here. I have been through that, many many times and my conclusion for those who care, is that neither Catholics nor Mormons can “prove” or “disprove” that an apostasy occurred.

But since you brought up this scripture, I was curious why you brought it up. It is a classical scripture Mormons use to show that the apostasy was inevitable.

You seem to say that it applies to the Roman soldiers arresting Jesus and the apostles scattering.

The only problem is that it is in Thessalonians which was written by Paul much after the crucifixion, so could not be about what you are mentioning since it is in future tense and written after the crucifixion.

So again, I don’t want to get into the apostasy, just your interpretation of this scripture.

Do you want to take a second shot on what it describes? What is the Catholic belief about this scripture? When will the prophecied falling away be?

Anybody? Just curious, honestly.

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church. You honor the authority of the Catholic Church every time you refer to it. Why are you the authoritative interpreter of something that proceeds from the Catholic Church?

 

[Arandur]

I really really really do not want to get into a discussion of the apostasy here. I have been through that, many many times and my conclusion for those who care, is that neither Catholics nor Mormons can “prove” or “disprove” that an apostasy occurred.

We’re on touchy ground if you don’t want to get into apostasy theory .

I recognize that a lot of rehashing goes on whenever apostasy theory is brought up, but I haven’t found a Mormon yet that hasn’t seen something new in the discussions I’ve taken part in.

Further, I don’t think it really needs to be argued. The “great apostasy” is a proposition that relies on a stream of pretty plain argumentative fallacies, thus inherently illustrating its falsehood. The only thing left, after the logical fallacies break down every argument, is an appeal to God, one that relies in trust in a single man (Joseph Smith) and runs contrary to many things and direct statements from Christ revealed in Scripture (much more evidence comes from history).

Consider:
The Smithian argument assuming loss of “continuing revelation”…And similar statements that assume your interpretation of “continuing revelation” is necessary. This is circular reasoning.

The Smithian argument that Scripture tells of “fallings away,” and history reveals (from ECFs and elsewhere) that heresies did indeed happen–Smithians concluding that it must have been total. The problem is that arguments that demonstrate disputes among groups about proper teachings, as well as those that warn of false teachings and falling away, cannot be interpreted as meaning a total apostasy unless they say so. This is a non sequiter variously involving the more specific argumentative fallacies of generalization, assumptions from small numbers, selective observation/reading, extended analogy, leas plausible hypothesis, and probably others.

Unfortunately, most Mormon arguments for the Great Apostasy rely heavily (if not exclusively) on these argumentative fallacies or the fallacy of appeal to widespread belief (misinterpreted beliefs of the Protestants).

Do you want to take a second shot on what it describes? What is the Catholic belief about this scripture? When will the prophecied falling away be?

Anybody? Just curious, honestly

Didn’t he just give an explanation of the scripture in question? See above about extrapolating to “total” apostasies. In the absence of such language, almost any apostasy will do. And of course, Smith’s sects have splintered, as well, illustrating that if the LDS church wants to justify its continued existence, it must use an argument similar to that which the Catholic Church uses. The big difference is that then the LDS position defeats itself in favor of that of the Catholic Church.

 

[dianaiad]

There’s often quite a bit of overlap. I’m not sure what you mean by “you’ll probably get it wrong anyway,” but when dealing with Protestants, for instance, showing them the truth that the Church was founded with an authoritative priesthood, that the Scriptures tell us to follow the apostolic office and tradition, overlaps quite a bit with refuting sola scriptura.

Likewise, showing the Truth of the Church by explaining some of the tremendously deep evidences and truths of Christ’s promises to the Church, how it was instituted, and that it is a part of him, overlaps quite a bit with opposing any heresy (and particularly ideas of a great apostasy).

So, often, “showing the truth” just happens to refute the opposition. We show the truth of a particular matter that someone disagrees with the Church about–for why would we spend time showing the truth of something we agree on, unless we’re just studying together?

You have too generous a view of your converts. I’ve heard from ex-Catholic Mormons directly, second hand, and even through www.mormonapologetics.org discussions bashing Catholicism freely, distorting it through the very misunderstandings or personal grievances that caused them to leave it.

This is interesting. In my experience, Mormons use a variation of the opposite of this to claim support for the great apostasy and the loss of priesthood authority. I have even heard the opposite (that the actions of members can or do break the truth or authority of the belief system) applied to individual priests within the Smithian groups (yes, I have experience with Mormons, RLDS/CoC, Remnant branches, and Restorationists) to say that those priests do not validly perform ordinances.

If you believe what you said you do, what’s your other argument for the great apostasy?

Your claim is that the priesthood authority is unbroken from the beginning. At the same time you claim that baptisms need not be performed by someone who has that authority, which is interesting.

Our claim is that the authority to perform such ordinances is vital…and that it was lost: it was lost because too many people were falling away from the belief system–and changing it.

