Historically, I think it's fair to say LDS is *a* Christian religion. Culturally, the earliest converts to LDS were themselves of Christian background, etc., so that's the big bucket they'd be put into, from a taxonomy perspective.

The theological question of whether LDS is of the Body of Christ is itself a question of faith, and as such can only be asked/answered in-house among Christians. (I'm Jewish, not Christian.) Although I can comment on the strength of the reasons for much of the rest of Christendom's rejecting LDS's "We're one of you!" the question of who's in "the club" is one club-members only can really decide.
My guess is the biggest wiggle-room point in favor of Mormons theologically being accepted is among Christian theologies which have a highly individualistic orientation; for them, it could be plausible that some individual Mormons might be "following Christ," and only God can judge the heart-- so how nasty the institution might be can stand irrelevant. Among more 'high-church' Christian theologies, however, the basic question of apostolic succession would come up as a case for radical discontinuity. Questions about whether LDS affirms the Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, etc. could easily be seen as deciding factors. The resounding "No" can be given reasons from multiple fronts, but again, it's an in-house, faith-based declaration.

But as a member of a monotheistic faith, I can plant one theological flag in the ground. LDS is not monotheistic by my (and many others') reckoning. It's not even close. Simply by that point, I can say it's only bearing outward trappings of one of the Abrahamic faiths, and the fabric looks mighty thin.

I think using the normal definition of common words must be relied upon since religions distort these regularly, such as, "We are all sinners." Meaning, even the innocent are sinners because we have dumped Original Sin on them.

The followers of Christ, called Christians, would only be called followers if they FOLLOWED, or were led by, CHRIST.

In our day, that means led by his words in the Bible, his teachings. Now the Mormon Church admits it does not follow Christ. If one of Christ's teachings conflicts with the pronouncements of today's leader, the leader's view is considered superior.

The Mormon Church cannot be called Brighamites or any such because they follow the teachings of whoever ascends to the presidency.

They may have Christ in the name of their church, but they no more follow him than do Muslims, who also follow a later prophet.

In today's world, you may self-describe your race (I'm Native American because I said so!) and we see that trend with gender and even illness. It is becoming socially unacceptable to question a person's selfie, so to speak.

Mormons want to call themselves Christians, so many people think it is only courteous to include them.

Kathleen Waters

"They may have Christ in the name of their church, but they no more follow him than do Muslims, who also follow a later prophet."

If following Christ is how we determine who is Christian and who is not Christian, then you won't find very many Christian churches or people who could be considered Christian. Once you find a sizable body of Christians who using whips to physically damage people because they are selling sacrifices for money then I think we can use it as a metric for determining who is and who is not Christian. Since virtually nobody does that, it is a meaningless metric.

Belief in Christ as a savior and deity is a much better metric to use when determining if someone is a Christian or not. Muslims believe in Christ, but not as a savior or deity. Atheists do not believe in Christ. Christians, and only Christians, do.

You make a good argument there. Let's look at this another way:

If you were a follower of Christ and believed in his divinity, would you not use his metric?...Jesus himself said it was the "fruit" that counts.

Let's use the metric that Jesus suggested, then, to identify his followers.

What "fruit" has come out of Mormonism that makes you think, "Ah, look there, those must be Christians."


Kathleen Waters

I don't think that Mormonism has much good fruit to speak of. I don't think that many (if any) Christian religions have much good fruit to speak of either.

Since Jesus' metric would claim that none of them are Christian, I don't think it is very useful.

Jesus didn't really exist and even if he did his teachings and philosophy weren't very well thought out. A person would have to be a stark raving idiot to follow everything he said and luckily nobody really does. Even more luckily nobody actually follows anything that is commanded in the Bible as a whole.

That's how I look at it anyways.

Mormons are really "Tommyites", they just don't want to admit it.

Why else would they put him in an armored car and bow down to him as he passes by waving his gloved hand?

I have had this issue come up frequently amongst my evangelical friends. They state that due to the LDS church's theological views on issues X and Y and Z (take your pick, really), then the members of the LDS church are not Christians.

I disagree.

I think we need to draw a distinction between organizational religion and folk religion. Your garden variety Mormon, definitely the close friends I still have, are Christians. They believe, as it states in Matthew 16:16, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. They believe that Jesus rose from the dead, which Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:8 is the crux of the good news.

