Is Mormonism Christian ?

[Arandur]

I agree that it’s a very engaging thread. I do have a comment – well, half a dozen comments, actually.

Firstly, the formal name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints. This Church is undeniably Christian in name since it publicly identifies itself with the founder of Christianity in its chosen nomenclature.

Secondly, membership of the Church of Jesus Christ entails discipline (which word shares the same root as the word disciple). Is it not the case that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints are required not to smoke, drink alcohol, or wrongfully use drugs? Isn’t this the kind of lifestyle that one would expect of a Christian? One might even go so far as to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints produces good fruit.

Thirdly, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints are very intense about evangelism. There‘s no mistaking their enthusiasm and their commitment in this area. They send out their evangelists in pairs to knock on people’s doors, which method originated with Jesus (cf. Mark 6:7). Stand up the person who hasn’t had one of these home visits.

Fourthly, the historical record shows that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints have frequently been persecuted for standing up and declaring what they believe. Quite recently, for example, they took a stand against gay marriage.

Fifthly, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints assert that their beliefs are frequently misrepresented.

Sixthly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints has experienced schisms, splits and disagreements.

I submit that most Christians whatever their doctrinal stance will be able to identify with all of the above characteristics. It appears, then, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints shares at least some common ground with Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

So, doctrinal differences aside, I guess I’m inclined toward the notion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints is indeed Christian.

Ecumenically,
Mick

Interesting approach. I made the distinction before between the cultural definition of Christian (which applies to Mormons), and the baptismal Christian (which they aren’t).

You know, Arians, Nestorians, Gnostics, Masons, Marcionites can claim most of those criteria at one point or another in their history…And Islam can claim all but the first.

 

[seekdatruth]

bukowski, surely you know that the Catholic Church teaches that prophets exist. Still. Today. Prophecy is a special gift of grace. Not a position.

Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. He is our Prophet, our High Priest, our King.

Those with the gift of prophecy use it for the good of the church. You know very well that the Church recognizes prophetic events, such as Fatima.

A false prophet teaches counter to what Jesus taught. Say, that His Church would need to be restored. When He clearly promised otherwise.

I like this, Rebecca. Good point. Why did Christ die and be resurrected if it was all for naught? Where in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John did it say anything about a restoration? Where in the OT did it say that? If everyone has been totally in the dark for this long, it seems as if it would be a pretty significant event and revealed to ALL the writers of Jesus’s gospel, not just the ones in North America.
Whoever asked the question about where the supposed scripture of modern-day LDS prophets is, GOOD QUESTION!
So, how come my husband’s all-in-one missionary copies of the KJV, BOM, and the Pearl of Great Price don’t include revelations of today’s prophets attached in new books or testaments?

 

[seekdatruth]

Are being drug-free, chaste, and family-oriented the only criteria considered upon reaching the Gates of Heaven?

 

[mfbukowski]

Prophets (Church approved private revelationsl)…yes, St Augustine is on the list.

In case you need the definitions:

Public Revelation: All prophecies that pertain to the Salvation of mankind. This includes the OT prophets, the Apostles and Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Perfect Revelation regarding our Salvation. For this reason, public Revelation is not necessary, as Jesus Revealed all that the Church needs to bring people to Salvation.

Private revelation: St Thomas Aquinas said “not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts”. Thus, private revelation is given by the grace of God to individuals. Such revelations are for the benefit and direction of the individual and are not binding on the Church.

Certainly, we can and do find private revelations beneficial. However, they add nothing to what Christ Himself Revealed.

The list above are prophets who received private revelation.

The Church does not accept any prophecy that adds to or takes away from what Jesus Revealed. These are in fact the sort of prophecies that fall under the category: against the gospel that has been taught to you.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God"** (1 John 4:1).**

Interesting. I don’t know if put it together that way.

I think that the distinction between private and public revelation is a confusion however. Take Fatima as an example. Little children received that “revelation”, not the head of the church.

Why would God reveal important information to little children as opposed to the Pope? One would think that this would be out of the proper order.

And Augustine also believed that unbaptized babies go to Hell and strongly implied that the Eucharist was symbolic. If he was a prophet, would he have done that?

