Is Mormonism Christian ?

[dianaiad]

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.

Oddly enough, I didn’t see ‘deliberate’ in there anywhere. Though I imagine that there was some of that, of course, I don’t imagine that it was all that wholesale a thing.

But…sincerity in ceasing to believe doesn’t make it any less apostasy, does it? After all, those folks to whom all those NT letters were written were, I’m certain, sincere in their flaky ways–that the apostles were writing to them about.

Martin Luther was apostate from Catholicism; do you really think he was deliberately deceiving people, or did he truly believe the stuff he taught?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Oddly enough, I didn’t see ‘deliberate’ in there anywhere. Though I imagine that there was some of that, of course, I don’t imagine that it was all that wholesale a thing.

But…sincerity in ceasing to believe doesn’t make it any less apostasy, does it? After all, those folks to whom all those NT letters were written were, I’m certain, sincere in their flaky ways–that the apostles were writing to them about.

Martin Luther was apostate from Catholicism; do you really think he was deliberately deceiving people, or did he truly believe the stuff he taught?

Still it has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of apostasy. No where does the definition include or imply anything of the sort. You create definitions as you please and then complain when people do the same. You have your definition of apostasy we don’t agree, we have our definition of Christian you don’t agree.

Claiming authority you don’t have is different than believing you have authority you don’t have. The first is deception the second is delusional, for lack of a better word.

 

[look3467]

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 prophesied falling away be?>>>mfbukowki

The point of the verse is the revelation of the man of sin. That there, could not be, can not be or will not be a revelation unless the falling away first come.

How can revelation come, and from what is there to fall away from?

It is any structured belief that blinds, clouds or keeps the participant from seeing the man of sin.
For the Jewish leaders, the Mosaic law and its many rules and regulations kept them from seeing the sin man, the one who would take away the sins of the world.

For the Roman soldiers, and all non Jewish peoples, the world’s governments, which were and are non religious structures that must give up, fall away, from their structured beliefs in order to see the man of sin also.

“That day” is an on going thing. It happens to each one of us when we discover Jesus, the an of sin, who taketh away the sins of the world.

When Jesus said, “I am” prior to His arrest they all fell backwards as He identified Himself, revealed Himself as the man of sin. A picture of what takes place.

Now, for the part which is controversial is who is the son of perdition?

Perdition = in some religions, the state of everlasting punishment in hell that sinners endure after death.

Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Psa 86:13 For great [is] thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.
Isa 14:9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

The state of everlasting death as punishment is perdition and in which was the state of mankind prior to Christ.

In order for Christ to deliver mankind from that state, He must have become the only one lost, liberating mankind.

The problem with mankind is in not identifying Jesus as their savior, or identifying God as their Savior.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

If we look at an object within a big picture, we define that object without the whole pictures theme.

Likewise, verses in the bible can not be defined correctly without seeing the theme of the whole picture in the bible.

We quote scriptures that seem to define themselves apart from what they are meant to be, simply because we do not see the theme of the whole bible.

Some Examples are, the “falling a ways”, Baptisms, of which when looked at in light of the whole bible will reveal a spiritual message.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Bill_Pick]

If we look at an object within a big picture, we define that object without the whole pictures theme.

Likewise, verses in the bible can not be defined correctly without seeing the theme of the whole picture in the bible.

We quote scriptures that seem to define themselves apart from what they are meant to be, simply because we do not see the theme of the whole bible.

Some Examples are, the “falling a ways”, Baptisms, of which when looked at in light of the whole bible will reveal a spiritual message.

Peace>>>AJ

Joseph Smith taught that there are many gods with bodies made up of flesh and bone like man. He also taught that the gods were once mortal men. "I will preach on the plurality of gods…many men say there is one God…the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us…that is pertaining to us.
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.”
(Teachings of the Prophet, Joseph Smith 1974 pp. 345-346 & 370-372)
Brigham Young taught: “How many gods there are I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not gods and worlds.”

Smith, supposedly a true prophet from God, and one who would not lie nor be deceived in what he taught, teaches that there are many gods and one of them has been assigned by the council of the gods to be the god of this earth. It is with this God that mankind must deal. This means that when Christians meet with Mormons to offer up a prayer to God the Father, all in the group are not praying to the same God! . Smith’s doctrine on the plurality of gods and their materiality directly contradicts the Bible of the Christians. One of the great revelations of the Old Testament religion given to mankind is that there is only one, true God and no one else besides Him, and that He is entirely without matter, totally invisible.

