Is Mormonism Christian ?

[Arandur]

(pssst…you forgot the Jaredites…)

Didn’t the Jaredites die out, save for…who was that guy…Coriantumr… who lived to be really freaking old, see the last of his people die out, and then see a new people to inherit the land? I didn’t think, aside from him, that there were supposed to be any Jaredites left at the time Nephi et al made landfall…?

 

[Stephen168]

Would you define “bashing” to us to show the difference between challenging/refuting and “bashing?”

We can’t even get definitions of “revelation” out of you, much less an explanation of the assumptions, premises, and conclusions of your arguments, or even much about your church’s teachings except denials of what we have said we thought they were!

I got an 80% answer and called a liar twice. Have you had any luck getting your questions answered?

 

[vera_dicere]

I have a friend who’s a Morom, she told me they don’t view Jesus as God’s son but rather, just another prophet or arc angel. Regardless, I have to wonder if they truely are as they dont’ have crosses or anything,and instead huge statues of this Moroni guy with a trumpet.

Who’s the real object of worship here?

 

[Arandur]

…and while the Christians have been around 2000 years, the Catholics haven’t. It took awhile to settle in. A few ‘settling outs,’ a few fights over which particular idea would be heresy and which would be dogma…(shrug)

Lotsa meetings, lotsa conversation…took awhile–and this remains true whether one considers Catholicism to be the “one true church” or not.

From your perspective. If we are, as we say, the original Church, having maintained apostolic succession (which we can demonstrate historically) and doctrinal purity (which you can argue, but that’s irrelevant to this point), then we have indeed been around that long. If that’s true, how could we not be? That runs against your idea that “this remains true whether one considers Catholicism to be the ‘one true church’ or not.” I just don’t see how you can make that claim logically.

Of course, we COULD just go back to the ‘great schizm’ and call Catholicism a thousand years old. But that would be from the POV of Eastern Orthodox folks.

Ask the Eastern Orthodox. They acknowledge we existed from the beginning, as well. So did they. They can prove apostolic succession as well. They just chose to separate from Peter’s successor, because while they do acknowledge that the Petrine Office exists and does have primacy over the other apostolic lines, they do not agree with us about what exactly that primacy means.

However, please remember that I am NOT a Catholic, and am looking at strictly organizational and name change events.

So any change in administrative methods constitutes a change in the Church? There were tons of administrative changes during the time of the original Apostles, so that doesn’t seem to work. And there are some problems if we apply that to your church, as well–both with your church’s organizational changes and with the problem that we don’t have any historical evidence that the early Church bore the same “organization” or name as your current church.

 

[Arandur]

Nice theory. Is it true? How would we know? How do we test it?

If we keep this in the context of a religious forum, do we really need to exempt Revelation? I think it can be done from secular viewpoints and through natural observation, but I don’t think it’s a necessary use of time to do so. So we should accept the premise that God exists and focus on what His nature is, should we not?

 

[jean8]

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

bill,
No, Mormons are not christians!
They have some very strange beliefs that are not found in the Holy Bible. The Mormon chrurch has written their own bible.
For a detailed informational web site on this cult you may want to visit. www.letusreason.org

God bless,
jean8

 

[Arandur]

No I have heard the family notion of the trinity and I like it. I have almost no problem with it and could easily go with that. It is extremely close to our position. Social Trinity is also interesting and similar.
More to come from me as well. Church meeting

I did have something to add to that argument, concerning this:

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.

Your analogy fits an idealized human family, but it discounts the evidence of natural observation in Light.

It is very interesting to me that man postulated from his understanding of Revelation that God essentially bore all the qualities of light, that His nature was most closely analogous to light, well before man observed and measured light to know that it had those properties. This seems a confirmation to me, in context of all the “light” symbolism, that God’s nature is indeed most analogous to light.

If nature, God’s Creation, points back to Him and tells us about Him, what would the extremely peculiar and unique qualities of that incredibly important element we call “light” tell us about God if not telling us something about His fundamental nature?

I have a mathematical evidence about the Oneness of God as well, but it’s quite long. If you can wrap your mind around a really short abstract explanation, here it is:
Each of the fundamental dimensions (point, line, plane, cube/volume, space/time, etc.) each in its own reference point encompasses itself in infinity (a point limited to itself is all there is; likewise a line, a plane, a cube, a space-time). Yet each dimension exists in infinite manifestations in the next higher order of dimension (infinite points on a line, infinite lines on a plane, infinite planes in a cube, infinite cubes in space). So to each higher order, it is itself only one, while each lower dimension is infinite to it but contained wholly by it. There is, however, by its own reference point, only one of a given dimension. Either this progression through dimensions ends at a single dimension entirely One in and of itself, though containing all other dimensions as subject to it, OR there is an infinite progression of possible dimensions that is, in its own infinity, the “container” of all that exists. Either is a good description of God AND of the fact that He must be One–there cannot be many of equal but independent power.