I think ultimately from a personal point of view, private revelation is all we have to go on. You would not believe that Catholicsm was true if you did not have a private revelation. How do you know that Augustine was mistaken or that Fatima was true if not for private revelation?

To me, what you call “public revelation” should be “private revelation” made in proper order to the head of the church, who is a prophet, and then who publicizes that revelation and then that revelation is canonized by the church, and then verified by each individual by their own private revelation. In other words, in order to the leadership of the church and then to the members.

An example of that would be the revelation on work for the dead given to Joseph F. Smith in 1918. scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138 and described as follows:

A vision, given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918. In his opening address at the eighty-ninth Semiannual General Conference of the Church, on October 4, 1918, President Smith declared that he had received several divine communications during the previous months. One of these, concerning the Savior’s visit to the spirits of the dead while his body was in the tomb, he had received the previous day. It was written immediately following the close of the conference; on October 31, 1918, it was submitted to the counselors in the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch, and it was unanimously accepted by them.

This revelation was originally a private revelation to the president of the church, then presented at a conference and accepted as canon by the membership of the church.

And each of us have the opportunity to verify the veracity of the revelation by privately praying and receiving our own personal revelation that this is a true revelation from God.

This is quite different that little children having a vision and then the church examining it and deciding if it was true, and then dictating to the membership through the magesterium that it was true.

I hope I have not misunderstood your postion, but that is my understanding of how it works in your church

And I think that our way is much closer to the scripture you quoted. We are to individually test revelations, not through the magesterium.

 

[SSTeacher]

Interesting approach. I made the distinction before between the cultural definition of Christian (which applies to Mormons), and the baptismal Christian (which they aren’t).

You know, Arians, Nestorians, Gnostics, Masons, Marcionites can claim most of those criteria at one point or another in their history…And Islam can claim all but the first.

Yes, you’re quite right.

I must confess that I feel no particular urge to defend Mormonism but I’m not anti–Mormon, either. For example, I’ve never laid awake at night worrying about the fact that Mormons call themselves Christians. I wanted to subscribe to the thread, though, and as I came to this website within the process of inquiring into the truth claims of the Catholic Church I simply alighted on some obvious common ground in order to gauge the tone of the Catholic response to it.

I appreciate your controlled and civilized comment.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[seekdatruth]

OOPS forget all the nice things I said. I goofed about you.

This is not what we believe and appears to be an intentional distortion.

Ski,
Love easily gained is easily lost. <—don’t know where that came from, but it seems to apply here. Ah well, through Christ, I love you always.
OK, so it’s not what you believe. PLEASE, PLEASE EXPLAIN!! I always ask and never get an answer. It’s like playing a game with my toddler who is crying:
“What’s wrong, Honey?”
“MMMWWWWAAAA!!!”
“Did you stub your toe?”
“NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!”
“Did you bite your tongue?”
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!”
“Did the kitty hurt your feelings?”
“That’s silly, Mom!”
“What IS it then?”
MMMMMWWWWWAAAAA!!!"
When we are offered nothing, we are left to putting the pieces together from what the disenfranchised say, or from reading the BOM apparently without the correct Holy Spirit interpreting for us… SCHOOL ME!!! Not in how to defeat someone with verbal karate, but about about your *actual *beliefs.
Is it just too embarrassing to share with those of us who haven’t spent a lot of money for the temple card, and so probably don’t want to turn back just because we would have made it thus far? Prejudices are one thing, seeing something that concerns one based on something we were warned about by the most supreme teacher (Jesus Christ) or his prophets, is another story.

 

[mfbukowski]

Answered on the middle and end of page 18. In short: “continuing revelation” is not what you think it is.

On a personal note, I hate having to repeat my arguments but if you want to make your point you often have to.

Not likely I will look this up, to be honest. I read it once and it didn’t impress me so I am not likely to go back to find what I already discounted. Just a personal note. You have to be persistent on these boards, or just not care. I personally vacillate between these two!

 

[seekdatruth]

Interesting. I don’t know if put it together that way.

I think that the distinction between private and public revelation is a confusion however. Take Fatima as an example. Little children received that “revelation”, not the head of the church.