So whether or not the organization is a Christian church or not, many members are, for sure.

No, Paul didn't say that. 2 Timothy was written after he was dead.

Is "the author of 2 Timothy says..." better? It doesn't change my point, though.

The Wikipedia page for Christianity says the following: "The foundations of Christian theology are expressed in ecumenical creeds. These professions of faith state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins. The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father. Most Christian denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge everybody, living and dead, and to grant eternal life to his followers. He is considered the model of a virtuous life."

I agree that these points are the primary points of Christianity. Now the LDS church does not accept the same creeds as most other churches do, but the church does believe the above about Jesus. I don't think that rejecting the creeds and councils implies that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians, because they were performed centuries after Jesus lived. If I am correct, Jesus did not establish an official church, but rather he established certain teachings. Thus I don't consider the councils to have had authority over the term Christian.

The other differences, such as the nature of God and the concept of exaltation, are not significant enough in my opinion to depart from the umbrella of Christianity. I do realize they are significant differences, but they don't contradict the overview of Christianity enough to signal incompatibility with the rest of Christianity.

I do believe that there are many practices of the LDS church that are not very Christian. I don't know how many members of the church are truly concerned with following the teachings of Jesus. A lot of church materials are mostly concerned with following the church's standards and frequently leave out the specific teachings of Jesus. I think the best we can do is consider members Christians if they want to be called that. I don't think it's our place to investigate and judge whether or not they're personally trying to follow Christ.

Every time I hear the argument,"Of course we're Christian. We have the name Jesus Christ right in the name of our church." I have to laugh
Go to the grocery store in the cereal isle and look for a box of grape nuts (or even grape nut flakes)
There is the name: right on the box. Look at the ingredients. Nope, neither grapes or nuts is there.
Sort of like the Mormon church. Don't find much of Jesus there either even tho His name is on the building.

"Of The Body of Christ" is a theological term that has a theological meaning, i.e. it means whatever they say it means. Most other sects say Mormons aren't Christians simply because they don't ascribe to the Nicene Creed. All that was, was a political meeting where all the sect leaders decided what BS was going to be taught, sort of like an ancient version of TBM "Correlation."

Just as Mormonism was a quite different thing in 1840 that modern members would hardly recognize today, Christianity was totally different in ancient times too. In fact there were dozens of diverse Christianities. The bosses of Christianity with military power behind them (Romans) eventually mainlined it and murdered or coerced all the others out of existence. Then it started splintering again. Now we have THOUSANDS of different Christian sects.

I don't think Jesus ever existed at all. There is a very suspicious lack of non-scriptural contemporary history about him, in an era when there were a lot of historians. This was also an era of multiple messiahs, demi-gods and end time theologies. Christianity seems to be a syncretism of many mythologies, just by chance the one that "took." Mostly courtesy of the Romans. Christians, have fun worshipping your Roman god.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2014 03:19PM by rationalist01.

Yeah, that never parsed for me.

If you believe in Christ's divinity, I think you can adopt the title of Christian. The argument that one must believe in the Bible to be Christian is bunk -- the followers of Christ didn't have a record of his words. The fact that Christianity has splintered into so many sects, many of which accuse each other of not being Christian, is prima facie evidence that the Bible itself is an inadequate tool.

I'm atheist, but it bugged me when Baptists or whatever would tell me I wasn't Christian when I was LDS. Where, exactly, does the line get drawn? Creeds that post-dated Christ by hundreds of years? A Bible composed of books that had not yet been written when Christ was born?

I also find the notion that Mormonism isn't in the Abrahamic tradition laughable. Jews believed in a lot of gods, then moved onto monotheism later in their evolution. Christians are stuck with an inexplicable 3-in-1 theory of God, and it's splitting semantic hairs when people argue that Mormonism is polytheistic and Christianity isn't.

Mormons are Christians, unless somebody can come up with a definition of "Christianity" that doesn't preclude the original Christians from laying claim to it.

I see Christianity as a political movement. It has little to do with the words attributed to Jesus. To be fair, there are some sects who following Jesus' teachings; they tend to be communistic pacifists. But Christians and followers of Jesus are, for the most part, different groups now.