There can, however, be many lesser powers that can seem infinitely “powerful” upon lower dimensions. That evidence does not rule this out. And indeed, Catholic angelic theory accommodates this, and possibly even accommodates the existence of “demiurges” almost as imagined by various other religions and gnostics. It also helps explain how humans as co-heirs can appear “as gods” in relation to our current selves and to wield a part of “power” or at least frame of reference as a subset of that infinite power or frame of reference that only the One True God possesses.

If I have not caused someone a headache yet, I haven’t achieved my purpose!

 

[Arandur]

I got an 80% answer and called a liar twice. Have you had any luck getting your questions answered?

Occasionally. Our conversation was quite combative for a while, but we seem to have, with long sufferance and patience (on both our parts, as I’m sure he sees it ), reached the ability to have a better dialogue.

I think the volume of text here makes direct answers difficult, though I personally try my best. I still have unanswered questions, yes. I wish we could all agree to try to directly answer each question, even if we must give a short and incomplete answer due to time. I’ve tried to do that myself.

Wow, I have now officially spammed the heck out of this forum.

 

[dianaiad]

if you look you will see the pages what more are you looking for and talking lets talk about our lord being married to several women and the marrage fest at cana was his wedding reception.

I am looking for the actual QOUTES, sir. You know, the words.

I want to know that you have actually read them and are not simply cutting and pasting a list from “Mormon Outreach” or something.

I am also an English teacher. I want the quotes.

 

[dianaiad]

if you look you will see mormon doctrine and page and history

PS; Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers.

Book of Mormon
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.)

The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
DO YOU SEE THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AND MORMON DOCTRINE, I WAS THINKING YOU KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF YOU CHURCH…NOT YELLING MY KEY BOARD IS NOT WORKING AGAIN SORRY

Sorry about your keyboard.

Here’s the thing: I need to know what the actual quote is, because I need YOU to find out what the actual quote is. You are cutting and pasting.

I also need you to figure out what version of “Mormon Doctrine” you are quoting from.

…and yes, there IS a story behind that.

 

[dianaiad]

oops she’s right as usual. I forgot the Jaredite timeline. Thanks D!

:aok:

 

[dianaiad]

Interesting

Well, that settles it.

You are a gadfly.

 

[dianaiad]

Didn’t the Jaredites die out, save for…who was that guy…Coriantumr… who lived to be really freaking old, see the last of his people die out, and then see a new people to inherit the land? I didn’t think, aside from him, that there were supposed to be any Jaredites left at the time Nephi et al made landfall…?

Sorta, yeah…but that is irrelevant to the timeline reflected in the Book of Mormon.

 

[mfbukowski]

I never said they did.

 

[mfbukowski]

The immutable cannot be temporal.

That’s a tautology.

Define immutable. You will define it so that it is not temporal

And if it is a tautology, why even discuss it? Do we want to argue whether or not A really DOES equal A?

As I said, if it is a tautology it is a question begging definition and totally uninteresting and useless from a theological perspective.

So your first premise is “A=A”. And this proves God?

Now if you were to define a class of things which are immutable that might be interesting. Is time immutable then?

Does that mean change is immutable?

 

[Stephen168]

Occasionally. Our conversation was quite combative for a while, but we seem to have, with long sufferance and patience (on both our parts, as I’m sure he sees it ), reached the ability to have a better dialogue.

I had been following your discussion on revelation because an ex-mormon told me that was one of his problems with the whole apostasy/restoration idea. He said one of the claims of the apostasy was no living prophet to provide continuing revelation. His problem with that were 1) Christianity never claimed to have a prophet (single person receiving revelation for all Christendom) 2) Mormon Prophets don’t prophesizes.
While following your discussion; what seems to be a central point to a Mormon does not have a definition. They claim continuing revelation without a definition of revelation. Could that really be true?

 

[kangkongking]

Hey. We can’t really know that they don’t have any explanations/means of defending their side of the issue. I don’t know about others here but can we at least not be biased on other religions? I mean, It’s not fair. And I don’t think it’s even a “Christian’s way” to do so.

 

[jim1130]

I am looking for the actual QOUTES, sir. You know, the words.

I want to know that you have actually read them and are not simply cutting and pasting a list from “Mormon Outreach” or something.

I am also an English teacher. I want the quotes.

When I need to understand what is taught in the LDS religion I go to this site:

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-1,00.html

I cut-and-pasted some of the teachings.

Chapter 1 – Our Father in Heaven: Because we are made in his image (see Moses 6:9), we know that God has a body that looks like ours. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22).

Chapter 2 – Our Heavenly Family: The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26).

Chapter 3 – Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior: We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27).

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1).

Because our Heavenly Father chose Jesus Christ to be our Savior, Satan became angry and rebelled. There was war in heaven. Satan and his followers fought against Jesus and his followers.