Why would God reveal important information to little children as opposed to the Pope? One would think that this would be out of the proper order.

And Augustine also believed that unbaptized babies go to Hell and strongly implied that the Eucharist was symbolic. If he was a prophet, would he have done that?

I think ultimately from a personal point of view, private revelation is all we have to go on. You would not believe that Catholicsm was true if you did not have a private revelation. How do you know that Augustine was mistaken or that Fatima was true if not for private revelation?

To me, what you call “public revelation” should be “private revelation” made in proper order to the head of the church, who is a prophet, and then who publicizes that revelation and then that revelation is canonized by the church, and then verified by each individual by their own private revelation. In other words, in order to the leadership of the church and then to the members.

An example of that would be the revelation on work for the dead given to Joseph F. Smith in 1918. scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138 and described as follows:

This revelation was originally a private revelation to the president of the church, then presented at a conference and accepted as canon by the membership of the church.

And each of us have the opportunity to verify the veracity of the revelation by privately praying and receiving our own personal revelation that this is a true revelation from God.

This is quite different that little children having a vision and then the church examining it and deciding if it was true, and then dictating to the membership through the magesterium that it was true.

I hope I have not misunderstood your postion, but that is my understanding of how it works in your church

And I think that our way is much closer to the scripture you quoted. We are to individually test revelations, not through the magesterium.

This probably isn’t a good defense for the Pope, but doesn’t God choose his prophets and not a church? Maybe wrongly, but I’ve never heard the Pope was required to be a prophet or else his authority is invalid. Maybe children are the only ones listening sometimes, because none of us are “coming unto me like a child”. One time, on another thread, you (or Snow, maybe) commented that my prayers weren’t legitimate because I was “nobody”. I wonder what the criteria are for becoming an LDS prophet. What are the requirements for becoming someone who can at least pray for others? Does it have to do with one’s religion? Is this discrimination? I thought Catholics were the only ones capable of that! <—A bit of sarcasm.

 

[seekdatruth]

On a personal note, I hate having to repeat my arguments but if you want to make your point you often have to.

Not likely I will look this up, to be honest. I read it once and it didn’t impress me so I am not likely to go back to find what I already discounted. Just a personal note. You have to be persistent on these boards, or just not care. I personally vacillate between these two!

LOL! I sure get tired of repeating myself!
I’ve got kiddos to tend to.
PEACE!

 

[mfbukowski]

False prophets can mean anyone who preaches differently, who claims to have special revelation.

It is a non sequitur to assume that a statement of “false prophets” requires there to be “true prophets.” There can be only false prophets. That aside, note that prophecy was a gift, not an office. It does not mean what you think it means. Prophets as referenced in the Bible did much more than give new revelation or make predictions. They admonished and warned, primarily. They taught, as part of that mission. We Catholics are properly baptized “Priest, Prophet, and King,” since we are baptized into Christ, who was all three and unified the gifts in himself to impart them to us as we become unified in him.

Here you seem to be admitting that there were those who preached the same Gospel–and by extension, that there had to be some method for preserving that Gospel to judge the preaching by, and for knowing that the “others” were authoritative. Yet LDS can’t explain what those methods were; the Church can.

As for your “i.e,” that is non sequitur, as well. Others can come to preach what was already revealed without giving new revelation. There is no connection between what Paul said and “continuing revelation.”

You don’t get the point. Paul expected that there would be continuing revelation.

Unfortunately, the church surpressed any there was and none survived.

And while we are on the subject, “gospel” means “good news”. The gospel is a message, not a book. The message of the gospel is Jesus Christ’s life and atonement for us.

Those who say the BOM is “another gospel” because it is another book OF the gospel are mistaken, or just misunderstand the language. It is the “same gospel” but just another book. Or another “testament” of Jesus Christ, in the sense of another “testimony” of Jesus Christ. That is how we use the term and any other use is a misunderstanding of what we mean.

We can argue all day about what you THINK we believe, but that is a waste of time. So the posts about how we use words are just wastes until we come to an understanding about how we both use words.

And personally I think if we could just get past the semantics, we would all understand eachother much much better.

