The Book of Mormon
discussion
Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?
There are approximately 750 formally recognized sects and denominations within Christianity today.The devout followers of each are absolutely certain that they know for sure, through prayer and divine revelation, that the other 749 got it wrong.
Jim wrote: "... The devout followers of each are absolutely certain that they know for sure, through prayer and divine revelation, that the other 749 got it wrong. "
If we're referring to "non-essential" doctrines, that may be partly true; maybe not as absolute as your statement implies, but sure, if you try, it's not too difficult to run into those who are not willing to "agree to disagree".
However, to be clear, I was referring to "essential doctrines" in my post; those accepted Biblical tenets that define Christianity, not the "non-essentials" which are, by nature, up for debate.
If we're referring to "non-essential" doctrines, that may be partly true; maybe not as absolute as your statement implies, but sure, if you try, it's not too difficult to run into those who are not willing to "agree to disagree".
However, to be clear, I was referring to "essential doctrines" in my post; those accepted Biblical tenets that define Christianity, not the "non-essentials" which are, by nature, up for debate.
Just chiming in to state that you don't have to go very far into any religion that claims to be Christian before you can find some leader that states something apocryphal. That is because we are all human. The only one who was and is a perfect Christian is Christ himself. The rest of us are just trying to emulate Him to the best of our abilities. Christian religions encourage their followers to follow Christ through their teachings.
Scripture teaches that truth can only be stated and learned when accompanied by the Spirit of God (i.e. Revelation). Revelation can be personal or a steady stream of Revelation can come through someone chosen of God to lead a group of people. Someone who God speaks through to a large group of people is often called a Prophet. God chooses prophets and leaders in an organized fashion from what is available among mankind. These men are not perfect, nor do they speak for God every time they open their mouths. However, God will not allow them (Prophets) to misspeak so egregiously as to lead his children astray.
By their fruits and the fruits of those they lead shall ye know them. It would be foolish for me to even say this is definitive and invite those who never misspeak show me my error.
So, we choose which imperfect people to follow to Christ because heaven knows we cannot get there by interpretation of scripture alone. Else why are there so many disagreements among those who call themselves Christians. Surely this is not approved by God, nor is it His method or plan.
The amazing thing is that God has promised to show us and answer us if we come to him. We should treasure and hold fast to what we know through this process, and love all others who are truly seeking Him.
Mormonism is the only religion that specifically forbid black people from the priesthood.THIS IS FROM THE MORMON SITE: lds.org
"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple."
What is the Moronic reason for this?
"Because they have turned their hearts away from me, to worship [other gods]"
God destroys those who worship other gods. 1:12
"From Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land"
All Egyptians were (are?) cursed by God because Ham saw Noah when he was drunk and naked. (Genesis 9:20-25) 1:21-24
"Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood"
The Pharaoh was black (according to this verse, anyway), and because of that he was banned from the priesthood. (Poor Pharaoh couldn't be a Mormon priest, since all black men were denied the Mormon priesthood until the 1978 revelation.) 1:26-27
"The Lord God caused the famine to wax sore in the land of Ur." 2:1
"Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live."
God tells Abraham to ask Sarai to lie to the Egyptians. I guess it's okay to lie. (If it wasn't, God wouldn't have recommended it to Abraham.) 2:22-25
Does that sound CHRISTIAN to you?
Happytobefreedom wrote: "Mormonism is the only religion that specifically forbid black people from the priesthood.THIS IS FROM THE MORMON SITE: lds.org
"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of bl..."
You almost have a valid point. There was a period in LDS history when blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood. This is also a passage directly from LDS.org:
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
Announced by President Spencer W. Kimball
(See Official Declaration 2)
Benjamin wrote: "BJ, I’m not sure what you mean by for or against. If you mean whether or not I believe the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired I would have to say no. But I do agree with many of the doctrines it t..."I really liked the arguments here that you made. They made sense, and they were well-backed. To answer questions such as "How do we become eternal beings?" (In the sense of your argument that being eternal just doesn't make sense) the only answer we have is "We don't know."
To give a semi-logical explanation, it is theoretically possible to have no beginning, even though you had a beginning. There is a part of string theory that states that there is a point where mass, space, and time converge, and if someone or something were to reach this point, it would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
Good discussion here, but to be clear, Christianity is NOT defined by behavior. It's not hard to find non-Christians who behave more "Christian" than Christians.
Christianity is defined by an adherence to a specific set of ESSENTIAL doctrines: the divinity of Christ (God incarnate, NOT the brother to Lucifer or Michael the archangel) only one God IN ALL existence, salvation by grace alone, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc.) These are not the same as "non-essential" doctrines, those doctrines debated between Christian denominations like Baptists and Lutherans.
"Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?" If it ascribes to the essential doctrines, then it falls under the definition as a denomination.
Mormonism clearly does not. (according to http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian, "Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it is outside Christianity."
However, if the definition is officially broadened to include the Mormon faith, then, for clarity, those who fall under the current definition would quite naturally need to change their name, or at least hyphenate it.
If squares are suddenly called circles, the current circle would need be referred to as a "round-circle" for clarity.
Christianity is defined by an adherence to a specific set of ESSENTIAL doctrines: the divinity of Christ (God incarnate, NOT the brother to Lucifer or Michael the archangel) only one God IN ALL existence, salvation by grace alone, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc.) These are not the same as "non-essential" doctrines, those doctrines debated between Christian denominations like Baptists and Lutherans.
"Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?" If it ascribes to the essential doctrines, then it falls under the definition as a denomination.
Mormonism clearly does not. (according to http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian, "Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it is outside Christianity."
However, if the definition is officially broadened to include the Mormon faith, then, for clarity, those who fall under the current definition would quite naturally need to change their name, or at least hyphenate it.
If squares are suddenly called circles, the current circle would need be referred to as a "round-circle" for clarity.
