Judaism evolved from polytheism? Mormonism right?

[Publisher]

The Genesis account of creation, more importantly, is true, and guaranteed to be such by an Author that cannot lie. Therefore, what it says about the origins of Judaism cannot be false. It shows how Judaism was a revealed religion of monotheism. That is the data; it needs no re-tooling.

I understand that is your religious belief. Biblical scholars and historians who study scriptural development disagree with you…but as I stated…I do understand your post…that is your religious belief.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I think that it has been established rather well that CATHOLICS believe that only Catholics (and certain Protestants who don’t protest the wrong stuff) are Christians. What is at issue here is whether those of us folk who Cahtolics have shoved out of the Christian fold have to accept it as so.

There is no need to put “and certain Protestants who don’t protest the wrong stuff” in parenthesis from the Catholic perspective, since we readily accept Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, and all other Trinitarians as Christians.

You don’t have to accept what we say about you if you don’t want to. You asked “why” we do not accept Mormons as Christians, and I have presented why. It has nothing to do with whether you accept our beliefs on the matter or not, but why we believe what we do on the matter.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6843673&postcount=19

The other post that sparked my posts was your erroneous statement that it is a “fact” that you “aren’t Christians and are therefore going to Hell”, which is not a valid statement of Catholic belief.

Here’s the thing about debates; they generally are about topics with more than one side. Your side is that Catholicism gets to define what “Christian” means. My side is that no, it does not. Therefore beginning with the premise that it DOES, well…doesn’t work.

Our side is that Catholicism gets to define what Christians means within the Catholic worldview, which affects how we associate with other non-Catholic churches and religions, including how we receive members of those religions into full communion with the Church when they desire to be. You asked “why” we believe what we do on the matter, and I presented it.

I have never, EVER, mocked Catholic beliefs. Feel quite free to go through every one of my posts on this forum and find a single post that mocked your beliefs OR Catholics as believers. I have sometimes disagreed with them. I have, at times, defended them against unfair attacks. I have never, ever, mocked them.

Which is considerably more than I can say for many of the posters here in regard to MY beliefs, so…I strongly recommend that nobody go there.

So what exactly did you mean by “a condescending nod to Protestants” in your statement on Catholic belief on who is or isn’t Christian?

Of course you do. I have never argued that. The problem is, y’all seem to think you get to decide how WE have to view ourselves, as well. That is the situation I am addressing. When the premise of a discussion is that Catholics get to decide whether Mormons are Christian or not, and the rest of the converstion hinges upon the Mormon accepting that, and denying their own Christianity, it becomes a problem.

Every Catholic that says that Mormons are not Christians is simply stating their beliefs on the matter, not that Mormons have to accept it. When a Mormon claims that we have apostate beliefs, with no priesthood authority or valid sacraments, we don’t have to accept that, but we know that that is your worldview. You asked why we believe what we do about Mormons not being Christian, and I have presented that.

Ah, no, you don’t. Show me anywhere in my extensive posting history that claims that you don’t get to decide your worldview, or that you don’t get to define Catholic beliefs. Please. I will gladly wait for you to do so.

You clearly stated "You do not get to decide that only Catholics can be ‘true Christians,’ (with a condescending nod to Protestants who agree with you on certain doctrines." Of course we get to decide that Catholics have the fullness of truth on Christianity (if that’s what you mean by “true Christians”), since that is our belief. You don’t have to accept it, but we get to decide what we believe on the matter.

The question here is that y’all seem to want to define MY worldview. That is, it’s not about whether YOU believe I am a Christian. It’s about this incessant insistance that I have to agree that I am not before I can enter into a debate in which the matter, well…matters.

No, it really isn’t. We are presenting our beliefs on the matter. If anything, you already know and accept that you are not traditional Christians, since you do not accept the formal definitions on the nature of God at the ancient Ecumenical Councils of the universal Church.

As well, arguing that you are wrong to believe that Mormons are not Christian isn’t telling you that Catholics don’t get to define Catholic beliefs or world view, y’know. After all, I’m certain that you aren’t going to tell me that because you think my beliefs are incorrect that I don’t get to decide what those beliefs actually are, right?

You asked who gets to define who a Christian is, and why we believe what we do on the matter in relation to Mormons. I presented that, but you seem to want to add that we believe that you must accept our views on the matter. You don’t have to, nor do we expect you to. If anything, we know that you accept that you are not traditional Christians (or what some Mormons term “creedal Christians”).