 

[seekdatruth]

You don’t get the point. Paul expected that there would be continuing revelation.

Unfortunately, the church surpressed any there was and none survived.

And while we are on the subject, “gospel” means “good news”. The gospel is a message, not a book. The message of the gospel is Jesus Christ’s life and atonement for us.

Those who say the BOM is “another gospel” because it is another book OF the gospel are mistaken, or just misunderstand the language. It is the “same gospel” but just another book. Or another “testament” of Jesus Christ, in the sense of another “testimony” of Jesus Christ. That is how we use the term and any other use is a misunderstanding of what we mean.

We can argue all day about what you THINK we believe, but that is a waste of time. So the posts about how we use words are just wastes until we come to an understanding about how we both use words.

And personally I think if we could just get past the semantics, we would all understand eachother much much better.

OK, both the NT and the BOM contain “gospels”, why should they contradict each other?

 

[mfbukowski]

Did you read the latter paragraph you quoted? Any of the great heresies is a “falling away.” As Revelation explains, there is a cycle of Satan attacking the Church constantly, and leading many astray. Not all, as Revelation points out clearly. So in the early centuries, we have Arianism, Modalism, etc. Then we get Islam, which was the first to claim almost exactly what Joseph Smith claims as far as justification and origin. Then we have Protestantism, which is the devil rehashing a lot of the early heresies in new form (he’s really not very creative). Then we have the modern heresies, including evangelicalism and Smithianism (which is Islam rehashed and couched in different terms).

Each of these heresies fulfills that reference to “a falling away.”

But you never said this before. This is your intepretation which finally makes sense, on the third telling of the story. I disagree with your intepretation but now you have come up with something that at least sort of fits the quote. You have come a long way from some Romans taking a step back before the crucifixion.

I don’t think that the scripture would even exist if what was meant was a “partially falling away” or even “several partial fallings away”. In that context, what is the purpose for the existence of this scripture? It really says nothing. It just says that some will fall away. Duh. Of course some will fall away. We don’t need a prophecy to say that

What it says is that the second coming would not happen until there had been a “falling away”.

Interpret it as you like – if it makes you feel better.

 

[mfbukowski]

In the proper context, they both were.

Does it take “continuing revelation” to tell the truth, to explain truth, to understand truth, or to advise truthfully? No, it just requires an understanding of what has been revealed, since all has already been revealed. If revelation was complete in the incarnation and Divine Institution of the Church, then God is no longer keeping secrets from us. This is a much grander and more glorious reality than the selfishness of the much more distant god that LDS preach.

Wrong. (Would a smilie help? )

Yes it does take the spirit of prophecy to know even that Jesus is the Christ. You cannot know that Jesus is Christ without personal revelation. The servents of God have private revelations and then preach to us, to have our own private revelations of the truth of what they say.

Rev. 19: 10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

You have to personally have the spirit of prophecy to know that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[1holycatholic]

Nope. It says the second coming will not ocurr until after a falling away. It is not a personal falling away – read it in context

The context of the Bible is the Catholic Church.

 

[1holycatholic]

Which is it, the glass half empty or the glass half full?

I see both sides in that I see it as mid point.

I f I were marooned on an isolated island by myself, knowing not about God, I would look around and wonder at the creation.

I mean, I would think, how did all this come about? Surely something within me would lead me to wonder.

But what if, I found a bible laying there, read it from cover to cover, would it not be sufficient for me to find God, the creator of all my wonder?

And if I did find God, and I lived and I died, what would be the results of my discovery?

In Gods view or our view, which would it be, heaven or hell?

Peace>>>AJ

That God exists is known by natural reason and is a preamble to faith.

My point is that your fundamental assumptions are that the foundation of truth is the Bible, and it alone is sufficient. These assumptions are not found in the Bible, in fact the Bible contradicts your assertions.

 

[mfbukowski]

I like this, Rebecca. Good point. Why did Christ die and be resurrected if it was all for naught? Where in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John did it say anything about a restoration? Where in the OT did it say that? If everyone has been totally in the dark for this long, it seems as if it would be a pretty significant event and revealed to ALL the writers of Jesus’s gospel, not just the ones in North America.
Whoever asked the question about where the supposed scripture of modern-day LDS prophets is, GOOD QUESTION!
So, how come my husband’s all-in-one missionary copies of the KJV, BOM, and the Pearl of Great Price don’t include revelations of today’s prophets attached in new books or testaments?