I don't have the time or inclination to comment on this lengthy stream, but some of the points in the original posting are simply inaccurate. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Salvation comes through him. It is nonsense to say that we believe salvation comes through Joseph Smith. We believe him to have been a prophet; Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer. Yes, we are Christians. We do differ greatly from much of Christianity, but other religions also differ from each other, and they are still Christian
Eddie wrote: "The Mormons I have met are amazing people. Kinder, wiser ... their behavior humbles me to say the least. However, if the Mormons wish to call themselves "Christian", main-line Christians will tend ..."You can find any and all information on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on
http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng
This is the official site for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (given the nickname "Mormon" by society). Hope this helps! :)
Robert wrote: "...but other religions also differ from each other, and they are still Christian"
I am not sure what you mean by "religions", but you know as well as I that anyone can claim to be a representative part a group. But if they don't meet the definition of that group, logically, something will have to give. Either the definition is changed, or they live with the absurdity of calling themselves something that they're not.
I don't make the rules. Words simply have definitions. Maybe your argument is with an etymologist?
I am not sure what you mean by "religions", but you know as well as I that anyone can claim to be a representative part a group. But if they don't meet the definition of that group, logically, something will have to give. Either the definition is changed, or they live with the absurdity of calling themselves something that they're not.
I don't make the rules. Words simply have definitions. Maybe your argument is with an etymologist?
Wow you theists are a prickly lot. All responsible theologies and moral philosophies include a version of the golden rule and that includes the Mormons and that is good enough for this scientific Taoist and mystical humanist. The young men who have come to my farmhouse are respectful and willing to roll up their sleeves and work hard alongside me in my fields just for the "privilege" of discussing such things with me. Christian or not they as a group are welcome at my table and deserving of my hospitality whether I believe that the rest of it is hokum or not.
Eliza wrote: "This is the official site for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (given the nickname "Mormon" by society). Hope this helps!"
Thanks Eliza. But if you read my post, I was not necessarily looking for further information on Mormonism, but simply commenting on what makes up the definition of Christianity and what aspects of that definition Mormonism denies at the basic level. Though I am no stranger to the doctrines of Mormonism nor the book of Mormon, one really need not look beyond the basic tenets of Mormonism and Christianity to see contradictions.
In a 2 sentence nutshell from http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian: "Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it is outside Christianity."
Nothing against Mormons, whose behavior I admire. All I'm really saying is, definitions are important.
Thanks Eliza. But if you read my post, I was not necessarily looking for further information on Mormonism, but simply commenting on what makes up the definition of Christianity and what aspects of that definition Mormonism denies at the basic level. Though I am no stranger to the doctrines of Mormonism nor the book of Mormon, one really need not look beyond the basic tenets of Mormonism and Christianity to see contradictions.
In a 2 sentence nutshell from http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian: "Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it is outside Christianity."
Nothing against Mormons, whose behavior I admire. All I'm really saying is, definitions are important.
Eddie, you're welcome. :) Just wanted to be able to share a resource to see the official definition of Mormonism - from Mormons (by the way, calling the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints "Mormonism" is like calling other religions "Matthewism" or "Lukeism". Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are Christians. They follow Jesus Christ. His name is in the name of their church!) You know, going to the source; that always helps. :) It would be like me wanting to know something about you, and asking your next door neighbor's mother-in-law's former roommate's best friend and hoping to get some definition of your character. I think it would be best to ask you in the first place. What better way to find out about you than asking you? Hope you have a great day, Eddie. You always add so much to these discussions. :)
Eliza wrote: "They follow Jesus Christ. His name is in the name of their church! You know, going to the source; that always helps."
Thanks Eliza.
I'm afraid we're coming back full-circle again, since I wrote about this in messages 456 and 463. And you need only reread either one to get my thoughts on what you just posted. But let me give this one more try:
Though I appreciate your brevity, Eliza, to "follow Jesus Christ" is all well and good, but that doesn't really say anything as long as we don't know what you mean by "follow" and "Jesus Christ". But lets just focus on the latter.
Of course, we do know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has specific views about who "Jesus Christ" is and that they are at odds with those of mainstream Biblical Christianity --two contradictory "Jesus Christ" figures, two contradictory core tenets. So it is already safe to say, when you say "Christian", you're talking about something that is specifically at odds with what Biblical Christianity says is "Christian". (and "Jesus Christ" is hardly the only essential doctrine where there is disagreement)
In other words, we're talking about 2 opposing essential doctrines that can't both be true, yet both are being called "Christian". (again, see message 456 or 463)
It's confusing and misleading and ought not be so.
For clarity, it makes the most sense to define Christian, or Christianity, strictly by the written word of its own holy book, the Bible. "You know, going to the source; that always helps." (Details here: http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-o...) Have a quick look and see if you agree with these essential doctrines that make up Biblical Christianity. Do you?
But if we must broaden the definition to include versions of "Christianity" with contradictory essential doctrines, a definition that includes all those who "follow" (whatever that means) "Jesus Christ" (whomever that is), then we need to have the honesty to admit, (1) the word "Christian" really means little, and therefore (2) requires a disclaimer whenever we use the term.
Again, nothing against the LDS church. Definitions are simply important, and we need to be clear.
Thanks Eliza.
I'm afraid we're coming back full-circle again, since I wrote about this in messages 456 and 463. And you need only reread either one to get my thoughts on what you just posted. But let me give this one more try:
Though I appreciate your brevity, Eliza, to "follow Jesus Christ" is all well and good, but that doesn't really say anything as long as we don't know what you mean by "follow" and "Jesus Christ". But lets just focus on the latter.
Of course, we do know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has specific views about who "Jesus Christ" is and that they are at odds with those of mainstream Biblical Christianity --two contradictory "Jesus Christ" figures, two contradictory core tenets. So it is already safe to say, when you say "Christian", you're talking about something that is specifically at odds with what Biblical Christianity says is "Christian". (and "Jesus Christ" is hardly the only essential doctrine where there is disagreement)
In other words, we're talking about 2 opposing essential doctrines that can't both be true, yet both are being called "Christian". (again, see message 456 or 463)
It's confusing and misleading and ought not be so.
For clarity, it makes the most sense to define Christian, or Christianity, strictly by the written word of its own holy book, the Bible. "You know, going to the source; that always helps." (Details here: http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-o...) Have a quick look and see if you agree with these essential doctrines that make up Biblical Christianity. Do you?