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

As to baptisms: it’s true. we do not believe that any baptism performed by someone not having authority to do so is valid, and of course we don’t believe any priesthood but ours is valid. It has long been a suspicion of many Mormons that the reason that the Catholic church came out and decided that our baptisms were no good (even though the wording of them exactly conforms to Catholic requirements for that) is because we declared that yours weren’t, first…a quid pro quo sort of thing. The only reason it took y’all so long to make that declaration is that we finally a little too big, and too public, to ignore.

Actually, I don’t think it had anything to do with Mormons saying that Catholic baptisms are “no good” (since in the grand scheme of things, there are churches and religions much larger than Mormonism to think about in comparison to Catholicism). What it had to do with was with the reception of Mormon converts into the Catholic Church. Sure, since Mormonism was getting larger, we therefore had to deal with more people converting to Catholicism if they chose to do so. As you may already know, Catholicism accepts the baptisms of all Trinitarian Christian churches, so we do not baptize them. With Mormons, there is a very different view on the nature of God, so the Church had to address that situation (I believe that “conditional baptisms” were done in the past for Mormon converts). While Mormons use a Trinitarian formula in baptism, the very different beliefs on who the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are makes it as if you are referring to different Persons than we are (which I already brought up). Hence the need to baptize Mormon converts.

Why not?

Our view of what baptism is, and who should BE baptised, however, is a bit different from yours, and in OUR world view is that one need not be baptised to be a Christian. One should have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in order to be one, or at least claim one does.

Right, but that has no eternal significance.

As well, remember that, unlike Catholicism, we do believe that everybody who has ever been born on the planet, or ever WILL be born on the planet, will have an opportunity to be baptised properly. In other words, it’s not as if we are consigning anybody to hell because of where, when or in what circumstances they were born.

Nor do we.

As you believe that, in order to be saved, people must accept a certain set of beliefs and ideas that you count important. The difference between us is this: we beleive that everybody will get the chance to learn and accept. You don’t.

We don’t believe that people will be punished for their invincible ignorance. We don’t believe that just because someone is a non-Catholic (or a non-Christian in general) they are going to Hell.

So, for pure fairness, I’ll go with mine. By the way, you might want to remind yourself that our view of what heaven is differs from yours, as well, in this: every description of heaven I have ever heard from Catholics and Protestants seems to fit the place WE believe pretty much everybody will go to anyway. I believe that Joseph Smith once likened even the Telestial Kingdom (that heaven which most of you would consign those worthy of your hell to) to be so much better than here that if we could see even a glimpse of it, we would instantly commit suicide to go there.

Catholics and Protestants believe that Heaven is (among other things) living in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to Mormonism, that can only occur in the Celestial Kingdom, not the Terrestrial (which I assume is what you are implying by “…seems to fit the place WE believe pretty much everybody will go to anyway”).

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Well, we want to convert you guys, too…but we don’t do it by first denying that you have any chance of a relationship with Christ, are not Christian, and not worthy of fellowship in any way. That’s, quite frankly, counter productive. We DO think that you are in error every inch as much as you do us, but we aren’t kicking YOU out of any chance to work together as Christians.

Right, however this “relationship with Christ” has no eternal significance. In contrast, Catholicism readily accepts the existence of valid baptisms “outside” of itself. So, you may not deny us a chance of a relationship with Christ, however Mormons of course believe that we have some incorrect/apostate beliefs on who Christ is. That is the part that really seems to be ignored.

Well, if we were to define ‘Christian’ as you do, that is ‘he who believes the correct things about Christ,’ or ‘he who agrees with us about Him,’ then you would be correct. We are the only Christians around.

However, we know very well that nobody has ALL the truth about Christ. We claim to have more than anybody else, of course. We are not so blind as to take upon ourselves the right to deny Christ to anybody who has a personal relationship with Him, or who honestly follows His teachings as they believe them to be.

As I’ve already stated, Catholics readily accept that people can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ “outside” of the Church, and even can be baptized into Him. Your belief allows for no eternal significance of “personal relationship with Him”, since one will have to accept Mormonism to live in the eternal presence of the Father and the Son. Sticking to our traditional/creedal beliefs will land us in the Terrestrial Kingdom, along with the faithful Muslims, Hindus, etc., right?

Catholics believe that it is important to know what “His teachings” are, especially on who He is.

In fact, I believe that Jesus has some very harsh things to say to those who pull that sort of stuff.

Yes, something about not everyone that says “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

We contend that you are redefining it to exclude us.

