Is Mormonism Christian ?

[RebeccaJ]

If I may say it in another way, Paul is just teaching and explaining what Christ taught. Just as any of us may teach anything said in the Scriptures. If we teach such things, are we giving new revelation? Of course not. We are just teaching what has already been revealed. So it was with Paul, teaching what Christ revealed.

 

[mfbukowski]

Premise1: Continuing revelation is needed for the Church to exist.
Premise2: Continuing revelation ceased.
Therefore Premise3: An apostasy occurred that ended the Church.
Therefore Conclusion: A restoration was necessary to restore continuing revelation and thus the church.

Here are the problems:

1. You need to define your terms, “revelation,” “Church,” and Apostasy.
   I’ve gone through “revelation” already, clearly, in numbered outline. By Church I presume you mean “priesthood authority” and since you would define that as being required for all the sacraments, and since baptism is a necessary sacrament for membership in the church and salvation, the Church essentially died. By “apostasy” I presume you mean total, in that falsehood crept in so that priesthood authority was lost.

If you don’t know my definition of terms how can you say the argument is circular? We have not agreed on a definition of “revelation” apparantly. This was clear from the discussion of your 5 points of revelation some of which were categories and not types of revelation. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation and neither is membership in the church. I also do not believe in nor have ever said that there was a “complete apostasy”. We do not agree on the premises – you don’t understand my premises so the argument is not circular.

1. Premise 1 is incorrect and invalidates your conclusion if you assume that the 5th sense of “revelation” defined in post #457, “public revelation” is still necessary.
2. Premise 2 is incorrect and invalidates your conclusion if you think that senses 1-4 of revelation ended.
3. Premise 3 is incorrect if you think this is even possible, and is not supported by your evidences (that heresies occurred).
4. The Conclusion is circular because it contains “continuing revelation” as your defining point of restoration of the church. It is also circular because we see the argument repeat itself in this way:
   Your definition of “continuing revelation” comes from information from your so-called “restoration.” Your definition, then, comes from your conclusion; thus your premises are based on your conclusion; thus the circularity of the argument.

No, I believed in the need for continuing revelation before I ever heard of the restoration.

Effectively assuming your conclusion is circular.

Guess again.

 

[RebeccaJ]

bukowski, you are thrashing around. Arundur is speaking in very precise theological terms.

Perhaps it would help you to study Catholic terms. Especially the ones that Mormonism has borrowed and redefined. I’m thinking you are trying to apply Mormon definitions to Catholic concepts. Ain’t never gonna work.

Honestly, Mormonism gets people so lost that I recommend starting over. Don’t assume you know the meaning of anything. Study as though you never heard a religious word in your life, starting with the word “God”.

 

[mfbukowski]

Quote:
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

Emphasis added

Regarding the underlined portion.

This is so general as to not be a distinction at all. I do financial and estate planning for a living, and if the tax code were written this way, no one would pay taxes. Any lawyers around? How do you like that language? What could you do with it?

How about a revealed diet plan? I am not saying that would happen but by that definition, anything is possible.

Any doctrine whatsoever could help one “live more fully” especially if guided by the magesterium.

After all, virtually any private revelation can help us to live more fully, and if the magesterium could “how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church” they would be accepted, but still not disturb the notion that “public revelation has ceased”.

The loophole is so large it could include practically anything that helps us live better.

There is no point in quibbling about the details of the definition when there is such a big loophole.

It is like trying to machine a cube of butter to a ten thousanth of an inch. What’s the point with precision, when anythning the magesterium wants goes anyway?

That is what I meant by the fact that you believe in “continuing revelation”. Anythning can be changed if it improves your life.

There is no need to continue the discussion

 

[look3467]

If the desire to find truth is in one’s heart. God will lead them to the right understanding.
It could be in the catholic Church, the Mormon Church or the Jw’s, who knows the mind of God?