But if we must broaden the definition to include versions of "Christianity" with contradictory essential doctrines, a definition that includes all those who "follow" (whatever that means) "Jesus Christ" (whomever that is), then we need to have the honesty to admit, (1) the word "Christian" really means little, and therefore (2) requires a disclaimer whenever we use the term.
Again, nothing against the LDS church. Definitions are simply important, and we need to be clear.
Jim wrote: "There are approximately 750 formally recognized sects and denominations within Christianity today.The devout followers of each are absolutely certain that they know for sure, through prayer and di..."
In fairness the Mormons do have Parker ans Stone on their side...
Definitions do need to be clear. You're absolutely right.Looking through their site http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng I didn't find more than one definition of their beliefs, and as for Christianity, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio..., it's definition is pretty clear. Dictionaries are wonderful things. :)
Eliza wrote: "Dictionaries are wonderful things."
That's fine, Eliza. Merriam-Webster says Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies".
Good. So who is "Jesus Christ, based on the Bible"? I already sent you the link. Here it is again: http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-o... (Look at Point 1, sub points A & C)
What the LDS church believes about Jesus can be found here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article... and I suggest you read it. As it is pretty upfront about what it doesn't accept, namely, "Point 1, sub points A & C".
Furthermore, the "Jesus Christ, based on the Bible" was not married to Mary and Martha and Mary at Cana, nor is he the brother to Lucifer, or the son of a God who himself was once a man of flesh and blood. None of this is in the Bible. It comes from extra-biblical sources. So if Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible", the LDS views, being extra-biblical, are already at odds with Merriam-Webster's definition.
Look at it this way Eliza:
If "Christian A" calls herself so because she follows Jesus the son of God (one God among many in existence), and "Christian B" calls herself so because she follows the Biblical Jesus who IS actually God in the flesh (the ONLY God in all existence), we're talking about following two completely different beings that just happen to have the same name, resulting in to completely different groups of followers that happen to have the same name. Two "Christianitys" following two completely different, contradictory beings will result in two completely different contradictory philosophies, two completely different approaches to reality ... they are the same in name only.
If we use Merriam-Webster's definition, then it would be misleading to say a belief in an extra-biblical Jesus falls under the category "Christianity" without some kind of disclaimer.
As I said in an earlier post "For clarity, it makes the most sense to define Christian, or Christianity, strictly by the written word of its own holy book, the Bible" and in this case, the dictionary agrees.
Biblical Christianity has a tight definition, Eliza. To include members of the LDS church (and Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone who follows their own extra-biblical views of "Jesus Christ") we would need a watered down definition that would necessarily be vague and as broad as there are interpretations of who "Jesus Christ" is.
That's fine, Eliza. Merriam-Webster says Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies".
Good. So who is "Jesus Christ, based on the Bible"? I already sent you the link. Here it is again: http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-o... (Look at Point 1, sub points A & C)
What the LDS church believes about Jesus can be found here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article... and I suggest you read it. As it is pretty upfront about what it doesn't accept, namely, "Point 1, sub points A & C".
Furthermore, the "Jesus Christ, based on the Bible" was not married to Mary and Martha and Mary at Cana, nor is he the brother to Lucifer, or the son of a God who himself was once a man of flesh and blood. None of this is in the Bible. It comes from extra-biblical sources. So if Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible", the LDS views, being extra-biblical, are already at odds with Merriam-Webster's definition.
Look at it this way Eliza:
If "Christian A" calls herself so because she follows Jesus the son of God (one God among many in existence), and "Christian B" calls herself so because she follows the Biblical Jesus who IS actually God in the flesh (the ONLY God in all existence), we're talking about following two completely different beings that just happen to have the same name, resulting in to completely different groups of followers that happen to have the same name. Two "Christianitys" following two completely different, contradictory beings will result in two completely different contradictory philosophies, two completely different approaches to reality ... they are the same in name only.
If we use Merriam-Webster's definition, then it would be misleading to say a belief in an extra-biblical Jesus falls under the category "Christianity" without some kind of disclaimer.
As I said in an earlier post "For clarity, it makes the most sense to define Christian, or Christianity, strictly by the written word of its own holy book, the Bible" and in this case, the dictionary agrees.
Biblical Christianity has a tight definition, Eliza. To include members of the LDS church (and Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone who follows their own extra-biblical views of "Jesus Christ") we would need a watered down definition that would necessarily be vague and as broad as there are interpretations of who "Jesus Christ" is.
This is the very nature of sectarianism. Theology is an evolutionary intellectual act and cults often become sects and sects become denominations and denominations become stand alone religions. Christianity was merely a marginal sect of Judaism for the first 200-300 years, yet they self identified as jews. Self identification means more that the theological argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If they believe they are Christians then they are and if the day comes that they disassociate themselves from Christianity then they aren't. It really just that easy.
Chris wrote: If they believe they are Christians then they are and if the day comes that they disassociate themselves from Christianity then they aren't. It really just that easy.":)
Eliza wrote: "Chris wrote: If they believe they are Christians then they are and if the day comes that they disassociate themselves from Christianity then they aren't. It really just that easy." :)"
Eliza, you are certainly free to go that route. Young people today will have no trouble accepting this approach to reality. Though, you still may want to be up front with potential adherents about the methodology behind your inclusion under the umbrella of Christianity, since realities based on belief tend to contradict with the realities of others; and not everyone supports this philosophy to begin with.
A man may dress like a pilot, believe he's a pilot, tell others he's a pilot; it's really just that easy. Our post-enlightenment, western, individualistic culture is fine with that... that is, unless they're passengers on his flight.
Then, suddenly, and once again, "Dictionaries are wonderful things".
Eliza, you are certainly free to go that route. Young people today will have no trouble accepting this approach to reality. Though, you still may want to be up front with potential adherents about the methodology behind your inclusion under the umbrella of Christianity, since realities based on belief tend to contradict with the realities of others; and not everyone supports this philosophy to begin with.