 

[dianaiad]

Still it has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of apostasy. No where does the definition include or imply anything of the sort. You create definitions as you please and then complain when people do the same. You have your definition of apostasy we don’t agree, we have our definition of Christian you don’t agree.

Claiming authority you don’t have is different than believing you have authority you don’t have. The first is deception the second is delusional, for lack of a better word.

I use the dictionary definition for both; I’m not the one who inserted ‘deliberate’ and ‘deceit’ in there.

 

[look3467]

Smith, supposedly a true prophet from God, and one who would not lie nor be deceived in what he taught, teaches that there are many gods and one of them has been assigned by the council of the gods to be the god of this earth. It is with this God that mankind must deal. This means that when Christians meet with Mormons to offer up a prayer to God the Father, all in the group are not praying to the same God! . Smith’s doctrine on the plurality of gods and their materiality directly contradicts the Bible of the Christians. One of the great revelations of the Old Testament religion given to mankind is that there is only one, true God and no one else besides Him, and that He is entirely without matter, totally invisible.>>>Bill Pick

A modern day prophet is not the same as the old testament prophets in that the old predicted events yet to come, which were fulfilled with Jesus.

Prophesying today is the same as, at least to my understanding, is declaring Gods wonderful works of which the foundation f it has alreay been laid.

To build another foundation upon that which is already laid will not stand.
So, our mission as believers is to declare (Prophecie)what has already been laid, a foundation laid by Jesus on which we may stand on, a sure foundation that can not be moved but will last for ever.

Said all that to make the point that we can not win converts by attacking their religious beliefs.

If our beliefs are of a true nature, then our testimony will testify of (Either or) which it is, Godly or of mankind’s.

There are different denominations which have some off the wall practices, I mean that kindly, but does not negate the work of Christ in saving their souls by purchasing them.

You see, the big picture is hat God saves mankind and not the other way around.

If God does the saving, than it matters not what mankind does.

That is not to say that we have no responsibility to ourselves to discover that bit of good news, for we do.

The rebirth experience is in the discovery of the gift of salvation of which many are kept from enjoying it because of mankind’s blinders.

Hence, love, Godly Love exercised by us is all that is required of us, and we should leave the battle to the spiritual realm which is the Holy Spirit working to convert the hearts of mankind.

“Come out of her” is a call from the Holy Spirit to hearts which are bound in mankind’s convoluted practices and beliefs.

To save some from the grips of hell(Worldly lusts, desires and entrapments) is to give them the information by our demostration which can save them, and that being the Love Of Christ.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[dianaiad]

A modern day prophet is not the same as the old testament prophets in that the old predicted events yet to come, which were fulfilled with Jesus.

Prophesying today is the same as, at least to my understanding, is declaring Gods wonderful works of which the foundation f it has alreay been laid.

Not all of the words of the OT prophets were predictions. In fact, most of them were histories and instructions from God to those people who were alive and paying attention at the time.

Therefore, you are demanding that God, Who has never BEEN silent, should be silent now in order to be God?

How much sense does that make?

Consider all the words of scripture that we have in the NT; direct words of Christ as reported to us by those who knew Him (His apostles) followed by a history of the acts of the apostles–as they received revelation for those people who were living at the time, followed by letters from apostles to congregations who were in need of guidance. All of this is scripture, written by prophets; leaders of the church who were being given direct revelation regarding that church.

This was all happening for quite a few decades after Christ was crucified and arose from the dead. Come to think of it, nobody wrote a single word of scripture before His death and resurrection.

So all we have of Him we have because revelation continued after His death, resurrection AND ascension…

Where does it say, anywhere, that it would stop and there would be no more?

I submit that the very warnings against false prophets is proof that there was supposed to be continuing revelation; why warn against falsity if there wasn’t supposed to be truth?

Wouldn’t it make more sense just to say “don’t pay any attention to anybody, because their ain’t gonna be any more?”

But nobody wrote that. Hmmn…

So…it stopped. I think everybody pretty much agrees on that one. The question is, why?

Your claim seems to be that there was no more need of it.
Ours is that there was this apostasy–and nobody was actually listening.

The side you come down on is one of the determining factors as to what religion you belong to.