There is a difference between breaking the rules of an established system–and changing the system to justify new actions.

Frankly, as I look at history, the amazing thing to me isn’t that there was an apostasy; it is that so much of the clear and blessed truth of the gospel remained.

People have free will; God will not abrogate that, even if it means that we, individually and in huge groups, lose truth as a result. After all, isn’t that what happened with the Israelites under Moses? As soon as he went up the mountain…boom…they start worshiping golden calves…and look what sort of evidence THEY had!

So a couple of hundred years of persecution and regrouping, losing the apostles and breaking that chain, we have stuff like the Johaninne comma, which is an addition that some over zealous monks added to 1 John, and a few other things, both missing and added.

So how does He deal with that? You believe that He did it by keeping the priesthood authority here through a millennium and a half of human history, upheavals, wars, divisions (Including at least one area during which you had…HOW many popes at one time?) and so forth. That’s one take.

The other one is that all this human choosing resulted in the loss of the priesthood authority, and that it needed divine restoration. One of us is right.

The question isn’t whether God could have done either one: of course He could have. The question is, which did He do?

 

[dianaiad]

We’re on touchy ground if you don’t want to get into apostasy theory .

I recognize that a lot of rehashing goes on whenever apostasy theory is brought up, but I haven’t found a Mormon yet that hasn’t seen something new in the discussions I’ve taken part in.

Further, I don’t think it really needs to be argued. The “great apostasy” is a proposition that relies on a stream of pretty plain argumentative fallacies, thus inherently illustrating its falsehood. The only thing left, after the logical fallacies break down every argument, is an appeal to God, one that relies in trust in a single man (Joseph Smith) and runs contrary to many things and direct statements from Christ revealed in Scripture (much more evidence comes from history).

The Smithian argument assuming loss of “continuing revelation”…And similar statements that assume your interpretation of “continuing revelation” is necessary. This is circular reasoning.

There is no ‘assumption of loss’ here. It stopped. Revelation would result in more scripture being written; isn’t that what scripture IS, after all–the recording of revelation by those who receive it? So if there was no more scripture being written, then either there was no more revelation being received–or nobody thought it was important enough to write down. Either one seems problematic to me.

My argument isn’t that it is necessary…my argument is that continuing revelation was going on after the death and resurrection of Jesus; it’s why we have scripture telling us about Him at all. My question is…since there was continued revelation, then…why did it STOP?

Where in the scriptures, anywhere at all, does it say that such revelation as produced scripture would stop?

If there is no such mention, no such promise–then why did it? WE claim that it stopped, not because it was supposed to, but rather because people no longer listened to it or wrote it down. The apostasy.

As to whether it was necessary, well–it was evidently necessary at the time; look how much of it was written to combat apostasy already going on. So what happened? People suddenly stopped going off into doctrinal tangents?

I don’t think so.

The Smithian argument that Scripture tells of “fallings away,” and history reveals (from ECFs and elsewhere) that heresies did indeed happen–Smithians concluding that it must have been total.

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

The problem is that arguments that demonstrate disputes among groups about proper teachings, as well as those that warn of false teachings and falling away, cannot be interpreted as meaning a total apostasy unless they say so. This is a non sequiter variously involving the more specific argumentative fallacies of generalization, assumptions from small numbers, selective observation/reading, extended analogy, leas plausible hypothesis, and probably others.

Unfortunately, most Mormon arguments for the Great Apostasy rely heavily (if not exclusively) on these argumentative fallacies or the fallacy of appeal to widespread belief (misinterpreted beliefs of the Protestants).

Didn’t he just give an explanation of the scripture in question? See above about extrapolating to “total” apostasies. In the absence of such language, almost any apostasy will do. And of course, Smith’s sects have splintered, as well, illustrating that if the LDS church wants to justify its continued existence, it must use an argument similar to that which the Catholic Church uses. The big difference is that then the LDS position defeats itself in favor of that of the Catholic Church.

Now that’s a circular argument; our claim isn’t that all truth was lost, or that the church suddenly stopped teaching the gospel at all. “Many plain and precious things” being lost does not equal “everything,” no matter how much you want to claim it does.

But we do claim that the priesthood was lost; that authority to perform ordinances and to receive the sort of revelation that results in scripture.

Whether or not it is official Catholic doctrine that no further revelation occurred after the last apostle died is not something I can speak to. It is pretty obvious that the Catholic church hasn’t canonized any such revelation as scripture…and that is sort of an important point: revelation written down is scripture, by definition. That causes a problem for any claim that revelation did NOT cease.

So…did it, or didn’t it, and if it did, why? Where does it say anywhere that it would?

 

[1holycatholic]

Your claim is that the priesthood authority is unbroken from the beginning. At the same time you claim that baptisms need not be performed by someone who has that authority, which is interesting.

Our claim is that the authority to perform such ordinances is vital…and that it was lost: it was lost because too many people were falling away from the belief system–and changing it.

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