Edit: Oh, right, my point was that "early Christians" were not like most modern "Christians."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2014 05:37PM by ⅽupcakelicker.

I think the conversation has largely validated my original comments. Will LDS-members refer to themselves as "Christian"? Sure, and with obvious cause. Does that force other Christians to regard LDS as being of the same religion, though just heretical? Not in the slightest. The line between can get drawn any of several viable ways (creeds, canon, succession, doctrines, etc.) with which LDS might disagree.

LDS is in continuity with the Abrahamic faiths in about the same way in which R.A. Salvatore is in continuity with J.R.R. Tolkein. Sure, there's a relationship of source material and influence, but nobody else has to acknowledge fanfic as canon.

If young Judaism, in its distant past, once regarded the other 'gods' such as Baal and Asherah as real (but distinctly inferior to The One), one could turn Alpiner's idea around and be open to the possibility that maybe, some day, LDS could possibly mature into monotheism (instead of just pretending itself to be monotheist in its marketing). In the meantime, LDS is about three thousand years behind that curve.

>>If young Judaism, in its distant past, once regarded the other 'gods' such as Baal and Asherah as real (but distinctly inferior to The One), one could turn Alpiner's idea around and be open to the possibility that maybe, some day, LDS could possibly mature into monotheism (instead of just pretending itself to be monotheist in its marketing). In the meantime, LDS is about three thousand years behind that curve.

I think that is an important point to consider. The OT acknowledges other gods, so that implies they (early Jews) thought they existed. The OT god even seems jealous if other gods are worshiped. So does that mean the Jews were still monotheistic if they believe in multiple gods but only worship one? That sounds polytheistic that morphed into monotheistic.

I agree that as Mormons dump and spin their beliefs over time, they will liekly sound more like other monotheists.

Are they Christian?

If you do not believe in:

1) their Prophets (past or present) or his teachings.

2) their three additional books of Scripture and
their doctrines of who God is

3) their Priesthood authority to do Baptisms, ordain to their Priesthoods, or to officiate in their Temple ect.

4) or in paying them 10% of your income.

If as a member of their church who has gone through their temple and have taken endowment covenants:
If you then believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and His teachings in the New Testament; You will be considered an apostate and not obedient to their leaders and if You do not meet what they consider full repentance (obedience to them and their teachings; you will not be in heaven but in outer darkness with Satan.

They changed just about everything in Christianity but still want to be considered Christians.

Feel free to restrict perspective and constrain logic.

When I was a Mormon I believed that Jesus died for my sins and without his sacrifice I would be damned. Not only that but I also believed that Jesus was god, that he was eternal, that he created the world, and that he had a vested interest in my well being. That sounds pretty Christian to me.

I acknowledge that the ancillary explanations that Mormons use to create continuity 86 the theological basis of the whole religion. However isn't that the case with virtually every religion? Whether it is infinite turtles or an uncreated creator the desired continuity will continue to escape religion. As you say, it is a matter of faith.

I simply ask, if you think Jesus is your savior how could you not be Christian?

There are thousands of reasons to ridicule and disbelieve the Mormon Church. This however is not one of them.

Mormon doctrine (from the Mormon prophet) requires temple endowment and temple marriage covenants by Mormon priesthood to live in the highest part of Celestial Kingdom where God and Jesus dwell. (what Christianity would consider heaven).

Mormon doctrine requires water baptism by Mormon priesthood holders to live in the Celestial Kingdom (where God and Jesus dwell - Which is the definition of heaven to a Christian).

Mormon prophets teach that the Bible is not translated correctly.
Mormons follow what the living Phophet says is the word of God.

When Joseph Smith changed many verses in the bible in his inspired version.

That is adding to Jesus died for my sins
By grace you are saved see Ephesians 2:8-10. (and not by anything i have done) to dwell in heaven.
I
Mormon definition of saved_ to quote Moroni: Saved after all I can do.
Where in the New Testament saved by Grace means that Jesus paid the price for sins. Apostle Paul said in Romans "While we were yet sinners, God saved us."

So you are saying that your definition trumps a Mormon's definition?

BTW if you are going to bring up the Paul v James discussion I would say that it was settled a long time ago.