 

[seekdatruth]

Come to think of it, nobody wrote a single word of scripture before His death and resurrection.

I hope by “scripture” you mean Jesus’s Gospel, there was a great deal of scripture written long before Christ’s time on earth. He referenced it many times, as did the authors of the Gospel books.

So all we have of Him we have because revelation continued after His death, resurrection AND ascension…

Where does it say, anywhere, that it would stop and there would be no more?

I submit that the very warnings against false prophets is proof that there was supposed to be continuing revelation; why warn against falsity if there wasn’t supposed to be truth?

It’s not the supposed presence of prophets that is raising a red flag here, it’s the fruit the prophets bear that is in question.

Wouldn’t it make more sense just to say “don’t pay any attention to anybody, because their ain’t gonna be any more?”

But nobody wrote that. Hmmn…

Galatians 1:6 (Thanks, Arandur! ):
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ, but even if we or an angel (some translations “messenger”) from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!”

Your claim seems to be that there was no more need of it.
Ours is that there was this apostasy–and nobody was actually listening.

The side you come down on is one of the determining factors as to what religion you belong to.

You know, Diana, I kind of agree with Mormons on this one point. There has been a long time where *few *have listened, or when those that have heard are rejected by others. To say that the Catholic Church does not accept revelations since the time of the apostles is not true. We have canonized saints whom have had visions, and the Catholic Church has accepted them as from God or his messengers, Mary apparently being his favorite messenger. Someone is always listening in the Church. And I can even agree that the Church has strayed in the past; but to say God ever abandoned us, or we him entirely, isn’t true.
So our saints are not really saints unless they are Catholic? Someone help me out here, but don’t we also have some saints that were not “Catholics” in practice? I’ve never heard you can only be a saint if you are Catholic by creed. We have not however, had anyone try to add on new gospels that I’m aware of. Hence the red flag on the BOM. For some reason we don’t call our saints prophets though. The interesting difference I see in LDS prophets and the prophets of the Bible, is that modern prophets are treated like celebs. They are accepted fully and without question by the LDS. Prophets of old were rarely recognized as such in their own time, and were usually viewed as just a crazy old man outside the temple that no one listened to, until years later something they said suddenly rang true.
I admit, red flags alone are not enough to convince everyone that a religion is false. When I explore the why and how these redl flags hold true on the LDS Church, I can’t help but see it as such.
Truly, it’s hard to doubt one’s own religion when it “just feels right”, and debate only makes a person more entrenched in their original view point, (Carlos said that on “The Office”, but it’s so true! LOL!<–and no, a TV isn’t my reference for my religious beliefs, just where I heard something true about debates!) So it’s pointless to try and reach you with my mediocre debate skills. I admit, I am no theologian either. I can only make simple observations and hope it helps others as it has helped me. Just a note though: I still have some hangups at times over the Catholic Church’s teachings, or at least the method by which things are taught. I have no personal stake in trying to convert you or other LDS, and I have no personal beef with you. I just gotta say what I believe is true. God bless!

 

[dianaiad]

I hope by “scripture” you mean Jesus’s Gospel, there was a great deal of scripture written long before Christ’s time on earth. He referenced it many times, as did the authors of the Gospel books.

Well, yes. That was rather sloppy of me. My apologies.

It’s not the supposed presence of prophets that is raising a red flag here, it’s the fruit the prophets bear that is in question.

The same thing applies: if there were to be no more prophets or revelation, then there would not need to be a warning against false ones–whether the question is that they exist at all or the ‘fruit’ they produce.

Galatians 1:6 (Thanks, Arandur! ):
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ, but even if we or an angel (some translations “messenger”) from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!”

Yes, that one is fun, isn’t it? Thank you for posting that. It is a very good example of what I was talking about; that the apostles and prophets of the NT were writing to the local congregations to fight apostasy that was already happening.

You know, Diana, I kind of agree with Mormons on this one point. There has been a long time where *few *have listened, or when those that have heard are rejected by others. To say that the Catholic Church does not accept revelations since the time of the apostles is not true. We have canonized saints whom have had visions, and the Catholic Church has accepted them as from God or his messengers, Mary apparently being his favorite messenger. Someone is always listening in the Church.

The problem is, prophets who receive revelation, and write it down, are writing scripture. That’s the definition OF scripture; the Word of God as written down by men who are speaking His words.