So what is the original definition that is being “re”-defined?

 

[dianaiad]

There is no need to put “and certain Protestants who don’t protest the wrong stuff” in parenthesis from the Catholic perspective, since we readily accept Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, and all other Trinitarians as Christians.

Indeed. That is what I meant by those who don’t protest the wrong stuff.

You don’t have to accept what we say about you if you don’t want to. You asked “why” we do not accept Mormons as Christians, and I have presented why. It has nothing to do with whether you accept our beliefs on the matter or not, but why we believe what we do on the matter.

Actually, I didn’t ask why you don’t. I asked you to ask yourselves why it is so important to you to throw another group out of the ‘club.’ I understand the justifications you give regarding why you don’t.

I believe, myself, that the justifications you use are just that; justifications. The true reason behind the move is simply to make us ‘other,’ and there is only one reason any group does that, in practical terms.

NOBODY says “oh, we’re going to persecute, vilify, and do nasty things to this group here, but we can’t do that as long as anybody thinks that they are a member of any group we claim as ours, so we’ll just revoke their membership so that nobody will feel guilty about going after them.” Excuses and justifications must be made. One can find a reason to exclude anybody if you look hard enough…after all. look at the number of fundamentalist Christian churches that have collectively decided that Catholicism isn’t Christian!

As to whether the practical reasons and results are accurate, DO look at that terminal irritation in my side, that sidebar advertising anti stuff up here. Do you see a SINGLE publication there that talks about any group that the Catholics consider to be ‘Christian?’ Have you ever done so?

Even though the name of the forum is 'non-Catholic religions," not “non-Christian religions?”

Cause and effect are obvious from where I sit. You CAN’T write “When Baptists come to Call” and advertise it here, because, well…they are Christians. You don’t DO that to Christians.

So…I’m telling you that your view is incorrect, and that any conversation that begins with the premise that I am NOT a Christian, along with the assumption that I agree with that assessment, is begging the question.

I do not insist that you change your mind regarding this issue, y’know. It’s only that any conversation predicated upon the idea that I have to agree that I’m not is going to go downhill very, very fast.

Or, to put it more bluntly…I have no right to tell you that you MUST believe that I am Christian. I have no right to insist that you not tell me I"m not. I DO have the right to insist that, since I believe that you are wrong about it, and that I AM a Christian, that y’all do not make my agreement to your world view a requirement for conversation.

Because everytime that happens, I will start arguing the concept–and that means that I will argue that even though I understand why you believe as you do, that in my opinion, you are wrong to do so.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6843673&postcount=19

The other post that sparked my posts was your erroneous statement that it is a “fact” that you “aren’t Christians and are therefore going to Hell”, which is not a valid statement of Catholic belief.

You are quite right: the catechism states this: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation”

Most Catholics who discuss this matter with me, however, exclude Mormons from this, because, evidently, we are all supposed to know better. (shrug) But again, you are correct; the catechism is rather clear on this matter.

 

[dianaiad]

Our side is that Catholicism gets to define what Christians means within the Catholic worldview, which affects how we associate with other non-Catholic churches and religions, including how we receive members of those religions into full communion with the Church when they desire to be. You asked “why” we believe what we do on the matter, and I presented it.

Again, I didn’t ask why. I asked Catholics to ask themselves why. Why pick this issue over another? Why this group over another? If the answer is comfortable to y’all, that’s one thing, but in doing so you might actually come to understand why I, in particular, won’t put up with being told that I have to agree with y’all about it.

So what exactly did you mean by “a condescending nod to Protestants” in your statement on Catholic belief on who is or isn’t Christian?

I meant precisely that. It appears to me to be a condescending nod, in both the ancient and modern connotations of the word 'condescending." The ancient connotation is a lot more positive than the modern one.

Every Catholic that says that Mormons are not Christians is simply stating their beliefs on the matter, not that Mormons have to accept it.

Uh, not quite. True, when a Catholic says “I don’t believe that Mormons are Christian,” then you would be accurate. However, when a Catholic states that Mormons aren’t Christians, it’s almost always said as a justification for another opinion regarding LDS doctrine or history…and it is almost always said in a manner of 'prooftext." That is, when this statement is made, it is supposed to be the proof that Mormons are wrong about something else. In fact, they beg the question.

After all, if the reason some LDS doctrine is incorrect is because “Mormons aren’t Christian,” then first it must be established to the agreement of everybody in the conversation that we aren’t.

