Is Mormonism Christian ?

[mfbukowski]

It’s funny that you say that Bukowski. If conversion requires dialogue not bashing, are you saying that you are bashing and not trying to have a conversation?

HUH?

 

[Arandur]

Explain to me the use of the word “eloheim” in Genesis 1. In what sense “are” there other Gods if we only know and worship one? Doesn’t this seem contradictory? What are they doing if we have nothing to do with them?

The quick answer is the simple use of the “royal we.” I don’t have time for much else right now. But you need look no further than the Commandments to see the emphasis on a single God. The OT catalogues the great patience and trouble God went through to try to hammer this message home to the Jews.

And you still havent answered what God was doing “before” he created time, if such a question even makes sense.

The question doesn’t even make sense. I’ve explained that.

But he must have existed “before” he created it. But how can there be a “before” time? Answer that one? How could God exist “before” time? The answers to all these are related.

There is an “outside” of time, a dimension not bound by it. Physicists have postulated it, even have thought they were on the verge of observing it.

So yes, God has always existed.

Do you honestly think, bound by time as you are, that you can currently fully conceive and understand the infinite? God? What it is like outside of time, without having experienced it? Even if you’ve somehow experienced it, we don’t know our own dimension entirely even having experienced it. Do you expect to know all that God has done?

What is the point of your questions?

 

[mfbukowski]

You really ought to slow down and try to read things in context and not make more out of statements than they actually say.

My point, in context, was that there are people who try to teach you what they believe in the hopes of converting you. Whether they are going about their attempts to convert the right way or not was not the subject of my statement and didn’t matter to my point.

Fair enough, point taken. I am actually starting to like you. Not as much as RebeccaJ though.

 

[mfbukowski]

And I can’t help but wonder why, when people are the TARGETS of such stuff, that they turn around and dish it out to someone else. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

But that is what makes me so … endearing! I am glad you are here to balance my tendency to be a loose canon.

 

[mfbukowski]

That is interesting. Most Christians believe in a spiritual presence, it seems.

As an exploration of the Catholic teachings on the Eucharist will show (through hundreds of sources readily available to the public to read), we have many reasons to believe that the real presence is physical. In fact, it is one of the most well-supported concepts in Scripture.

Don’t “of course” me and try to claim that you know me.

My wife is a Restorationist. She and her family and almost everyone she grew up with and many people she maintains friendships with believe in the Book of Mormon. They think you Mormons are wacko apostates, and that even the CoC has liberalized (Restorationists have many beliefs like more conservative Protestants, except with beliefs in authority, which the BoM supports but later works of Smith…not so much).

Point is, though, you don’t know me. How can I have married a woman (who is quite devout, by the way) who believes in the BoM and not be sympathetic in various ways? How can I have married her, knowing full well what I was getting into beforehand, and not have some understanding of Smith and his teachings?

Heck, just before her I almost married a Mormon girl, one of the most devout women I knew, who was a missionary. We decided that our beliefs were too irreconcileable to marry, but there was no lack of love, you can be sure.

Now you know a little more about me. Stop insulting me with your presumption of malice.

Fair enough. There is definitely something about Mormon women…

 

[mfbukowski]

Yes we have. When are you going to address this without dodging around and going to what Muslims believe? Aren’t we talking about Christianity?

And you still didn’t address the reality that Mormon theology about God resembles a multi-level marketing corporation.

Which, is not Christian belief.

To top it off, you are wandering into religious relativism. It appears to me that you want Catholics to have relative beliefs, while you maintain your convictions.

Not at all. Depending on what you mean as “relativism” I mght have no problem with it whatsoever. Get that stake and bonfire ready.

I am a William Jamesian, Wittgensteinian Pragmatist.

 

[look3467]

The quick answer is the simple use of the “royal we.” I don’t have time for much else right now. But you need look no further than the Commandments to see the emphasis on a single God. The OT catalogs the great patience and trouble God went through to try to hammer this message home to the Jews.>>>Arandur

A note on this one: The emphasis on a single God is true as you point out, but behind that is also the reason for God’s execution of His plan to have them offer up another’s claim to being equal to God or by proclaiming that the only way to God, (their God) is to come through Jesus.

Knowing that the Jews would not accept any other message as was given them by the Mosaic law, Jesus cut them off.

That was the sole purpose for the pounding in emphasis of the one God.

