Yes, today, Mormons generally believe that Catholics and others are indeed Christians.Simple question. I’ve tried googling but all links end up been about what Catholics think of Mormons, not the other way. I did work out that Mormons don’t consider a Catholic baptism valid, which suggests to me that they don’t consider us Christian but that could simply be me assuming they think the same way the Church does.
Today. So traditionally has that been different and they’ve changed to be more ‘acceptable’?Yes, today, Mormons generally believe that Catholics and others are indeed Christians.
They do not accept any baptism as valid other than their own.
Speaking from the Mormon POV here–Simple question. I’ve tried googling but all links end up been about what Catholics think of Mormons, not the other way. I did work out that Mormons don’t consider a Catholic baptism valid, which suggests to me that they don’t consider us Christian but that could simply be me assuming they think the same way the Church does.
I’m a little confused what exactly you’re asking here.Today. So traditionally has that been different and they’ve changed to be more ‘acceptable’?
In the past some LDS leaders have referred to the Catholic Church as the church of the devil and/or the great and abominable church. Today, you wouldn’t hear that.Today. So traditionally has that been different and they’ve changed to be more ‘acceptable’?
Please be aware that the LDS use a similar vocabulary to Catholic and other Christian Churches and ecclesial communities, but often mean something completely different.Mormons don’t consider a Catholic baptism valid, which suggests to me that they don’t consider us Christian
The LDS teaching is that the Catholic Christian Church went apostate very soon after the death of the Twelve Apostles. Catholic Tradition and the Catholic Bible are considered corrupted. The valid Church was restored and the Book of Mormon translated/dictated by Joseph Smith in 19th Century America.
Mormon theology is very different from Catholic, rejecting the Trinitarian God. Despite our large theological differences, there is much that Catholics can find admirable about the LDS. Their prolife, pro-family teachings and practices are very commendable.
Paul has it correct. To follow up on baptism; because Mormons believe they are the “restored” church, they believe that the sacrament of baptism had been lost. Thus, they baptize their living members, and vicariously baptize those that have died, given them the chance to accept the baptism, and become a latter-day saint.They have been known to ‘baptize’ the dead…so I wouldn’t put much into their ideas on the subject.
LDS definition of “Christian” = a disciples of Christ (Acts 11:26)LDS and Catholic would not define the term “Christian” the same way at all.
So what Christ might I ask? The Christ that said he was sending the H.S to guide them? Or the Christ of Mormonism that was born to a woman that had sexual relations with God? You follow a god that said all churches were an abomination. So what does that say of Christ church? He let mere mortal men corrupt and destroy his church only to let your church do the same with the division of the lds church? When you dig deep into your churches history it becomes clear that there is nothing of worth or truth.LDS definition of “Christian” = a disciples of Christ (Acts 11:26)
That is wee bit harsh a response to an innocuous bible citation…So what Christ might I ask? The Christ that said he was sending the H.S to guide them? Or the Christ of Mormonism that was born to a woman that had sexual relations with God? You follow a god that said all churches were an abomination. So what does that say of Christ church? He let mere mortal men corrupt and destroy his church only to let your church do the same with the division of the lds church? When you dig deep into your churches history it becomes clear that there is nothing of worth or truth.
I repeat:So what Christ might I ask? The Christ that said he was sending the H.S to guide them? Or the Christ of Mormonism that was born to a woman that had sexual relations with God? You follow a god that said all churches were an abomination. So what does that say of Christ church? He let mere mortal men corrupt and destroy his church only to let your church do the same with the division of the lds church? When you dig deep into your churches history it becomes clear that there is nothing of worth or truth.
Still doesn’t answer my question. Anyone can say they follow someone or something. So what Christ is it? Christ of the bible or the Mormon Christ? Before you answer, your church says the Catholic church is corrupt and so was the bible but you still use the bible that has the same words. So are you really a Christian? Before 1975 the lds church did not call itself Christian.I repeat:
LDS definition of “Christian” = a disciples of Christ (Acts 11:26)
No more. No less.
Not harsh. Look at their teachings (they will call them opinions). Im just pointing out that they say they follow Christ but think he let his church fall into apostasy and it needed to be restored. Is that the Christ you know?That is wee bit harsh a response to an innocuous bible citation…
I’m saying that all these other points is irrelevant to the LDS definition of Christian.Still doesn’t answer my question. Anyone can say they follow someone or something. So what Christ is it? Christ of the bible or the Mormon Christ? Before you answer, your church says the Catholic church is corrupt and so was the bible but you still use the bible that has the same words. So are you really a Christian? Before 1975 the lds church did not call itself Christian.
The lds definition of Christian. Im not picking a fight but if one is to call themselves something then one must start at the beginning to truly understand what it is they are calling themselves. So you must go back to the beginning of the lds church and its teachings on Christ. Then look at the historical accounts of Christ and the bible and before that all the way back to Abraham and see that what your church says about what needed to be restored does not exsist. So I think my points are relevant.I’m saying that all these other points is irrelevant to the LDS definition of Christian.
If you desire to tack more things onto the Acts 11:26, that’s your choice.
I’m not here picking a fight.
Kimg901, I’m uninterested in bickering. I gave you the definition of what LDS consider to be Christian, straight out of Acts.The lds definition of Christian. Im not picking a fight but if one is to call themselves something then one must start at the beginning to truly understand what it is they are calling themselves. So you must go back to the beginning of the lds church and its teachings on Christ. Then look at the historical accounts of Christ and the bible and before that all the way back to Abraham and see that what your church says about what needed to be restored does not exsist. So I think my points are relevant.
No one is bickering. But the bible isn’t a bag of trail mix. You cant pick what you like and leave the rest!Kimg901, I’m uninterested in bickering. I gave you the definition of what LDS consider to be Christian, straight out of Acts.
If you/Catholics/whomever wish to add more qualifiers to the definition you use, that’s your choice.
Good day.