Since Mormons think we are, I think you can see where the difficulty lies…for us it’s like being told we HAVE to believe that grass in orange because everybody knows that the sky is fuscia.

When a Mormon claims that we have apostate beliefs, with no priesthood authority or valid sacraments, we don’t have to accept that, but we know that that is your worldview. You asked why we believe what we do about Mormons not being Christian, and I have presented that.

That’s a little different, sir. Yes, we claim that…but we don’t ask you to agree with us about it before we continue to a point that depends upon that being true.

I have lost count of all the conversations I’ve had where it has been expected that I agree that Mormons are not Christian as a given.

Catholics discussing Mormonism amongst themselves can agree that “Mormons are not Christian” is an incontrovertable fact. However, as soon as a Mormon actually enters the conversation, that premise goes out the window, because for the Mormon, such a statement is anything BUT incontrovertable fact, and any discussion with him that depends upon it BEING a fact is going to go absolutely nowhere.

 

[dianaiad]

you clearly stated "You do not get to decide that only Catholics can be ‘true Christians,’ (with a condescending nod to Protestants who agree with you on certain doctrines." Of course we get to decide that Catholics have the fullness of truth on Christianity (if that’s what you mean by “true Christians”), since that is our belief. You don’t have to accept it, but we get to decide what we believe on the matter.

Don’t move the goalposts. Deciding that Catholics have the fullness of truth on Christianity IS something you have every right to do, for Catholics. I would sincerely hope that you do believe that, else you would be hypocritical in the extreme. That is a very different thing from restricting the whole of Christianity to the specific set of beliefs that make one a Catholic (with, as I mentioned, that condescending bow to Protestents who believe the important stuff. They may be misguided, but they can be Christians too…)

The thing is, my friend, that just as I cannot, and would not, dictate to Catholics what they must believe in order to be Catholics, my contention is that Catholicism cannot dictate, especially to a group which disagrees with them on some major things regarding Christ, that this group cease to regard itself as Christian, and henceforth admit, in any conversations with Catholics, that they aren’t Christian.

I mean, really. How logical IS that?

No, it really isn’t. We are presenting our beliefs on the matter. If anything, you already know and accept that you are not traditional Christians,

Emphasis upon the adjective. We are not traditional Christians. We are, nontheless, Christians.

since you do not accept the formal definitions on the nature of God at the ancient Ecumenical Councils of the universal Church.
You asked who gets to define who a Christian is, and why we believe what we do on the matter in relation to Mormons. I presented that, but you seem to want to add that we believe that you must accept our views on the matter.

Other way around, I’m afraid. I do not insist, or even ask that, you accede to my views. It’s not my right or perview to demand any such thing. The whole POINT of this is that I object, and object strenuously, to Catholics insisting that I accede to YOUR view of it; that I have to sit here and agree that we are not Christians when we know very well that we are.

Consider; we do not use the claim that we are Christians as a proof text to make a point, or prove that we are right, or to bang people over the head with the idea. Every single time, and I do mean EVERY single time, the subject comes up, it is because someone else is attempting to push us out of the fellowship/brotherhood/club…whatever. EVERY single time the subject comes up, it is the direct result of some Christian who wants to throw us under the lexicological buss; to deny fellowship or that we have anything in common with Christianity.

Or any claim on Christian brotherhood.

Or Charity.

Or anything else.

EVERY time.

…and we object to that.

You don’t have to, nor do we expect you to. If anything, we know that you accept that you are not traditional Christians (or what some Mormons term “creedal Christians”).

I wish that were true, sir. Unfortunately, those who declare TO MORMONS that we are not Christian do not do so because they want to clarify specific meanings. They do so in order to make us ‘other.’ and it is always, ALWAYS, a prelude to some disparaging or critical remark for which “Mormons aren’t Christian” is justification enough.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, I don’t think it had anything to do with Mormons saying that Catholic baptisms are “no good” (since in the grand scheme of things, there are churches and religions much larger than Mormonism to think about in comparison to Catholicism). What it had to do with was with the reception of Mormon converts into the Catholic Church. Sure, since Mormonism was getting larger, we therefore had to deal with more people converting to Catholicism if they chose to do so. As you may already know, Catholicism accepts the baptisms of all Trinitarian Christian churches, so we do not baptize them. With Mormons, there is a very different view on the nature of God, so the Church had to address that situation (I believe that “conditional baptisms” were done in the past for Mormon converts). While Mormons use a Trinitarian formula in baptism, the very different beliefs on who the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are makes it as if you are referring to different Persons than we are (which I already brought up). Hence the need to baptize Mormon converts.