We are gods as Jesus pointed out because we are made in His image, to know both good and evil.

The question is, will we place ourselves first above the one true God is to worship ourselves as gods and not surrender ourselves to the one true God which is His desire.

I thought I’d throw that in as a side note.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[mfbukowski]

Which, is not Christian belief.

These are not magic words that condemn other positions. “Christian beliefs” have become apostate. All this says is that these are not TRADITIONAL Christian beliefs. I think we have established that Mormons are not traditional christians because the traditions have gone haywire.

 

[Arandur]

You must not have understood my previous posts.

This is precisely what I meant in our revelation discussion when I said that there was no difference between papal infallibility and the magesterium and the prophets in an open canon.

That is why I got so upset about you saying there was an open canon. If there is an open canon there is no difference. Yes we agree on this. I thought that was clear a hundred posts ago.

When you made that post about catechism section 67 and how you believe that private revelation becomes public revelation through the magesterium – that clinched it.

Same thing. Remember that discussion?

That dang Rebecca gets it!

Yes, I remember that, though as I explained in a response to Diana, there is still a difference between what we believe. But if you believe that we have the same idea about revelation, why does your church insist on saying that revelation stopped and needed to be kick-started again? I don’t think I’ve heard a straight answer to that. When I posed the question before, I mentioned evidence that it has continued; which purpose or type of revelation do you think stopped (if any did)? And if it didn’t, why the restoration?

What you just responded to in the post I quoted you from above, though, was in the context of your accusation that the Catholic Church’s beliefs weren’t consistent through history and weren’t understandable. What you quoted from me was an attempt to show you that the same accusation works in response, and when you try to defend your church from it, the same or similar defense can be used to justify the Catholic Church. So which is it? Which church gets the benefit of the doubt? The one that relies on everyone accepting one man’s claims 1830 years after Christ, or the one that was started by Christ himself and has continued to exist historically since then, through 12 Apostles after Pentecost?

 

[mfbukowski]

Yes we have. When are you going to address this without dodging around and going to what Muslims believe? Aren’t we talking about Christianity?

Actually, here we weren’t. We were talking about polytheism. Muslims think Catholics are polytheists, and probably see the difference between the Mormon Godhead and the Trinity as non existent for all practical purposes. That was my point. They would see all of us as polytheists. So the term is, pardon the expression, “relative”. So “polytheist” as an insult is kind of silly considering we are all in some sense polytheists to somebody.

Billions of people who worship the same God we do think all Christians are polytheists. So what?

 

[Arandur]

Fair enough. There is definitely something about Mormon women…

Thank you.

As for Mormon women, I think it is because they are family-oriented. A lot of Catholic women are, too, but many of them tend to need to grow into it and take longer. The rest of the culture, not so much. In other words, our culture teaches women to be less feminine, in many ways. Both our religions run counter-cultural, and to the extent that they are practiced, that’s attractive.

 

[mfbukowski]

It’s important for your Salvation to know this?

What was God doing before He created any spirit children?

Well it can be important at least in understanding Mormonism.

The answer is that we have an answer for that question- and it is a question you don’t even ask, obviously from this post.

So if you answer my question, I’ll answer yours… I asked first.

 

[mfbukowski]

I know of at least five times (I stopped counting) that I explained what revelation is to us. You are accusing me if ignoring the subject, but here you are claiming that haven’t written a word regarding what it is.

One more time (makes at least six, by my count) Revelation, public or private, is God speaking to mankind directly. Public revelation is God speaking to mankind directly with a message for the public. A man who receives such public revelation is a prophet, by definition; that is what a prophet IS.

When that prophet writes that revelation down so that the public can access it, it is scripture. By definition, because scripture is the word of God given to us for our edification.

Anyone is entitled to private revelation, anybody. We all have it, when we are in tune with the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit. It is that private revelation that confirms truth in religious things to us. It is that private revelation that guides our lives if we allow it to do so.

but public revelation?

Any ‘public’ revelation that is not considered ‘good’ enough to be scripture right up there with Paul’s writings is not, by DEFINITION, scripture or revelation, public or other wise. It is consigning God’s words to a lesser plane.

…and this discussion reminds me of a televangelist I saw many years ago, whose words made my hair stand on end. I remember that day the way I remember the day Kennedy was shot, or the day the Challenger exploded, or 9/11.