We fail to see that God may place certain individuals in various locals in order to reach, motivate and or challenge certain beliefs and or practices.

So what would then be the underlying task, job or goal when witnessing to our fellow human being?

To discredit their organizations, beliefs and or practices or to bring them to the knowledge of who Christ is and how He relates to them.

If a Mormon wants to remain a Mormon, a Catholic a Catholic, then this discussion goes no where. For both claim their right.

We could discuss the truths about what Christ did, how it transforms lives, heals and lifts up spirits to higher ground.

How this transformation makes of us new creatures, how we can have joy in our tribulations, trials and sufferings.

How we can help our neighbor receive what we have so that they to may enjoy the benefits of the kingdom.

Did anyone notice in what I said that there is no pointing to anyone denomination or belief?

Because Jesus does find rest in our souls.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Arandur]

If you don’t know my definition of terms how can you say the argument is circular? We have not agreed on a definition of “revelation” apparantly. This was clear from the discussion of your 5 points of revelation some of which were categories and not types of revelation. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation and neither is membership in the church. I also do not believe in nor have ever said that there was a “complete apostasy”. We do not agree on the premises – you don’t understand my premises so the argument is not circular.

So please, define your terms and explain your premises so I don’t have to try to do the work for you. I have only done so because you have not.

If you accept our definitions, things might go faster. Take public revelation as we define it and tell us whether or not you think it must continue. Let me make it even more focused–tell us whether or not you think this is true:
“Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment.”

If you agree that it is true, then I think we are in sufficient agreement about our terms. Then for Smith’s claims to have any possibility of truth, you have to show that all other kinds of revelation that were meant to continue ceased. And why.

If you don’t agree that it is true, why not?

 

[Arandur]

Emphasis added

Regarding the underlined portion.

This is so general as to not be a distinction at all.

Does it claim to be the detailed description of how the Church determines the truth of these revelations? No. Don’t make more of the text than it is. I’ve given you a brief overview elsewhere of how and when things are defined infallibly.

Any doctrine whatsoever could help one “live more fully” especially if guided by the magesterium.

Oh really? A doctrine that contradict’s Christ’s truth is going to help you live more fully by that Revelation that it is contradicting? Are you sure you’re not a relativist?

After all, virtually any private revelation can help us to live more fully

If it comes from God and if you interpret it correctly. Those are big “ifs.”

and if the magesterium could “how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church” they would be accepted, but still not disturb the notion that “public revelation has ceased”.

Yes, if the Church took every private revelation and determined what was true, it would not disturb Christ’s fulfillment of public revelation because it would agree with it and essentially just be saying the same thing in a different way or application.

The loophole is so large it could include practically anything that helps us live better.

Howso? The Church is careful about exercising its gift of infallible teaching and only uses it when necessary. When is private revelation necessary for the whole Church, if Christ fulfilled what we need? The Church uses its gift primarily to refute false teachings.

There is no point in quibbling about the details of the definition when there is such a big loophole.

It is like trying to machine a cube of butter to a ten thousanth of an inch. What’s the point with precision, when anythning the magesterium wants goes anyway?

“Anything the Magisterium wants?” How about “anything the Prophet wants?” If the Spirit acts through the Magisterium, then it is “anything God wants.”

That is what I meant by the fact that you believe in “continuing revelation”. Anythning can be changed if it improves your life.

Did you miss this? :
“67 …It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.”

The “IT” refers to “Christ’s definitive Revelation.” Private revelation does not “improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation.” It is GUIDANCE about how to live more fully by that which has already been revealed.

So again, yes, revelation for the purpose of guidance continues. Do you disagree? How is this different from the type of revelation that you are saying needs to be continuing?

Or do you think that revelation is still coming that “improves or completes Christ’s definitive Revelation?”