Why not?

Right, but that has no eternal significance.

Niether does the classification of the basic belief system, that is 'Christian." If we agree with you that “Christian” means "he who believes the truth, " or “he who is saved,” or “He who has been baptized properly,” then we would have to claim that there are about 14 million Christians in the world.

Maybe.

Nor do we.

We don’t believe that people will be punished for their invincible ignorance. We don’t believe that just because someone is a non-Catholic (or a non-Christian in general) they are going to Hell.

Catholics and Protestants believe that Heaven is (among other things) living in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to Mormonism, that can only occur in the Celestial Kingdom, not the Terrestrial (which I assume is what you are implying by “…seems to fit the place WE believe pretty much everybody will go to anyway”).

Oh dear. First, your statement equivocates your position on the Trinity–that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost share one substance that cannot be divided, so that if one is in the presence of one Member of the Trintarian God, one is in the full and complete presence of ALL of them.

Please remember. we are NOT classic Trinitarians. We believe that it is perfectly possible to be in the presence of Jesus Christ without being in the presence, at least completely, of His Father.

We do believe that those in the terrestrial Kingdom dwell in Christ’s presence, for instance.

 

[dianaiad]

Right, however this “relationship with Christ” has no eternal significance.

Oh, yes it does. It has every eternal significance. But please don’t conflate the concept ‘relationship with Christ’ entirely with the word “Christian.” Not all Christians have that relationship.

In contrast, Catholicism readily accepts the existence of valid baptisms “outside” of itself. So, you may not deny us a chance of a relationship with Christ, however Mormons of course believe that we have some incorrect/apostate beliefs on who Christ is. That is the part that really seems to be ignored.

We ignore that?

Wow. News to me!

Remember, WE aren’t the folks who seem to think that “Christian” somehow means “he who agrees with me.”

As I’ve already stated, Catholics readily accept that people can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ “outside” of the Church, and even can be baptized into Him. Your belief allows for no eternal significance of “personal relationship with Him”, since one will have to accept Mormonism to live in the eternal presence of the Father and the Son. Sticking to our traditional/creedal beliefs will land us in the Terrestrial Kingdom, along with the faithful Muslims, Hindus, etc., right?

That depends on a great many factors…but don’t go there, my friend, especially since you just sent me to the catechism, where I found out that YOU guys think that it’s quite possible for HIndus to be 'saved."

The difference here is that while Catholicism teaches that salvation may come to someone even if he never knows about Christ, WE claim that everybody will get a chance to know. Therefore it’s never a matter of condemning people because they aren’t Mormons, or who haven’t had a chance to become so. It’s a matter of people choosing their own destinations in full understanding of what they are choosing to give up.

Catholics believe that it is important to know what “His teachings” are, especially on who He is.

As do we…which is why we put so much emphasis upon the idea that all mankind will be given the chance to hear, and accept, the gospel.

Yes, something about not everyone that says “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with waht judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest though the mote that is in they brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Matthew 7: 1-3

 

[dianaiad]

So what is the original definition that is being “re”-defined?

The one that is in the dictionary, sir…the one that is agreed upon by ALL those who claim to be Christians…that one common denominator that all Christians share.It’s a pretty classic ven diagram.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Oh dear. First, your statement equivocates your position on the Trinity–that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost share one substance that cannot be divided, so that if one is in the presence of one Member of the Trintarian God, one is in the full and complete presence of ALL of them.

Oh dear indeed. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Trinitarian doctrine states. As Trinitarians, we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. I believe you referenced the Athanasian Creed in this thread. If you read it, you would know that it states this-
*
"Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. "*

Similarly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church further expounds on this issue:
*
““He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.””*

The lack of division of substance does not mean that there is no distinction in Persons (to say otherwise is modalism). So there is no equivocation in my statement, but you show a common misunderstanding of what the Trinity is actually talking about.

To be in the presence of Jesus does not mean that you are in the presence of the Father and the Holy Spirit. The fullness of Divinity is present, however only the Person of Jesus is present, not the Person of the Father or the Person of the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, the Father is not the Son, etc.

Please remember. we are NOT classic Trinitarians. We believe that it is perfectly possible to be in the presence of Jesus Christ without being in the presence, at least completely, of His Father.

See above.

We do believe that those in the terrestrial Kingdom dwell in Christ’s presence, for instance.

I know.