A man may dress like a pilot, believe he's a pilot, tell others he's a pilot; it's really just that easy. Our post-enlightenment, western, individualistic culture is fine with that... that is, unless they're passengers on his flight.
Then, suddenly, and once again, "Dictionaries are wonderful things".
This is the big misconception. Many believe that since we only view Christ as the Son of God. Christ was also the Creator of our universe, the Creator of the earth, and our Creator. He is the Son of God, but we also refer to him as God because he and God the Father are one in intent, purpose, and will.
Eddie wrote: So who is "Jesus Christ, based on the Bible"?Then who is the biblical Christ? Because I recall John 12:49-50 saying:
"For I do not speak of myself, but from the Father who sent me and commanded me what I should say and what I should speak.
And I know that [to obey] his command is life everlasting. Therefore, whatever I speak is just as the Father tells me to speak."
Charles wrote: "Eddie wrote: So who is "Jesus Christ, based on the Bible"? Then who is the biblical Christ? Because I recall John 12:49-50"
Yes, this would be the "John 12:49-50 Christ". The "biblical Christ" would necessarily be these enlightening verses (which say a lot) but within the much larger context of the Biblical narrative.
A more thorough address of the question, though still brief, can be seen here: http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-o...
But you probably already know that because that link immediately followed as an answer to what you quoted me asking in message 473.
Thanks Charles!
Yes, this would be the "John 12:49-50 Christ". The "biblical Christ" would necessarily be these enlightening verses (which say a lot) but within the much larger context of the Biblical narrative.
A more thorough address of the question, though still brief, can be seen here: http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-o...
But you probably already know that because that link immediately followed as an answer to what you quoted me asking in message 473.
Thanks Charles!
That is a very good point, but I feel that I must stand by what I said. You have said many things though that give reason for a lot of thought on my part. I often have a really short way with dealing with people who I disagree with, but as I've read through your discussion with the others here, you have been really respectful, and I thank you for that. At this point, though, it boils down to one of us is right, and one of us is wrong, and neither of us have an indisputable proof. I guess only eternity will tell.Thanks for your comments and insights, Eddie!
I believe there is a false analogy, holding a religious belief like holding a theological opinion is not a testable and measurable truth. The assertion that "I am a pilot" is testable statement. Since there is no empirical evidence to support any assertion of a religious truth it seems logical to me (full disclosure, I am a Santa Claus atheist) to accept people's belief statements on their face without picking apart the theological ins and outs. Admittedly I have no dog in this fight and nothing at stake in the debate other than the admonishment to keep it civil and tolerant, for which I thank you all.
Point well taken, Chris. A "theological opinion is not a testable and measurable truth" in the empirical realm in the way "I am a pilot" is. That's fair.
However, a theological opinion is testable as it concerns fitting into a particular category definitionally. And that's all I was really concerned with.
In this discussion, I am only concerned with the "truth" as it relates to the yes or no answer to the question "Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?" The official theological opinions in question would be tested by the "empirical evidence" compliments of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
And the pilot analogy, in context, was limited to those parameters as well.
Otherwise, yes, excellent point.
However, a theological opinion is testable as it concerns fitting into a particular category definitionally. And that's all I was really concerned with.
In this discussion, I am only concerned with the "truth" as it relates to the yes or no answer to the question "Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?" The official theological opinions in question would be tested by the "empirical evidence" compliments of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
And the pilot analogy, in context, was limited to those parameters as well.
Otherwise, yes, excellent point.
Charles wrote: "That is a very good point, but I feel that I must stand by what I said. You have said many things though that give reason for a lot of thought on my part."
That's good to hear, Charles. Yes. Never stop thinking. Wrestle with doubts. Put them aside only after considerable reflection. Question things. Whether you keep or leave your faith, you'll hold your position with greater lucidity and humility.
"it boils down to one of us is right, and one of us is wrong ... I guess only eternity will tell."
Well, Biblically, it's not that simple, and, Biblically again, one need not wait for eternity for assurance. But, unfortunately, this thread is not the place for that discussion.
Thanks Charles.
That's good to hear, Charles. Yes. Never stop thinking. Wrestle with doubts. Put them aside only after considerable reflection. Question things. Whether you keep or leave your faith, you'll hold your position with greater lucidity and humility.
"it boils down to one of us is right, and one of us is wrong ... I guess only eternity will tell."
Well, Biblically, it's not that simple, and, Biblically again, one need not wait for eternity for assurance. But, unfortunately, this thread is not the place for that discussion.
Thanks Charles.
As a group I tend to lump the Mosaic religions together as Peoples of the Book, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Driuse and eventually Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses. I studied theistic scripture based faiths with an outsider's eye as a Unitarian Universalist pre-seminary student, yes even an atheist (admittedly not a militant one) can be a UU minister. The argument is over how to worship not whom. I recoil in horror over the amount bloodshed and and hate generated by what is essentially a family spat.
A form? Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often nicknamed, "Mormons" are Christian. Everything the Church teaches and does is about Jesus Christ and to help others come unto Christ. Visit their website: www.lds.org
Would you ask if Baptist, Catholics, or Presbyterians are Christians? Any church that teaches to follow Jesus Christ is Christian.
Jennifer, there was a period in our history when we did in fact ask exactly that question and during the 30 Years War a third of the population of what was then the Holy Roman Empire died from direct war causes answering it. There is exactly this kind of religious civil war going on in Islam right now.
Jennifer wrote: "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often nicknamed, "Mormons" are Christian. Everything the Church teaches and does is about Jesus Christ and to help others come unto Christ. Visit their website: www.lds.org"
Jennifer, the www.lds.org web address was already posted quite recently in message 465 by Eliza, and again in message 472 by Eliza in much the same context, and was discussed in message 473 and following. If you go back and read those posts, then maybe you would prevent a repeat of the argument and could comment in a way that would move the discussion forward.
I'm just curious to see what you'd have to add. Thanks!
Jennifer, the www.lds.org web address was already posted quite recently in message 465 by Eliza, and again in message 472 by Eliza in much the same context, and was discussed in message 473 and following. If you go back and read those posts, then maybe you would prevent a repeat of the argument and could comment in a way that would move the discussion forward.