 

[jake23]

All Christians should really give up on this post trying to shed some light on the Mormon Accolt. They will refuse to hear the truth until they face hell or purgatory. Also do not let them fool you about saying Mormons believe everyone is christian. They teach that other religions are not fom God and they also teach secretely after you recieved your endowements in the temple that there will be a great war in the future and Mormons must kill all of those who are not. They will deny this but it has been confirmed by many ex-mormons who have reached the highest levels in the church. Do not be afraid though they are physically harmless and are outnumbered by christians. There are over a billion catholics in the world alone so I dont think they will get verry far. They do not wish to know the truth and are comfortable in the accolt so really all of us christions should leave this thread. If you really want to do somthing to stop the Mormon accolt everyone should start up classes in their communities for Mormons to be educated in history and the Bible. Or give as a gift the DVD “The Bible VS. The Book of Mormon” This alone exposes enough evidence Scientificly to expose JS as a false prophet. Seriousely though give up on this thread [deleted uncharitable comments] are too far corrupted to accept the truth, let them bare there sin on judgement day, it is only then that they will be forced to face the truth and repent or go to the deepset part of hell where Josph Smith is now.

 

[seekdatruth]

All Christians should really give up on this post trying to shed some light on the Mormon Accolt. They will refuse to hear the truth until they face hell or purgatory. Also do not let them fool you about saying Mormons believe everyone is christian. They teach that other religions are not fom God and they also teach secretely after you recieved your endowements in the temple that there will be a great war in the future and Mormons must kill all of those who are not. They will deny this but it has been confirmed by many ex-mormons who have reached the highest levels in the church. Do not be afraid though they are physically harmless and are outnumbered by christians.
Watch out, they have exercise programs on BYU TV! LOL! I also know they have a fondness for stockpiling assault rifles, but then so do I
There are over a billion catholics in the world alone so I dont think they will get verry far. They do not wish to know the truth and are comfortable in the accolt so really all of us christions should leave this thread. If you really want to do somthing to stop the Mormon accolt everyone should start up classes in their communities for Mormons to be educated in history and the Bible. Or give as a gift the DVD “The Bible VS. The Book of Mormon” This alone exposes enough evidence Scientificly to expose JS as a false prophet. Seriousely though give up on this thread people like dinaputz are too far corrupted to accept the truth, let them bare there sin on judgement day, it is only then that they will be forced to face the truth and repent or go to the deepset part of hell where Josph Smith is now.I agree we need to work on educating our Catholics on Scripture and warning them about cults, but isn’t the “occult” specifically black magic or Satan worship? They are not that, (though we wonder who really spoke to JS) and spreading lies and inaccurate information will drive them to the LDS faster than anything they can do themselves. Being the best possible examples of Catholics and Christians is the most important tool to preventing our loved ones from going astray, in ANY manner. Spread the Good News, love as Christ loves, pray for His guidance to us individuals and the Catholic Church. God bless!

 

[1holycatholic]

If the desire to find truth is in one’s heart. God will lead them to the right understanding.
It could be in the catholic Church, the Mormon Church or the Jw’s, who knows the mind of God?

We fail to see that God may place certain individuals in various locals in order to reach, motivate and or challenge certain beliefs and or practices.

So what would then be the underlying task, job or goal when witnessing to our fellow human being?

To discredit their organizations, beliefs and or practices or to bring them to the knowledge of who Christ is and how He relates to them.

If a Mormon wants to remain a Mormon, a Catholic a Catholic, then this discussion goes no where. For both claim their right.

We could discuss the truths about what Christ did, how it transforms lives, heals and lifts up spirits to higher ground.

How this transformation makes of us new creatures, how we can have joy in our tribulations, trials and sufferings.

How we can help our neighbor receive what we have so that they to may enjoy the benefits of the kingdom.

Did anyone notice in what I said that there is no pointing to anyone denomination or belief?

Because Jesus does find rest in our souls.

Peace>>>AJ

You are promoting syncretism, not Christianity.