The issue is that the Terrestrial Kingdom is not what Trinitarians imagine Heaven being, as you implied. We believe that it is to be in the presence of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is by definition the Celestial Kingdom in Mormonism. Since Trinitarians accept a distinction of divine Persons (as well as no division in substance, noting that substance is a completely different “thing” from personhood), the Terrestrial Kingdom, where the Father is not present, is not an equivalent to our view of Heaven.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Oh, yes it does. It has every eternal significance. But please don’t conflate the concept ‘relationship with Christ’ entirely with the word “Christian.” Not all Christians have that relationship.

What is the eternal significance of it?

We ignore that?

Wow. News to me!

Remember, WE aren’t the folks who seem to think that “Christian” somehow means “he who agrees with me.”

As I said, Catholicism accepts the existence of valid baptisms outside its physical bounds, and in the case of Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy (and 1-2 others), we accept the existence of valid sacraments and priesthood outside of the physical bounds of the Catholic Church. In contrast, Mormons say that only they have valid ordinances and priesthood, and that although one may have a relationship with Jesus Christ and may be termed a Christian, it has no eternal significance (such a relationship will not lead to eternity in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as that person hopes for) unless they accept Mormon ordinances.

That depends on a great many factors…but don’t go there, my friend, especially since you just sent me to the catechism, where I found out that YOU guys think that it’s quite possible for HIndus to be 'saved."

The difference here is that while Catholicism teaches that salvation may come to someone even if he never knows about Christ, WE claim that everybody will get a chance to know. Therefore it’s never a matter of condemning people because they aren’t Mormons, or who haven’t had a chance to become so. It’s a matter of people choosing their own destinations in full understanding of what they are choosing to give up.

Yes, God can save whomever He desires to. In Mormonism, a Catholic that holds to their beliefs in Jesus Christ and Catholicism, including in the spirit world, ends up in the Terrestrial Kingdom, since as I said, their relationship with Christ had no “eternal significance” anymore than a Hindu’s views. In contrast, a Hindu that is saved in Catholicism didn’t get there because of what they believed or didn’t believe, but through the mercy of God who wouldn’t punish them for something (more like Someone) they never heard about.

As do we…which is why we put so much emphasis upon the idea that all mankind will be given the chance to hear, and accept, the gospel.

Right. For Catholics, the word “Christian” means something, and the “teachings” that are being referenced are a definable entity. And as we already know, we don’t limit the word “Christian” to just Catholics. We accept in our worldview as Christians: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentecostals (non-Oneness), etc. We also don’t rebaptize them either. For us, “Christian” refers to someone that holds a specific view on God.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with waht judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest though the mote that is in they brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Matthew 7: 1-3

I think that the “Lord, Lord” verse fits more with our view of “Christian”.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The one that is in the dictionary, sir…the one that is agreed upon by ALL those who claim to be Christians…that one common denominator that all Christians share.It’s a pretty classic ven diagram.

You claimed that we redefined the word “Christian”. Are you saying that the dictionary definition of “Christian” existed before how Catholics view it? Please cite the sources.

To me, who Jesus Christ is is important. Hence the ancient Ecumenical Councils of the universal Church.

 

[StevieD]

The many off-shoots of the LDS claim to be Mormons but the LDS appear to deny this. Is it not up to these bodies to decide whether they are Mormons or not in the light of what has been said here?

 

[Publisher]

The many off-shoots of the LDS claim to be Mormons but the LDS appear to deny this. Is it not up to these bodies to decide whether they are Mormons or not in the light of what has been said here?

From the readings I have conducted conerning those “off-shoots”…most of them do not use the name “Mormon”…but “Latter Day Saint”. While the LDS church with headquarters in Salt Lake City may not recongnize the “other Latter Day Saints” as having the authority to baptize…they still are “Latter Day Saints” and Christians according to what I have read…be they from the Utah church…Strangite church, RLDS church, Community of Christ or Church of Christ, Temple Lot…each of them share LDS history and then a strain of their own “Latter Day Saint” history.

 

[dianaiad]

Oh dear indeed. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Trinitarian doctrine states. As Trinitarians, we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. I believe you referenced the Athanasian Creed in this thread. If you read it, you would know that it states this-
*
"Neither confounding the persons* nor dividing the substance. "

If you can’t divide the substance, then…you can’t divide the substance. I wasn’t speaking about the Trinity in a modalistic manner, sir, but if they share something more fundamental than a sense of purpose, then what one knows and is, the other does; that’s what “not dividing the substance’ is, even though it is ALSO true that classic Trinitarians are careful not to 'confound the Persons.” which is why I did mention all three. However, if I have goofed here, then…not a problem. You will be better able to understand the concept of folks in the Terrestrial Kingdom being in the presence of Jesus Christ…

Similarly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church further expounds on this issue:
*
““He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.””*

The lack of division of substance does not mean that there is no distinction in Persons (to say otherwise is modalism). So there is no equivocation in my statement, but you show a common misunderstanding of what the Trinity is actually talking about.