I'm just curious to see what you'd have to add. Thanks!
I just signed up for this website and wasn't in on the first part of the discussion and didn't have time to go back and read all 480+ messages. So, excuse me for not "keeping up". I thought this was a discussion not an argument and just wanted to make sure that my voice was heard in confirming that "Mormons" are Christian.
Jennifer wrote: "I just signed up for this website and wasn't in on the first part of the discussion and didn't have time to go back and read all 480+ messages. So, excuse me for not "keeping up"."
It is both. Discussion and argument (as in "debate", not "quarrel").
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wanted you to read from the beginning. Every post has a number. Your most recent was "message 488". This discussion based on recent posts, almost identical to yours, began only a few entries ago. As I just stated (in message 487):
"...the www.lds.org web address was already posted quite recently in message 465 by Eliza, and again in message 472 by Eliza in much the same context, and was discussed in message 473 and following. If you go back and read those posts..."
This is just a few entries back and not a lengthy read at all.
Sorry for the miscommunication!
It is both. Discussion and argument (as in "debate", not "quarrel").
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wanted you to read from the beginning. Every post has a number. Your most recent was "message 488". This discussion based on recent posts, almost identical to yours, began only a few entries ago. As I just stated (in message 487):
"...the www.lds.org web address was already posted quite recently in message 465 by Eliza, and again in message 472 by Eliza in much the same context, and was discussed in message 473 and following. If you go back and read those posts..."
This is just a few entries back and not a lengthy read at all.
Sorry for the miscommunication!
Eddie-I know now that we are not "Christian" by the definition that is accepted by most other religions. We insist that we are "Christian" because those who are deemed "not Christian" are generally viewed as "Heathen". We are not heathens, neither would any other religion be considered so in my book, except for satanists. I guess what I'm trying to say is that being called "not Christian" has a negative connotation that we feel is derogatory to how others view us.
By the way, thanks for the advice. I have many of the same feelings about religion.
Thanks,
Logan
P.S. What religious group do you consider yourself to belong to? I'm a Mormon, but I assume that I already made that obvious.
Charles wrote: "I know now that we are not "Christian" by the definition that is accepted by most other religions. We insist that we are "Christian" because those who are deemed "not Christian are generally viewed as "Heathen". "
Yes, "heathen" has a nasty connotation that is likely to be assumed within its lexical range: "uncivilized" or "irreligious" (Merriam-Webster). Of course, it also means any individual that simply does not acknowledge the God of the Bible.
Though its hard to assume the most optimistic meaning when slapped by a word that essentially says, "not one of us", the Gospel message of the Bible doesn't allow Christians to use the term this way, if they even use it at all. The Gospel message of the Bible leaves the Christian with the view that she is so flawed, so incapable of having a right relationship with the one transcendent God in all existence, that it took nothing less than Him becoming human to save her; to live the way she should have lived and die the death she deserved to die; yet, at the same time, His willingness to die in her place exposes a transcendent love that exaults her. "Simul justus et peccator." as Martin Luther said.
To the degree the Christian understands what it took to save her is the degree she will have a difficult time looking down on any "heathen". In fact, she could easily conclude that heathens may very well be nicer, wiser people than she is, because salvation in the Christian sense has nothing to do with one's performance, but everything to do with God's performance on her behalf.
To answer your question, I am a Christian in the sense that has been defined by this and by my other entries earlier on in this thread.
Yes, "heathen" has a nasty connotation that is likely to be assumed within its lexical range: "uncivilized" or "irreligious" (Merriam-Webster). Of course, it also means any individual that simply does not acknowledge the God of the Bible.
Though its hard to assume the most optimistic meaning when slapped by a word that essentially says, "not one of us", the Gospel message of the Bible doesn't allow Christians to use the term this way, if they even use it at all. The Gospel message of the Bible leaves the Christian with the view that she is so flawed, so incapable of having a right relationship with the one transcendent God in all existence, that it took nothing less than Him becoming human to save her; to live the way she should have lived and die the death she deserved to die; yet, at the same time, His willingness to die in her place exposes a transcendent love that exaults her. "Simul justus et peccator." as Martin Luther said.
To the degree the Christian understands what it took to save her is the degree she will have a difficult time looking down on any "heathen". In fact, she could easily conclude that heathens may very well be nicer, wiser people than she is, because salvation in the Christian sense has nothing to do with one's performance, but everything to do with God's performance on her behalf.
To answer your question, I am a Christian in the sense that has been defined by this and by my other entries earlier on in this thread.
I wish all people were more like you. I've seen many nasty comments made by people trying to cause trouble. There are still people who we consider "unchristian" as well, but we don't look down on them, or at lest we shouldn't. Many people, both Mormons and mainstream Christians view other religious groups in a lesser light. Personally, I feel that everyone should have a religion that makes them happy and that as long as they are trying they will not be punished in eternity.Thanks for answering my question!
I believe in Jesus Christ he is my Savior. Only through him can one be saved. I belong to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. My definition of Christian is " one who follows Jesus and wants to follow his example in every way while on earth. To him I owe my life because he died for me.I will stand as Jesus did while being accused, by the people back then, yet he was silent because they do not understand. Others would rather point the finger at Gods people.Other denominations love Christ just like me. shouldn't we all work together in loving Christ and being as he was instead of explaining why you think other wise Mormons are not Christians. I think now a days the world has turned that word around. All have a right to their own opinions. so I respect that, but lots study and prayer will give a person the answer they seek if they truly wish to know the answer.
James 1:5 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Jayda wrote: "Monkey, where did you get all of your information?"
If monkey would just find out for him/herself like Moroni instructs there wouldn't need to be a huge convoluted discussion on the subject. Pretty easy really. Who knows where he gets all this nonsense but its not from the scriptures I've read. But my testimony doesn't hinge on his, he needs to find his own.
If monkey would just find out for him/herself like Moroni instructs there wouldn't need to be a huge convoluted discussion on the subject. Pretty easy really. Who knows where he gets all this nonsense but its not from the scriptures I've read. But my testimony doesn't hinge on his, he needs to find his own.