You profile indicates you are a Catholic ad aeternum. A good confession is all it takes to heal your ruptured relationship with Christ. Please avail yourself of Christ’s Sacrament of Reconciliation. You can’t go wrong in accepting Christ’s mercy.

 

[Stephen168]

You have never defined the term, and from my observations, you are using at least 5 definitions, not 2. Who’s lazy?

1. Revelation to a person to confirm that God’s Word is true–otherwise known by Catholics as the “gift of faith.” Has never ceased.
2. Revelation as guidance to the people of the Church about what to do–otherwise known to Catholics as “guidance.” Has never ceased since the institution of the Church.
3. Revelation as right teaching–otherwise known to Catholics as the “charism of infallibility.” Has never ceased since the institution of the Church.
4. Revelation as private, for one or more persons but not necessary to all–otherwise known by Catholics as “private revelation.” Has never ceased.
5. Revelation as intended for all, necessary for Salvation–otherwise known by Catholics as “public revelation.” Was completed in Christ, can never be added to without nullifying Christ’s once-and-for-all saving act, can never be changed, can never die out, can never be contradicted. Now we just seek to understand and imply it all, and God has given 1-4 as means to help us do so.

If the above argument is what you want me to talk about, it requires you stating yours. I can do it for you if you like.

Premise1: Continuing revelation is needed for the Church to exist.
Premise2: Continuing revelation ceased.
Therefore Premise3: An apostasy occurred that ended the Church.
Therefore Conclusion: A restoration was necessary to restore continuing revelation and thus the church.

Here are the problems:

1. You need to define your terms, “revelation,” “Church,” and Apostasy.
   I’ve gone through “revelation” already, clearly, in numbered outline. By Church I presume you mean “priesthood authority” and since you would define that as being required for all the sacraments, and since baptism is a necessary sacrament for membership in the church and salvation, the Church essentially died. By “apostasy” I presume you mean total, in that falsehood crept in so that priesthood authority was lost.
2. Premise 1 is incorrect and invalidates your conclusion if you assume that the 5th sense of “revelation” defined in post #457, “public revelation” is still necessary.
3. Premise 2 is incorrect and invalidates your conclusion if you think that senses 1-4 of revelation ended.
4. Premise 3 is incorrect if you think this is even possible, and is not supported by your evidences (that heresies occurred).
5. The Conclusion is circular because it contains “continuing revelation” as your defining point of restoration of the church. It is also circular because we see the argument repeat itself in this way:
   Your definition of “continuing revelation” comes from information from your so-called “restoration.” Your definition, then, comes from your conclusion; thus your premises are based on your conclusion; thus the circularity of the argument.

Effectively assuming your conclusion is circular.

Seriously, does anyone else think I’m being ambiguous? Am I the one not defining terms?

I think you are doing a great job of defining terms and using simple logic. I also believe that the Latter Day Saint movement is irrational and has been in a state of flux from the being. I’m never sure if the Mormons on this board are ignorant or dishonest, but getting the simplest answer can be impossible.
It also seems to me that at least half the Mormons declare in their first few posts that they are here to clear up all the misconceptions we have about Mormonism and then we get responses like:

Guess again.

Of course this just reinforces my view of Mormonism in general. It is irrational, not Christian, and can not be defended

 

[MelanieAnne]

Honestly, Mormonism gets people so lost that I recommend starting over. Don’t assume you know the meaning of anything. Study as though you never heard a religious word in your life, starting with the word “God”.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT! Mormons don’t even define God the same way! I wish they didn’t hide that from potential converts!

 

[dianaiad]

All Christians should really give up on this post trying to shed some light on the Mormon Accolt. They will refuse to hear the truth until they face hell or purgatory. Also do not let them fool you about saying Mormons believe everyone is christian. They teach that other religions are not fom God and they also teach secretely after you recieved your endowements in the temple that there will be a great war in the future and Mormons must kill all of those who are not.

hee.

hoo…(wiping eyes)

HAHAHAHAHA…(snerk…)

They will deny this

Gee, y’think??

but it has been confirmed by many ex-mormons who have reached the highest levels in the church.