No…I get it, but the impression I got from your writing was that you did not allow for the separation of Persons. My apologies.

To be in the presence of Jesus does not mean that you are in the presence of the Father and the Holy Spirit. The fullness of Divinity is present, however only the Person of Jesus is present, not the Person of the Father or the Person of the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, the Father is not the Son, etc.

Then you understand my point regarding the Terrestrial Kingdom.

See above.

I know.

The issue is that the Terrestrial Kingdom is not what Trinitarians imagine Heaven being, as you implied. We believe that it is to be in the presence of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is by definition the Celestial Kingdom in Mormonism. Since Trinitarians accept a distinction of divine Persons (as well as no division in substance, noting that substance is a completely different “thing” from personhood), the Terrestrial Kingdom, where the Father is not present, is not an equivalent to our view of Heaven.

One of these days we are going to have to have a discussion of what we all think ‘heaven’ is actually going to BE like…

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

If you can’t divide the substance, then…you can’t divide the substance. I wasn’t speaking about the Trinity in a modalistic manner, sir, but if they share something more fundamental than a sense of purpose, then what one knows and is, the other does; that’s what “not dividing the substance’ is, even though it is ALSO true that classic Trinitarians are careful not to 'confound the Persons.” which is why I did mention all three. However, if I have goofed here, then…not a problem. You will be better able to understand the concept of folks in the Terrestrial Kingdom being in the presence of Jesus Christ…

No…I get it, but the impression I got from your writing was that you did not allow for the separation of Persons. My apologies.

Then you understand my point regarding the Terrestrial Kingdom.

One of these days we are going to have to have a discussion of what we all think ‘heaven’ is actually going to BE like…

Okay. As long as you are aware that for a Trinitarian, being in the presence of Jesus is not being in the presence of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well, since they are distinct Persons (and why Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself, for example). The Son isn’t the Father or the Spirit, the Father isn’t the Son or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. It is this distinction that makes this statement-“so that if one is in the presence of one Member of the Trintarian God, one is in the full and complete presence of ALL of them.” incorrect. There are clear characteristics of each Person that make them not each other (the Son is begotten, the Father is unbegotten, the Spirit proceeds, the Father and Son do not, etc).

 

[dianaiad]

What is the eternal significance of it?

As I said, Catholicism accepts the existence of valid baptisms outside its physical bounds, and in the case of Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy (and 1-2 others), we accept the existence of valid sacraments and priesthood outside of the physical bounds of the Catholic Church. In contrast, Mormons say that only they have valid ordinances and priesthood, and that although one may have a relationship with Jesus Christ and may be termed a Christian, it has no eternal significance (such a relationship will not lead to eternity in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as that person hopes for) unless they accept Mormon ordinances.

Yes, God can save whomever He desires to. In Mormonism, a Catholic that holds to their beliefs in Jesus Christ and Catholicism, including in the spirit world, ends up in the Terrestrial Kingdom, since as I said, their relationship with Christ had no “eternal significance” anymore than a Hindu’s views. In contrast, a Hindu that is saved in Catholicism didn’t get there because of what they believed or didn’t believe, but through the mercy of God who wouldn’t punish them for something (more like Someone) they never heard about.

No…we believe that everybody will have a chance to accept or reject the gospel in its fulness. That is. It’s not “really good Catholics can go to heaven even if they don’t become Mormons,” it’s more like "really good Catholics will, when they finally get to hear about the gospel (and every one of them WILL) will get to decide where they want to go; if they have been living according to all the truths they know, and in addition accept the gospel when they finally hear it, they will go to the Celestial Kingdom. "

We simply are not that exclusionary. The thing is, we do beleive that God wants to save everybody, and has done what is required to make that happen. It’s now up to us to accept the offer.

Right. For Catholics, the word “Christian” means something, and the “teachings” that are being referenced are a definable entity. And as we already know, we don’t limit the word “Christian” to just Catholics. We accept in our worldview as Christians: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentecostals (non-Oneness), etc. We also don’t rebaptize them either. For us, “Christian” refers to someone that holds a specific view on God.