Rebekah wrote: "My definition of Christian is..."
That sounds heartfelt, Rebekah. But the issue here is not "my" definition or your definition, but "the" definition. I can be anything I want if I arbitrarily use "my definition".
I can only repeat what I wrote to Elisa just above in message 473:
Merriam-Webster says Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies".
So who is "Jesus Christ, based on the Bible"? You'll find it here: http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-o... (Look at Point 1, sub points A & C)
What the LDS church believes about Jesus can be found here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article... I suggest you read it as it is pretty upfront about what it doesn't accept.
Namely, "Point 1, sub points A & C".
Nothing against the LDS church, Rebekah. It's a free country. They can say they're "Christian", but for the sake of honesty and clarity, they should include and asterisk (*) with a disclaimer. Because if we just start tossing definitions aside, or putting belief systems with contradictory essential doctrines under the same name, confusion rightfully follows.
That sounds heartfelt, Rebekah. But the issue here is not "my" definition or your definition, but "the" definition. I can be anything I want if I arbitrarily use "my definition".
I can only repeat what I wrote to Elisa just above in message 473:
Merriam-Webster says Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies".
So who is "Jesus Christ, based on the Bible"? You'll find it here: http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-o... (Look at Point 1, sub points A & C)
What the LDS church believes about Jesus can be found here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article... I suggest you read it as it is pretty upfront about what it doesn't accept.
Namely, "Point 1, sub points A & C".
Nothing against the LDS church, Rebekah. It's a free country. They can say they're "Christian", but for the sake of honesty and clarity, they should include and asterisk (*) with a disclaimer. Because if we just start tossing definitions aside, or putting belief systems with contradictory essential doctrines under the same name, confusion rightfully follows.
Eddie: So are you saying that we should accept CARM's statement that (as in 1C(The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ)i):'The Trinity--There is one God who exists in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are all coeternal and of the same nature.' without so much as any discussion of what the Bible says on this point? Without discussing why the Savior also said: 'At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.' in John 14:20? It seems to me that CARM suffers the same debilitation of citing a few scriptures and then expecting us to accept their extrapolations. Of course, I realize this is just one example. The discussion is much larger, but I do not feel that you have made any case whatsoever by citing CARM.
A clear discussion can only come from discussing all available and relevant scriptures from the Bible (if that is all you accept), not just the ones that are convenient. Even my citation here is incomplete. But no citation at all (as in the case of your link)is less so.
It would seem that the length of this discussion here alone proves that common ground is hard to agree upon, especially from the portions of God's word that were compiled in what we now accept as the Bible.
I for one, believe in a God that continues to speak to His children, not just one who spoke ( 'I will hear what God the Lord will speak: for he will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints: but let them not turn again to folly.' - Psalms 85:8)
Nothing against those who call themselves Christians and then argue over what they claim the Bible defines that to be only to the exclusion of others, but 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.' - John 7:17 (Jesus speaking here. Why does he make a distinction between God and himself? Again?)
"So are you saying that we should accept CARM's statement that (as in 1C(The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ"
That's understandable Jeff. I cite CARM's statements because I (so far) see no reason not to accept them. Of course I will naturally have disagreements with them on non-essential doctrines, but as it concerns the essential doctrines of Christianity, they're thorough and honest and true to the etymology of the biblical texts.
And I simply prefer to accept "extrapolations" that consider the whole of scripture and thus have the most explanatory power. FOR EXAMPLE:
You bring up 2 individual verses, John 14:20 on abiding and John 7:17, a direct response by Jesus addressing the amazement of the Jews at his great learning, but seem to read them as somehow being primarily Christological. Though possible, the context surrounding each verse tells me this is not the interpretation with the greater explanatory power.
Not to get off on a tangent, but the Biblical narrative is replete with instances where Jesus claims to be God. He takes on the divine name of God as given in Ex. 3:14 and in virtually every instance it causes a scene; fury, fear, amazement. When he said "I and the father are one" they were ready to stone him (we may debate what he meant, but they knew what he was saying). Before Caiaphas he dares to refer to himself as "the son of man ... coming with the clouds" inciting the whole court because they knew his reference was to Daniel 7, essentially a claim to not only be the first-cause transcendent Creator of all existence, but also the ultimate judge of the universe. He lets Thomas worship him as "Lord" and "God" and he also forgives sins... again, not without a reaction. I could go on, --there's the discussion on the Emmaus road that the whole of scripture is about him-- but the point is this: to be strictly biblical, one ought to view passages in light of the context of the Biblical narrative and go with those "extrapolations" that have the greatest explanatory power.
Of course, we can still debate what the Bible says about Jesus until kingdom come, but here is what is quite undebateable: It is relatively clear that the Biblical narrative does NOT mention Jesus marriage to Mary, Martha and Mary at Cana, nor does it mention that Jesus is the brother to Lucifer, or the son of a God (among many Gods) who himself was once a man of flesh and blood. These assertions considerably alter the nature of Christ beyond the Biblical narrative.
Yes, one can certainly make a case for these doctrines using extra-biblical sources, but IF Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture..." the LDS views, being extra-biblical, are already at odds with Merriam-Webster's definition, and at best, can only be considered "Christian" with an asterisk.
Again, nothing against the LDS church. Definitions are simply important, and we need to be clear.
That's understandable Jeff. I cite CARM's statements because I (so far) see no reason not to accept them. Of course I will naturally have disagreements with them on non-essential doctrines, but as it concerns the essential doctrines of Christianity, they're thorough and honest and true to the etymology of the biblical texts.
And I simply prefer to accept "extrapolations" that consider the whole of scripture and thus have the most explanatory power. FOR EXAMPLE:
You bring up 2 individual verses, John 14:20 on abiding and John 7:17, a direct response by Jesus addressing the amazement of the Jews at his great learning, but seem to read them as somehow being primarily Christological. Though possible, the context surrounding each verse tells me this is not the interpretation with the greater explanatory power.