The two go together and cannot be separated; I honestly do not see how they can be. So, if a saint is canonized by the church, why aren’t his (or her) writings accepted AS scripture? Because if they really did receive revelation, then their reports of it are indeed that; scripture. Just like that which was written by Peter, or Paul, or.???

 

[seekdatruth]

The same thing applies: if there were to be no more prophets or revelation, then there would not need to be a warning against false ones–whether the question is that they exist at all or the ‘fruit’ they produce.
I’m saying we still have prophets. I don’t think the Catholic Church really says we don’t in a real sense, except maybe by a definition.

Yes, that one is fun, isn’t it? Thank you for posting that. It is a very good example of what I was talking about; that the apostles and prophets of the NT were writing to the local congregations to fight apostasy that was already happening.
So by your very words, you just said the BOM ia apostasy? What?

The problem is, prophets who receive revelation, and write it down, are writing scripture. That’s the definition OF scripture; the Word of God as written down by men who are speaking His words.
All the OT prophets could write?? This is news to me. How many were widely accepted in their own time? Now that is a question. But by focusing on “scripture” you are loosing sight of the real point here: The Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is what Paul was referring to, not just any scripture written by a prophet, or wait, is Jesus just a prophet to the LDS? :ehh:
I hear the BOM referred to as another gospel of Jesus Christ. If someone is writing down the words of Christ, it is irrelevant as to whether or not that person is a prophet in this case. (There was no need for a prophet when Christ was walking the earth.) The problem is that it is another *Gospel *after we were warned not to accept any more.

The two go together and cannot be separated; I honestly do not see how they can be. So, if a saint is canonized by the church, why aren’t his (or her) writings accepted AS scripture? Because if they really did receive revelation, then their reports of it are indeed that; scripture. Just like that which was written by Peter, or Paul, or.???

I’m not sure why, by definition, it is not called “scripture”. But it is however, accepted as a story and the Catholic Church teaches it, which is basically what the Bible is, a bunch of books different people had written about God, and the Church accepted them around 325AD as correctly representing what they believed up to that time. The ancient books were collected and put together in a big book we call The Bible, and copies distributed throughout Christendom as THE reference for Christ’s church. Gospel, on the other hand, ended with Jesus and the apostles who wrote down his words. A new Gospel would be suspect due to 1:6 Galations.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m not sure why, by definition, it is not called “scripture”. But it is however, accepted as a story and the Catholic Church teaches it, which is basically what the Bible is, a bunch of books different people had written about God, and the Church accepted them around 325AD as correctly representing what they believed up to that time. The ancient books were collected and put together in a big book we call The Bible, and copies distributed throughout Christendom as THE reference for Christ’s church. Gospel, on the other hand, ended with Jesus and the apostles who wrote down his words. A new Gospel would be suspect due to 1:6 Galations.

The Council at Nicea in 325 AD was called in regards to the heresy of Arius and it had nothing to do with the canon of scripture.

The canon was set at Council of Rome in (382), Council of Hippo (393),
Council of Carthage (397), and affirmed by Pope Innocent I (405).

 

[MDK]

And Could Smith Have A True Prophet From God ? And If Yes, Why

No.

 

[seekdatruth]

The Council at Nicea in 325 AD was called in regards to the heresy of Arius and it had nothing to do with the canon of scripture.

The canon was set at Council of Rome in (382), Council of Hippo (393),
Council of Carthage (397), and affirmed by Pope Innocent I (405).

I stand corrected on date. :bowdown2: At least I had the right century!

 

[seekdatruth]

“O Truth, you are present to those who seek your help…. You respond clearly. But not everyone hears clearly… do not always hear the answer they wish. Your best servant is he who is intent not so much on hearing his petition answered, as rather on willing whatever he hears from you.”

• St. Augustine
  Thanks, MDK! I love that quote!

 

[jmcrae]

And Could Smith Have A True Prophet From God ? And If Yes, Why

In the sense that it is a Christian heresy, it is Christian.

Being a heresy, it has elements that are true, and elements that are false. As it happens, Mormonism has a greater quantity of false teachings than most of the other Christian heresies - certainly, they have more false teachings than the sets of Christian heresies that fall into the categories of “mainstream Protestantism” and “Evangelicalism”.

It is best, however, to avoid heresy altogether, and be a Catholic.

 

[1holycatholic]

I stand corrected on date. :bowdown2: At least I had the right century!