And that’s fine. For you.
The problem comes when y’all decide that we have to agree with that.

I think that the “Lord, Lord” verse fits more with our view of “Christian”.

The problem is, my friend, that the “Lord, Lord” verse is HIM talking. That is, HE is doing the judging. We have no quarrel with that idea. The other verses are what He had to say to us, when WE start making judgments about other people. We agree with that 100%. He is the ultimate judge of who is His.

But we are not Christ. HE may judge. WE don’t have that right.

Especially when history has proven over and over again that denying someone the right to call themselves “Christian” because of some doctrinal or cultural difference that does not involve the actual reality of Jesus Christ at the center of their faith is almost always a prelude to very unChristian behavior. Or rather, it’s very Christian behavior, it’s just not Christ like.

 

[dianaiad]

You claimed that we redefined the word “Christian”. Are you saying that the dictionary definition of “Christian” existed before how Catholics view it? Please cite the sources.

To me, who Jesus Christ is is important. Hence the ancient Ecumenical Councils of the universal Church.

You want the etymology of the word CHRISTIAN?

Sure…

(please excuse the length of this copy/paste…the OED is a subscription service, so I can’t just give you the link!) I had to cut the etymology of all the words because the entire thing ran the word count to over 13000 words. I think the moderators here would rightly object to this.

Suffice it to say that the word goes back a very long way indeed…and in none of those usages, by every single group who has ever used it, is there any specific requirement that a Christian believe a specific set of doctrines, such as the Trinity.

A. adj.

1. a. ***Of persons and communities: Believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ. ***
b. most Christian: a title of the kings of France. 

c. In the names of various religious sects or associations, as Christian Israelites, Christian Royalists (see quot.), Christian Socialists (whence Christian Socialism, the principles of Christian Socialists; Christian-socialize v. (nonce-wd.), to imbue with Christian Socialism). 
d. Politics. Christian Democrat (see quot. 1957); so Christian Democratic adj.

.
2. a. Of things: Pertaining to Christ or his religion: of or belonging to Christianity.
b. Court Christian: an ecclesiastical court. Obs. exc. Hist.
.
c. Christian ale: see quot. and ALE 3. Obs.
3. Of persons and their qualities or actions: Showing character and conduct consistent with discipleship to Christ; marked by genuine piety; following the precepts and example of Christ; Christ-like.
4. Of or belonging to a Christian or Christians.
5. a. Human as distinguished from brutal; now only colloq. or humorous. b. mod. colloq. or slang. Of things: Becoming a Christian; ‘civilized’, ‘decent’, ‘respectable’. Cf. B. 3.
6. Christian name: the name given at christening; the personal name, as distinguished from the family name or surname. (Also allusively = ‘proper name’.) Hence to Christian-name v. trans. (nonce-wd.), to call by one’s Christian name; Christian-named ppl. a., having a Christian name.
7. Christian era: the era reckoned from the accepted date of the birth of Christ, and adopted in all Christian countries.
B. n.

*** 1. a. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.***
b. even Christian: fellow-Christian; also collectively, fellow-Christians. Obs. See EVEN-.

2. One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety. 
3. a. colloq. and dial. A human being, as distinguished from a brute. [A common sense in the Romanic langs.]    b. colloq. or slang. A ‘decent’, ‘respectable’, or ‘presentable’ person. 
4. Used as a denominational or sectarian name.

1. a. A variety of pear; ? = BON-CHRÉTIEN; also a variety of plum. Obs.
   b. Comb. (a) Parasynthetic, as Christian-minded a., and derivatives as Christian-mindedness n. (b) Christian-wise adv., in a Christian way.

I emphasized the definitions that seem to sum things up here; please note that the first one doesn’t have ‘someone who believes the truth,’ or 'a Trinitarian" or “a Catholic or someone that the Catholics approve of.” It’s about what the BELIEVER thinks. Someone who “believes, professes or belongs” to the religion of Christ. Which is a religion that has Christ at the center of it.

The second hilighted definition has to do with the totallity of Christians.

Christianity is:

1. The whole body of Christians, the Christian part of the world, CHRISTENDOM. Obs.

“Christian” is not a label of worthiness. It is not an imprimatur of salvation. It’s not a declaration of approval or a stamp of divine grace.

It is a classification of a belief system, and the only reason any Christian has for attempting to boot another Christian out of the ‘club’ is to put him at the distance required to not feel guilty when you do unkind and violent things to him. That’s it.