He was ranting along, and I was getting somewhat amused at his constant harangue combined with invitations to become a ‘prayer warrior’ and send money. Suddenly he stopped, looked right into the camera, picked up his bible (KJV, he made very sure everybody knew THAT) and shouted “And if JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF came down and told me that the words of this book were false, I would turn my back on Him and hold to the book!”

I had been listening long enough to understand the context…and he wasn’t talking about ‘false christs’ here. He was talking about the real One.

I think that this, of all things, illustrates the fundamental difference between Mormonism and some other Christian faiths. If Jesus Christ Himself came down and told ME that the words of the bible are false, I would say “Yes, Lord…and tell me what the true ones are.”

Of course, we all know that the Jesus we both believe in would not do that–at least to any great extent, since our beliefs about Him are informed by the words of the bible. It’s the idea behind the reverence of the book over the Author that stunned me.

Dang girl, you’re good!

 

[dianaiad]

I once asked them “What is the Book of Mormon about?” and never got a straight answer.
I really wonder what they are doing here , because honest dialog does not seem to be it.

Who is the ‘them’ you claim to have asked?

 

[RebeccaJ]

These are not magic words that condemn other positions. “Christian beliefs” have become apostate. All this says is that these are not TRADITIONAL Christian beliefs. I think we have established that Mormons are not traditional christians because the traditions have gone haywire.

We’ve established that have we?

narrator: mfbukowski awoke, two hours later, with a slight headache

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well it can be important at least in understanding Mormonism.

The answer is that we have an answer for that question- and it is a question you don’t even ask, obviously from this post.

So if you answer my question, I’ll answer yours… I asked first.

silly questions…why this need to know all the thoughts and doings of your God? Do you get an itinerary in your inbox each morning or what?

 

[dianaiad]

silly questions…why this need to know all the thoughts and doings of your God? Do you get an itinerary in your inbox each morning or what?

Rebecca…

You are the one asking.

 

[mfbukowski]

Do you agree that from their perspective this is accurate?
Then you should agree that from our perspective, it is accurate to say that you do not believe in the same God as we.

Is it the official Catholic position that Allah is not the same God as the God of catholics?

The Creedal example of the concept is “Light from Light,” a description of the nature of light, which is a good physical example of God. As the flames of three candles can join and co-exist as one, so can God. As light is can be split among its wavelengths in a prism and each bear properties of light, so is God. As light can exist simultaneously in two forms (particle and wave), and yet require those two forms to be itself (to be light), so is God. As light can travel in time but yet at the speed of light see a cessation of time, and thus can from its own perspective exist in all the universe simultaneously, so can God.

If all this is possible for observable light, how much moreso is such a thing possible for God?

I have no problem with this if it is an ANALOGY – is it?

I don’t think light can make it to other universes or dimensions or am I wrong? God can. Obviously I know you do not believe that God and light are the same thing.

I like our analogy better. They are three persons who are in perfect communication and who’s thoughts are effectively united in bringing about their purposes, which is the immortality and eternal life of people. Kind of like perfect parents who never disagreed, if you will. They are working together perfectly unified in purpose, each with their own mission.

Perhaps in Catholic terms, like Mary and Jesus. That is an example of two persons with bodies working together to bring about their purposes.

I know that Mary is not part of the Trinity and that she is “created” etc etc. But this is an analogy. Really I just wanted to bring in that both had bodies and that Catholics have no problem with that. So if they can have bodies, and if Jesus has a body, why can the Father NOT have a body?

Why is that?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca…

You are the one asking.

It was a rhetorical question to bukowski’s question. One that was meant to show him how silly his question is. Only, he thinks my question is as good as his.

all silliness

I don’t sit and contemplate, gee, I wonder what God is doing right now.:yukonjoe: I trust that God is God, and thus, I do not need to worry over such questions.

 

[dianaiad]

It was a rhetorical question to bukowski’s question. One that was meant to show him how silly his question is. Only, he thinks my question is as good as his.

all silliness

I don’t sit and contemplate, gee, I wonder what God is doing right now.:yukonjoe: I trust that God is God, and thus, I do not need to worry over such questions.

That would be a perfectly acceptable answer if you weren’t so insistent upon following our ideas of Him to a conclusion you disagree with.

Or would you accept “I trust that God is God, and thus, I do not need to worry over such questions” from a MORMON?