I’m familiar with it because many outside the Church claim the deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent, when in fact they were merely reaffirmed at Trent (and other Councils before Trent.)

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

The same thing applies: if there were to be no more prophets or revelation, then there would not need to be a warning against false ones–whether the question is that they exist at all or the ‘fruit’ they produce.

seekdatruth:

I’m saying we still have prophets. I don’t think the Catholic Church really says we don’t in a real sense, except maybe by a definition.

dianaiad:

Yes, that one is fun, isn’t it? Thank you for posting that. It is a very good example of what I was talking about; that the apostles and prophets of the NT were writing to the local congregations to fight apostasy that was already happening.

seekdatruth:

So by your very words, you just said the BOM ia apostasy? What?

How do you figure that? Remember, our claim was that there was an apostasy, and that the fullness of the gospel needed to be restored by divine means. The Book of Mormon is part of that restoration.

dianaiad:

he problem is, prophets who receive revelation, and write it down, are writing scripture. That’s the definition OF scripture; the Word of God as written down by men who are speaking His words.

seekdatruth:

All the OT prophets could write??

Evidently. At least those whose words we have. That seems to be, y’know, self evident.

seekdatruth:

This is news to me. How many were widely accepted in their own time? Now that is a question.

Well, Moses was, and Joshua, Nathan, Abraham, Isaac, Isaiah…in fact, I’d say most of 'em were. Except perhaps Noah and Jonah, but they were rather different…

seekdatruth:

But by focusing on “scripture” you are loosing sight of the real point here: The Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is what Paul was referring to, not just any scripture written by a prophet, or wait, is Jesus just a prophet to the LDS?

Nope. We believe He is the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second member of the GodHead; fully God.

You do bring up an interesting point with Paul, by the way. If there is any more perfect example of a prophet I don’t know what is. You realize that he never met Jesus in the flesh, right? The only way he knew of Him was through revelation, and some pretty dramatic revelation at that, yes? Yet he was an apostle, and one of the more important ones. His words are considered scripture.

seekdatruth:

I hear the BOM referred to as another gospel of Jesus Christ. If someone is writing down the words of Christ, it is irrelevant as to whether or not that person is a prophet in this case. (There was no need for a prophet when Christ was walking the earth.) The problem is that it is another Gospel after we were warned not to accept any more.

(grin) Actually, we claim that it is ‘another testament of Christ,’ not ‘another gospel.’ If it is ‘another gospel,’ it is one in the same way that Matthew is one gospel of Christ, and Luke is “another” one. but nice equivocation. I haven’t heard that one before.

dianaiad:

The two go together and cannot be separated; I honestly do not see how they can be. So, if a saint is canonized by the church, why aren’t his (or her) writings accepted AS scripture? Because if they really did receive revelation, then their reports of it are indeed that; scripture. Just like that which was written by Peter, or Paul, or.???

I’m not sure why, by definition, it is not called “scripture”. But it is

however, accepted as a story and the Catholic Church teaches it, which is basically what the Bible is, a bunch of books different people had written about God, and the Church accepted them around 325AD as correctly representing what they believed up to that time. The ancient books were collected and put together in a big book we call The Bible, and copies distributed throughout Christendom as THE reference for Christ’s church. Gospel, on the other hand, ended with Jesus and the apostles who wrote down his words. A new Gospel would be suspect due to 1:6 Galations.

Well, I addressed the problem of using ‘gospel’ the way you have earlier in the post.

As to the question of ‘why it’s not called scripture,’ the answer of “I don’t know” isn’t quite sufficient. There is a reason…and I would like a Catholic who knows to let me know what the church says it is.

 

[1holycatholic]

Nope. We believe He is the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second member of the GodHead; fully God.

One in being with the Father?

You do bring up an interesting point with Paul, by the way. If there is any more perfect example of a prophet I don’t know what is. You realize that he never met Jesus in the flesh, right?

Paul received Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.

 

[dianaiad]

One in being with the Father?

Nope. We believe that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all God…but entirely separate Beings; one in purpose, but definitely not the same Being.

Paul received Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.

So, from what I understand of Catholic doctrine, does every Catholic who has ever partaken of the Eucharist. I don’t see them having a revelation that quite literally knocks them off their…donkey… and writing scripture that gets compiled into the bible.

Paul was different; an apostle, accepted as such by the other apostles and by the members of the church.