Chapter 7 – The Holy Ghost: The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead (see 1 John 5:7; D&C 20:28). He is a spirit that has the form and likeness of a man (see D&C 130:22). He can be in only one place at a time, but his influence can be everywhere at the same time.

Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are called the Godhead. They are unified in purpose. Each has an important assignment in the plan of salvation. Our Heavenly Father is our Father and ruler. Jesus Christ is our Savior. The Holy Ghost is the revealer and testifier of all truth.

Chapter 46 - The Last Judgment: Celestial (All who inherit the celestial kingdom will live with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ forever [see D&C 76:62]), Terrestrial (They will be visited by Jesus Christ but not by our Heavenly Father. [See D&C 76:73-79] They will not be part of eternal families; they will live separately and singly forever [see D&C 131:1-4]), Telestial (They will suffer for their own sins in hell until after the Millennium, when they will be resurrected. They will be visited by the Holy Ghost but not by the Father or the Son. [See D&C 76:81-86, 103-6.], and Outer Darkness (They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever. [See D&C 76:28-35, 44-48])

Chapter 47 - Exaltation: Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
2. They will become gods.
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel–you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)

 

[mfbukowski]

Since I had never heard of a major objection to the Cosmological Argument, I dropped by Wikipedia for a start. Seems the folks there (who love to correct and add to controversial issues and philosophical arguments) don’t seem to think that the argument has been “disproven” or even objected to by a majority.

The objections given there seem rather weak to me. I could get into them if you wish.

Straight up? Sure, let’s do it. If not here then elsewhere.

I have no problem with any of this discussion. I think it is fascinating. I actually have no problem with the cosmological argument (I think at this moment depending on which one we are talking about) but I really believe that truth comes out of discussion. When someone throws a bunch of terms at me and doesn’t define them, I have no clue what they are talking about. I am VERY into defining terms or there is no communication. Lingusitic meaning is in the CONTEXT of a discussion. People think that language is a trivial issue, but the modern philosophers often come from the perspective that it is the ONLY problem. One of the reasons I left academic philosophy was that I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life deconstructing language – I wanted to practice philo sophia-- love of wisdom. But those language guys are perfectly right that you have to get your terms clear. Extremely clear especially in all this very abstract stuff. Look how long it took us to figure out what “revelation” meant to both of us. One word.

I just play with 1holycatholic because he posts 25 words and I am supposed to know exactly what context he is coming from, and I want to show him (or her) that there just might be other ways of looking at the universe that he/she had not considered

I object mostly to 1holycatholics manner not what he says.

I would really like to get into depth on some of the issues you raise here, but time is an issue.

I could probably write an essay about every line in this post. But I won’t. It’s good stuff and bears discussion.

But in my defense insofar as it is necessary, read that first quote you made carefully and you will see I am making the same point. I am objecting to his 800 year old CONTEXT which is not to be taken seriously, not the argument itself. His use of 800 year old jargon imo clouds the issues and makes them impossible to understand in a modern context today. If we use those terms, we will get hung up on them and fall into error just like a needle in a record. They are so much an unchallenged part of our thinking that everyone accepts those arguments without even thinking about what they mean. That is my real objection.

The mere existence of a wikipedia page that everyone seems to agree on proves my point!

 

[mfbukowski]

The universe need not have “generated” mathematical principles.

Yes, otherwise we could not measure time, and we clearly can. They need not be co-eternal; if God is defined as author and creator, then to be God He must have either created mathematical principles, or mathematical principles are an inherent part of God–which leads to another interesting possibility: if these principles are a part of God, then He can’t change or violate them without changing Himself and becoming changeable. Thus, I think God created mathematical principles, using the principle from the Scriptures of His necessary immutability.

Let me throw this out. Gotta set the hook for further discussion!

Modern atheistic philosophy would say that mathmatics works because it is how our mind orders the universe. Mathmatics as a psychological part of our brains evolved along with us because it gave us an improved ability to use technology and generate culture. Better technology and culture leads to gas heated homes with thermostats which make it easier to survive and have more kids. So mathmatics exists because our brains invented this way of ordering our environment, and it works, and has incredible survival value. So much so that some now think human presence can affect the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses etc. Whatever you think of all that.

In otherwords, out of the chaos of experience of undifferentiated patches of color of a certain wavelength hitting our eyes, and soundwaves of various frequencies hitting our ears, our brain puts it all together into Raiders of the Lost Ark.

So on this view, it is our minds (brains) which create the universe. It is our minds which give it order. Man is the measure of all things.

We of course believe that it is God who orders our universe and his mind which keeps it all from spinning out of control.

Is there a way to combine this idea of human creation of the universe with God? Do we want to? Would there be advantages to combining those two philosophies? Would such a unifying idea elimate for example the supposed conflict between evolution and theism? Or science in general and theism?