Name one. or did that information go the same way as the information about what ward you were in, whether you attended the Temple, or if you held the priesthood?

Do not be afraid though they are physically harmless and are outnumbered by christians.

“physically harmless?”

Dang. You people need to get your stories straight. Here all along I thought we were violent n’er-do-wells who train militias to attack our neighbors and go out in blazing gunfights.

There are over a billion catholics in the world alone so I dont think they will get verry far.

That depends on where we think we are going, sweetie. I think we are doing pretty well, m’self…Of course, we haven’t HAD 1500 years to produce a billion members, but 14,000,000 in 150 years ain’t too bad, all things considered.

They do not wish to know the truth and are comfortable in the accolt

quick. what’s an ‘occolt’ and why would anybody be comfortable in one?

so really all of us christions should leave this thread. If you really want to do somthing to stop the Mormon accolt everyone should start up classes in their communities for Mormons to be educated in history and the Bible. Or give as a gift the DVD “The Bible VS. The Book of Mormon” This alone exposes enough evidence Scientificly to expose JS as a false prophet. Seriousely though give up on this thread people like dinaputz

“dinaputz?” Odd, I"ve not seen that screen name. Unfortunate choice of one, I would think…

are too far corrupted to accept the truth, let them bare there sin on judgement day, it is only then that they will be forced to face the truth and repent or go to the deepset part of hell where Josph Smith is now.

uh huh.

Well, that was entertaining.

 

[dianaiad]

seekdatruth:
Oh, right, seekdatruth, go and be reasonable on us.

 

[MelanieAnne]

All Christians should really give up on this post trying to shed some light on the Mormon Accolt. They will refuse to hear the truth until they face hell or purgatory. Also do not let them fool you about saying Mormons believe everyone is christian. They teach that other religions are not fom God and they also teach secretely after you recieved your endowements in the temple that there will be a great war in the future and Mormons must kill all of those who are not. They will deny this but it has been confirmed by many ex-mormons who have reached the highest levels in the church. Do not be afraid though they are physically harmless and are outnumbered by christians. There are over a billion catholics in the world alone so I dont think they will get verry far. They do not wish to know the truth and are comfortable in the accolt so really all of us christions should leave this thread. If you really want to do somthing to stop the Mormon accolt everyone should start up classes in their communities for Mormons to be educated in history and the Bible. Or give as a gift the DVD “The Bible VS. The Book of Mormon” This alone exposes enough evidence Scientificly to expose JS as a false prophet. Seriousely though give up on this thread people like dinaputz are too far corrupted to accept the truth, let them bare there sin on judgement day, it is only then that they will be forced to face the truth and repent or go to the deepset part of hell where Josph Smith is now.

Jake, the last thing I am is a Mormon apologist but some of this is just not true. First, I am assuming that when you say “accolt” that you mean “occult” but I am not really sure. But even if you mean “occult” I am not sure why. Do you know why?

Next, I seriously doubt that there is any teaching in a Mormon Temple that at some future time all non-Mormons should be killed. Have you been through a Mormon Temple? Not as a visitor but as part of this endowment ceremony you speak about? If not, how do you know what you’re talking about? Did you trust someone to tell you the truth about it? Your trust may be displaced.

The rest of your post appears to contain some rather uncharitable references which I will decline to address.

 

[Arandur]

If you really want to do somthing to stop the Mormon accolt everyone should start up classes in their communities for Mormons to be educated in history and the Bible.

Jake, this part of your post I can agree with. The rest, no.

I have had a lot of contact with Mormons in person and in various other formats, and I believe them to generally be quite good people. They do have the fraternal part of community down to a point where the community helps them live out good lives better than most communities, even better than most Catholic communities these days. But as this part of your post suggests, we are to be patient with people and seek to share God’s truth with them, not judge them unrighteously and write them off.