Amos-- “God doeth nothing but he revealeth his secrets to the prophets”-- paraphrase.

And for continuing revelation, see section 138 of D&C and the various Declarations found here:
scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/contents

And who is this other angel who is to appear in the last days with the everlasting gospel ot preach, if not Moroni? Who? Answer that one!

Rev. 14: 6
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

And then there is the Thessalonians “falling away” quote I am discussing with Arandur.

And many many others in all the epistles which indicate apostasy was already happening.

When I first joined the church, there was in fact an offical declaration which was included as a pamphlet as an insert in my new copy of the scriptures, which has since been bound into the new editions.

If you really want me to dig out all those scriptures I will be glad to do so. All through the epistles, there are constant references to “falling away” and misdirections that the saints are taking. You see those as partial apostasies, we see those as indicatins that the apostasy was already taking place.

As I have said before, I don’t want to turn this into an apostasy thread. If you want to believe there was no apostasy, I can’t prove there was. You’re safe. To me it is a real stretch to believe there was no apostasy, but to a believer, I can’t prove otherwise. Proving a negative is impossible. I can’t prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist either.

On the other hand, you cannot prove me wrong either, and there are many many scriptures to quote indicating by my interpretation that it was already in progress.

 

[mfbukowski]

Are being drug-free, chaste, and family-oriented the only criteria considered upon reaching the Gates of Heaven?

No more or less than being a promiscuous drug addicted hedonist guarantees you hell.

 

[Arandur]

I think that the distinction between private and public revelation is a confusion however. Take Fatima as an example. Little children received that “revelation”, not the head of the church.

Why would God reveal important information to little children as opposed to the Pope? One would think that this would be out of the proper order.

Ah, but then God would be a “respecter of persons,” would He not? And that is something LDS rail against.

Where does it say that revelation shall only be given, or even first be given, to a person of a specific office?

No, the gift of prophecy is listed low on the lists in the NT of general gifts (as in, not necessarily as important as some of the other gifts), and it is a gift referred to generally like the rest (as in, given to many).

I think ultimately from a personal point of view, private revelation is all we have to go on. You would not believe that Catholicsm was true if you did not have a private revelation. How do you know that Augustine was mistaken or that Fatima was true if not for private revelation?

Again, confusion over the term “revelation.” How specific or how expansive do you want it to be? Catholics have defined the terms. You have not, and keep vacillating between variations. Here you refer to “revelation” as if it were the gift of faith or understanding. We use those more precise terms, and they account for “what we have to go on.”

I’m not sure we can go much further until you define revelation and different forms of it.

And I think that our way is much closer to the scripture you quoted. We are to individually test revelations, not through the magesterium.

We are to do nothing apart from the Church of Christ, once we are Members of the Body. The approach that you illustrate is exactly what has lead to the thousands of schisms, sects, and contradictory doctrines. It has demonstrably failed, and so is obviously not what God intended.

 

[Arandur]

On a personal note, I hate having to repeat my arguments but if you want to make your point you often have to.

Not likely I will look this up, to be honest. I read it once and it didn’t impress me so I am not likely to go back to find what I already discounted. Just a personal note. You have to be persistent on these boards, or just not care. I personally vacillate between these two!

“Not likely I will look this up” sounds like you didn’t bother to read it.

Ignoring arguments against your position rather than responding to them and trying to refute them doesn’t get anyone anywhere in an intellectual discussion. Explain why I am wrong, concede my point, or explain that you just don’t have the time to address the issue.

 

[Arandur]

I wonder what the criteria are for becoming an LDS prophet.

To add on to that if I may, many of the other Smithian sects believe that there was some form of lineal descent from Smith that was supposed to occur to fill the presidency properly. As in, at least at some point the Prophet had to be descended from Smith. Given Brigham Young and future presidents, what is different about the Mormon belief and why does it differ?