Not to get off on a tangent, but the Biblical narrative is replete with instances where Jesus claims to be God. He takes on the divine name of God as given in Ex. 3:14 and in virtually every instance it causes a scene; fury, fear, amazement. When he said "I and the father are one" they were ready to stone him (we may debate what he meant, but they knew what he was saying). Before Caiaphas he dares to refer to himself as "the son of man ... coming with the clouds" inciting the whole court because they knew his reference was to Daniel 7, essentially a claim to not only be the first-cause transcendent Creator of all existence, but also the ultimate judge of the universe. He lets Thomas worship him as "Lord" and "God" and he also forgives sins... again, not without a reaction. I could go on, --there's the discussion on the Emmaus road that the whole of scripture is about him-- but the point is this: to be strictly biblical, one ought to view passages in light of the context of the Biblical narrative and go with those "extrapolations" that have the greatest explanatory power.
Of course, we can still debate what the Bible says about Jesus until kingdom come, but here is what is quite undebateable: It is relatively clear that the Biblical narrative does NOT mention Jesus marriage to Mary, Martha and Mary at Cana, nor does it mention that Jesus is the brother to Lucifer, or the son of a God (among many Gods) who himself was once a man of flesh and blood. These assertions considerably alter the nature of Christ beyond the Biblical narrative.
Yes, one can certainly make a case for these doctrines using extra-biblical sources, but IF Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture..." the LDS views, being extra-biblical, are already at odds with Merriam-Webster's definition, and at best, can only be considered "Christian" with an asterisk.
Again, nothing against the LDS church. Definitions are simply important, and we need to be clear.
Eddie, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and I would just say that through experience, I am grateful for the extra-biblical evidences of Jesus Christ, especially because the bible is generally the record of the House of Israel, especially, but not solely, as it relates to the Jews. In the New Testament,he expands that to the Gentiles, but not until after his death. However, he also alludes to "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."- John 10:16 That revelation, plus other references in the Bible to books that are not contained in the Bible but known as scripture to those of their day puts me in a mind to believe that there is more out there that will be revealed in God's time. Especially, since it is mentioned that the writings of the two main groups of the House of Israel would come together in the last days (Ezekiel 37:16-19).(Ephesians 4:11-14)
So, if this is just a discussion as to whether or not Mormons are Christians (I believe the original question was posed as 'Is Mormonism a form of Christianity'), then even "Christian" with an asterisk means 'yes'. But it is only an asterisk because people keep writing definitions (even loosely based on the Bible) meant to exclude. The definitions are not precisely based on the Bible as you conceded in your last post.
So, there is much for us learn from scripture study and discussion, as long as we can keep it as civil and as accurate as possible.
Jeff wrote: "...then even "Christian" with an asterisk means 'yes'. But it is only an asterisk because people keep writing definitions..."
Maintaining polite discourse in a pluralist society is no small matter, to be sure. Thanks for your thoughts, Jeff.
The original question "Is Mormonism a form of Christianity" is rather vague and certainly could be taken many ways.
Mormonism wouldn't be, say, a form of Buddhism. So in that sense one could make a case for it being a form of Christianity (i.e. spin-off, something based on, etc).
But yes, definitions do change. To many eastern traditional cultures, "Christian" refers to any given westerner.
So there you go.
It's just that, the more we broaden a definition, the less it really means, and the more room there is for confusion and misunderstanding.
From message 456, I approached the question more specifically: Does Mormonism adhere to the essential doctrines at the core of Christianity so as to fall under the term denomination (the simple answer ended up being a polite "no") and my hope is that the exchange offers a little from which readers can glean.
Maintaining polite discourse in a pluralist society is no small matter, to be sure. Thanks for your thoughts, Jeff.
The original question "Is Mormonism a form of Christianity" is rather vague and certainly could be taken many ways.
Mormonism wouldn't be, say, a form of Buddhism. So in that sense one could make a case for it being a form of Christianity (i.e. spin-off, something based on, etc).
But yes, definitions do change. To many eastern traditional cultures, "Christian" refers to any given westerner.
So there you go.
It's just that, the more we broaden a definition, the less it really means, and the more room there is for confusion and misunderstanding.
From message 456, I approached the question more specifically: Does Mormonism adhere to the essential doctrines at the core of Christianity so as to fall under the term denomination (the simple answer ended up being a polite "no") and my hope is that the exchange offers a little from which readers can glean.
Eddie: I went back to your post and then to the CARM page you cite. After following the link to the discussion on the Trinity, I find that the statement you quote from their site:In a 2 sentence nutshell from http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian: "Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it is outside Christianity."
is false. Mormons actually believe all the scriptures cited and a few others not cited.
However, Mormons also believe in essence the statement (on the discussion of the Trinity): 'Nor is God only one person as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, and the Christadelphians teach. (These groups are classified as non-Christian cults). For proof that there is more than one person in the Godhead, see the Plurality Study.
The Bible says there is only one God. Yet, it says Jesus is God (John 1:1,14); it says the Father is God (Phil. 1:2); and it says the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). Since the Son speaks to the Father, they are distinct persons. Since the Holy Spirit speaks also (Acts 13:2), He is a distinct person. There is one God who exists in three persons. (from the discussion on the Trinity in the CARM site)'
Saying it this way and claiming Mormons do not believe this is incorrect.
Pointing to a statement that Mormons also believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers is only an attempt to make a point where there is none. Stating that it is not biblical only means there is no evidence in the Bible according to the author of the statement. It does not mean that it is untrue. But you may also chalk that up to a 'non-essential' doctrine as stated in an earlier post.
So, I disagree with the definition of Christianity as stated by the CARM site, merely because it is not sufficiently Biblical in all its points. Mormons believe in the Bible. Just because Mormons claim to have additional information does not mean that they deny the teachings of the Bible.
It seems that coming up with endless arguments does not help most people. In fact, they do not even care about the arguments. All they want to know is, 'Are Mormons Christians?' No? Okay, we do not have to worry about what they say. What else would be the purpose of defining the term?
Jeff wrote: "All they want to know is, 'Are Mormons Christians?' No? Okay, we do not have to worry about what they say. What else would be the purpose of defining the term? "
The purpose for defining the term is clarity. But I would say most don't even know what "Christian" really means. And if ignorance, or a desire for inclusivity, broadens it to mean everything, it really means nothing.