 

[1holycatholic]

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT! Mormons don’t even define God the same way! I wish they didn’t hide that from potential converts!

The LDS concept of God is disproved by Natural Theology. Mormons can’t accept that fact.

 

[Jea9]

No, that is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. You have us confused. We believe, and teach, that Jesus is the Jehovah of the OT; that He was God before His physical birth. Whoever told you that Jesus was Michael was seriously screwed up–or not LDS.

I don’t have anything confused, these people ARE LDS. That’s the thing about LDS, there’s SO much that they say it’s ‘ok’ to believe. Several people discussed this with me. Clearly there is a possiblity that SOME LDS teach this.

As for the ‘become gods’ thing…that’s a ‘mystery’ (the theological meaning, not the detective/secret meaning) we believe that we will be 'heirs and joint heirs with Christ and have all that he has" and follow that to wherever it leads; hence the famous couplet “as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”

Was not Christ man? Are we not to be ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ with Christ?

But we do not believe that we can be Gods of our own planets. That would be a bit difficult, seeing that all the planets of the universe are taken–by the One Who Created the whole thing.

Again, I beg to differ…I was specifically taught this (after going through a lot of “but I heard…” with several different members). In fact, in the Gospel Essentials (do I have the name right…it’s hard for me to remember because I can just picture the guy that taught the class) class I was even taught that it’s quite possible that on other planets, where there are other gods, it’s HIGHLY likely that there is another Savior, another Christ. I will grant that I was later told that what this guy was teaching was not doctrine…but that it was a common belief shared by many Mormons and that it was ok to believe this.

It may be that YOU have not been taught this, and it may be that it is not in any written teachings, but I can guarantee that **I **was taught it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Again, I beg to differ…I was specifically taught this (after going through a lot of “but I heard…” with several different members). In fact, in the Gospel Essentials (do I have the name right…it’s hard for me to remember because I can just picture the guy that taught the class) class I was even taught that it’s quite possible that on other planets, where there are other gods, it’s HIGHLY likely that there is another Savior, another Christ. I will grant that I was later told that what this guy was teaching was not doctrine…but that it was a common belief shared by many Mormons and that it was ok to believe this.

It may be that YOU have not been taught this, and it may be that it is not in any written teachings, but I can guarantee that **I **was taught it.

This is not unheard of. No matter how much the Mormons that post to this forum may be embarrassed by such talk, the fact remains that at least SOME Mormons believe that they themselves at least have the OPPORTUNITY (should they live righteously enough) to progress to being Gods of their own planets.

I have even heard some young men speculate about having to be crucified on this other planet. I never understood that since, if they lived their life here in this world, how they would need to be crucified somewhere else (wouldn’t they have to die here first? so how could they have another life there?) but that’s their thinking not mine.

I find it interesting that some Mormons deny this sort of thing, while other Mormons freely discuss it as a possible part of their future. It’s hard to know what to make of that sort of confusion.

The bottom line is that this is yet another thing that sounds preposterous to most of the world. Whether it is Mormon Doctrine or not is something to be determined. I do know FOR SURE that Mormons wouldn’t want potential converts to know about it. They appear to hide the weird stuff from potential converts.

 

[dianaiad]

Again, I beg to differ…I was specifically taught this (after going through a lot of “but I heard…” with several different members). In fact, in the Gospel Essentials (do I have the name right…it’s hard for me to remember because I can just picture the guy that taught the class) class I was even taught that it’s quite possible that on other planets, where there are other gods, it’s HIGHLY likely that there is another Savior, another Christ. I will grant that I was later told that what this guy was teaching was not doctrine…but that it was a common belief shared by many Mormons and that it was ok to believe this.

It may be that YOU have not been taught this, and it may be that it is not in any written teachings, but I can guarantee that **I **was taught it.

I guarantee you that you were NEVER taught that Jesus was Michael.