Faith sans work is not true faith because the outgrowth of true faith is good work. So both were right when James said that faith without works was dead and Paul said that man was justified by their faith.

I am an exmormon.

Right so am I. I am an exmormon atheist who thinks that Christianity is a failed ethic.

@left

you are dead on

I am currently on the fence about all religions, but after leaving mormonism and studying christianity while on my way out, I can easily discern why Mormons will never be accepted as Christians.

@jacob
you are making an argument that doesn't exist. Christians don't argue about the faith vs. works debate because they understand it completely. It's mormons who get it confused because they think that their works actually have something to do with their "salvation". ALL of mormonism is based on works. All of it.

Christians see works as a natural growth of someone who is saved and already has faith. But those works still DO NOT SAVE THEM. And that is because WE ARE STILL SINNERS AND WILL NEVER BE PERFECT EVER.

Mormons cannot compute this and try to make the straw man argument that "christians think they are all saved and they don't have to do anything".

Like I said, I still am on the fence about all religion in general since I am freshly out of Momo, but at least I understand and have studied Christianity enough to know it doesn't jive at all with mormonism. Not one bit.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2014 12:42AM by johnnyboy.

I get the feeling that either nobody reads what I post or I'm not as coherent with the written word as I think I am.

I was busy typing before I saw your other reply.

But I hope people understand that Mormons don't understand the faith vs works at all. By focusing all their religious doctrine on works and ordinances etc, mormons are rejecting the "gift" of salvation. Thats why its a gift. You can't earn it. Mormons think they can. This is why they will never be accepted by christians.

I don't really care about either. But wanted to clarify just in case their are lurkers out there reading.

So in answer to your question..

I would say yes, christianity's definition of salvation trumps mormonisms definition of salvation as it is outlined in the NT.

Mormons don't believe in what the bible says anyway and change it to be whatever they feel like.

So as far as what the NT actually says... I'll stick with the christian definition over mormonisms grossly twisted version of what they think it says.

(again with the disclaimer that I'm a current agnostic/atheist)

You assume that I wasn't Mormon.

In Christianity, It's not a matter of dead works or works of faith. Faith that saves is a gift of God, works follow faith.
as in appreciation for what Christ did on the cross.

But Mormons don't pray to Jesus?

If mormons want to be Christians like the other sects that are already christian then, why did a "restoration" of christ's church have to take place in the latter days?

What were they restoring? Something unique that was not on the earth. They restored something new and different...not existing Christianity. Now they want to be mainstream christains and it is confusing to people who are part of the stuff that god thought was so bad that he had to restore his church.

Think about it. Hey your christian? That's awesome.. Me too. We are both christian right? ...I belong to the mormon church that was restored because your christian church was/is so different and messed up that you don't even know how to worship god. Yeah, I belong to the church where we believe that god said all of you christians were an abomination in his sight because your lips draw near to him but your hearts are far from him.

Hey it's weird how much we are both the same huh? Nope.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2014 10:22PM by upsidedown.

I don't see that as a big issue. One reason there are a lots of different types of Christians is because they "fixed" one thing or another about the branch they broke away from.

Mormons always believed in Jesus. Sure they added a ton of weird stuff but they think they improved it.

Using your argument, I could say that the Protestant Reformation makes them not Christian.

nope, you can't because the protestant reformation was about ditching all the add-ons that the catholic church had put on christianity.

Mormonism birthed a "NEW and everlasting covenant (emphasis on the word NEW). God even said it would never be taken away but that wasn't true either cus the morg had to throw that shit under the bus with old joe and brigham.


Its cult bullshit with jesus slapped on top.

We'll have to agree to disagree.


Its ALL cult bullshit with Jesus slapped on top.

Mormons are just better at it because they are young. Give them 1000 years and they will refine their cultishness just like the others. Mormons are not unique. They are following the same road map for Religion 101.

There is so much more to Christianity than just faith vs works. It would be too narrow to judge whether something is Christian by only that doctrine.

If a person believes in Jesus, but thinks that works are more important than faith, then it would be absurd to think that they weren't Christian.

I could give you a million different reasons why Mormonism isn't Christian. The faith vs works is just one of the easiest. You saying that's too narrow is absurd. You're answer reeks of Mormonism. Go back and re-read the NT without Mormon goggles or definitions. It has a whole different meaning.