Concerning CARM: I think it's easy to misinterpret a short summary statement if it is excluded from what it actually summarizes. In its proper context, it is not false. Even when just considering the LDS doctrine of Law of Eternal Progression, the works-righteousness of 2 Nephi 25:23 or the sins beyond the reach of Christ's atonement in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 3. If there is more than one God in all existence, if Grace is suddenly insufficient, we're now talking about a different philosophy, a whole other approach to reality. For that reason, we need to categorize ourselves appropriately.
But defending CARM at this point is really superfluous, and even distracting. They, among many others out there, have several details pages addressing various topics concerning the LDS church (http://carm.org/mormonism). I encourage you to look them over, compare them with LDS writings, and open up a dialogue with them if you feel they've been unfair in any way.
As for this thread, the Merriam-Webster approach seems to be the most succinct. If Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible ...", then a belief in a Jesus altered by sources outside the Bible (having 3 wives, a sibling Lucifer, atoning sacrifice not sufficient alone for salvation, etc.) puts one's belief outside the definition of Christianity.
That just seems clear and simple.
Of course, we could certainly assume any number of more watered-down definitions (i.e. all westerners are "Christian") or add an asterisk pointing to a disclaimer, but otherwise, it seems Mormonism is only a "form" of Christianity if we limit "form" to mean "based on", or "spin-off" or something of that nature.
No offense to the LDS church, but in a world full of bait-and-switch, half-truth marketing, it's just good practice to be upfront and clear about what we're offering and the Merriam-Webster dictionary really seems to expedite the process to that end.
The purpose for defining the term is clarity. But I would say most don't even know what "Christian" really means. And if ignorance, or a desire for inclusivity, broadens it to mean everything, it really means nothing.
Concerning CARM: I think it's easy to misinterpret a short summary statement if it is excluded from what it actually summarizes. In its proper context, it is not false. Even when just considering the LDS doctrine of Law of Eternal Progression, the works-righteousness of 2 Nephi 25:23 or the sins beyond the reach of Christ's atonement in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 3. If there is more than one God in all existence, if Grace is suddenly insufficient, we're now talking about a different philosophy, a whole other approach to reality. For that reason, we need to categorize ourselves appropriately.
But defending CARM at this point is really superfluous, and even distracting. They, among many others out there, have several details pages addressing various topics concerning the LDS church (http://carm.org/mormonism). I encourage you to look them over, compare them with LDS writings, and open up a dialogue with them if you feel they've been unfair in any way.
As for this thread, the Merriam-Webster approach seems to be the most succinct. If Christianity is "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible ...", then a belief in a Jesus altered by sources outside the Bible (having 3 wives, a sibling Lucifer, atoning sacrifice not sufficient alone for salvation, etc.) puts one's belief outside the definition of Christianity.
That just seems clear and simple.
Of course, we could certainly assume any number of more watered-down definitions (i.e. all westerners are "Christian") or add an asterisk pointing to a disclaimer, but otherwise, it seems Mormonism is only a "form" of Christianity if we limit "form" to mean "based on", or "spin-off" or something of that nature.
No offense to the LDS church, but in a world full of bait-and-switch, half-truth marketing, it's just good practice to be upfront and clear about what we're offering and the Merriam-Webster dictionary really seems to expedite the process to that end.
The LDS just announced that Joseph Smith married a fourteen-year-old:"The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."
https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-mar...
Notice that this is an LDS site.
Nauvoobob,That document has been up for quite some time. Interesting that you only quote a portion of it and not what follows:
"Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today’s standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens. Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,” suggesting that the relationship did not involve sexual relations.27 After Joseph’s death, Helen remarried and became an articulate defender of him and of plural marriage."
Was there a reason for your omission? Does this additional information dilute your intentions? It doesn't seem like the LDS Church is trying to hide this information.
I am a Mormon. We believe in God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. I scanned thru this article and it says God had a physical union with Mary. No. Do women have physical unions to have children all the time? no. they are inseminated, called invitro. Well God has been living for eternity. he has had many more years to learn how to procreate without the physical union. Yes, Jesus Christ is His physical begotten son, but through another means than a physical union. It would have gone against His own commandments of 'thou shalt not fornicate' if it had been otherwise. These are my own opionions and do no represent LDS church doctrine from the current prophet.
Uggghhh. This is the stupidest argument in the world. Do they believe in Christ as a savior and eternal father? What's that--they do? Oh, no! This means all the other Christian denominations has to lose their pretentiousness and just accept that maybe some Christians have different views about certain things (besides Christ's life and ministry, which should be the focus of this argument) and get over themselves! Whatever shall we do?I mean, really: would Christ be nearly as picky as you guys are with who chooses to follow his teachings and take upon his name?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Great Divorce (other topics)
The Abolition of Man (other topics)
The Problem of Pain (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Miracles (other topics)The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Great Divorce (other topics)
The Abolition of Man (other topics)
The Problem of Pain (other topics)
More...
Words must have definitions or we have confusion. And, of course, we can expect to have some disagreement. (e.g. "marriage").
But somewhere early on in this thread I read:
"...the definition of Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the son of God, our Savior, and we can only get to heaven through him," to which a Mormon readily agreed was also true for her.
I need to be clear, this is NOT what Biblical Christianity teaches.
Jesus is not just the "son of God" (the brother of Lucifer - Mormons; the archangel Michael - Jehovah's Witnesses). No, Jesus IS God. Jesus IS the great "I am", in the flesh. This is crucial. Among many other implications, if Jesus were just the "son of God", we'd need an explanation for the occurrence of anti-Biblical concepts like child sacrifice and suicide.
Of course, in addition to the divinity of Christ there are several other essential doctrines that define Christianity: only one God IN ALL existence, salvation by grace alone, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc.
If you're interested in a brief summary of those accepted essential doctrines of Christianity that Mormonism denies here is a quick read: http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian
Perhaps, the real argument is not whether or not Mormons are "Christian", but who's definition is the right one, or rather, most in alignment with the accepted holy book of Christianity, the Bible.