Why would I want to read the NT again. I'm sick of reading about Jesus' awfully bad philosophy. His teachings are poorly thought out and not worth reading or following.

It's the mormon prophet speaking...he might disagree with the mormons who think they are mainstream christians.


"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'" (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).

"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ).


I personally don't care what they all believe in or call themselves because it is all pixie dust and rainbows and unicorns to me these days. I just think it is comical how confusing all of this crap is to the people who do care.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2014 10:28PM by upsidedown.

Jesus said to Peter, "Come forth and I will give you eternal glory."

Peter came fifth and won a toaster.

but then god gave him a choice to walk away with the toaster, or go all in and see what was behind curtain number two. Maybe it could be a new hyundai or maybe it was a donkey (usually it was a donkey).

The following are my own definitions of all of the following. I could potentially be swayed to change one or some of these definitions at some point in the future, but they are my own definitions at this time, and represent what I mean when I use the following words and phrases. I don't really care if somebody else has a different definition for any of these words, but if they *do* have a different definition, and we engage in a conversation, it would be good if they let me know what their own definition is.

Nevin Pratt


*******************
DEITY

​A creator or supreme being whose existence is supernatural to our normal understanding of science or the laws of nature.

******************
THEIST vs. ATHEIST

A theist believes in the existence of one or more sentient deities. An atheist does not.

*****************
CHRISTIAN

A Christian is a Theist who believes that a man whom we commonly refer to as "Jesus Christ" once lived and died on this earth approximately 2000 years ago, and that at least some of Jesus' beliefs and teachings are recorded in the New Testament, and that Jesus is a deity.

(this is a more liberal definition than most churches will acknowledge, but I don't care. When I use the term "Christian", this is what I mean)

****************
RESTITUTIONIST

A Restitutionist is a Christian who believes that at least some of Jesus' teachings had been lost after Jesus' death, and either were later restored, or will be later restored.

(​thus, a Mormon is a Restitutionist, but a Restitutionist is not necessarily a Mormon)

****************
LDS CHURCH

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (of which currently Thomas S. Monson serves as the President).

****************
LDS

To me, the term "LDS" and the term "Mormon" are synonymous, and mean the same thing​, and the terms are interchangeable​.

****************
MORMON RESTITUTIONIST

A "Mormon Restitutionist" is a Restitutionist who believes that a restitution (as explained in the definition of "Restitutionist") has at least partly taken place already, and that Joseph Smith was participatory in that restitution when he created the Church that he started.

****************
MORMON

A Mormon is a Mormon Restitutionist who is also a member of the LDS Church, and also believes that the president of said Church is a spokesman for deity in some way today.

(Thus, Tom Phillips is not a Mormon, even though he may be listed as a member of the LDS Church)

********************************
EX-MORMON

An "Ex-Mormon" ​is a person who was a Mormon, but is no longer. I think this is the obvious definition.

A Mormon Fundamentalist might also be an Ex-Mormon (based on my prior definition of Mormon), and visa-versa.

****************
MORMON FUNDAMENTALIST

I identify "Mormon Fundamentalists" by their beliefs, not by their membership.

A Mormon Fundamentalist is a Mormon Restitutionist who believes that the LDS Church has strayed from Joseph Smith's original teachings, primarily as it pertains to the issue of Plural Marriage. A Mormon Fundamentalist typically believes that Celestial Marriage is Plural Marriage, and that D&C 132 specifically commands them to live it, and believes that command has not been rescinded. A Mormon Fundamentalist also rejects the common LDS claim that the "One Mighty And Strong" referred to in D&C 85:7 refers to Bishop Edward Partridge, and instead believes it refers to someone else whose mission it is to restore polygamy, or the "Law of Celestial Marriage" (as they might call it) to the LDS Church. A Mormon Fundamentalist believes that they themselves have a divine responsibility to keep Plural Marriage alive until the One Mighty And Strong accomplishes that mission.

​A Mormon Fundamentalist will often claim to be Mormon, but based on these definitions, they usually are not Mormon (in my own opinion), even if they claim to be.​

​Similarly, I​ suppose it is possible for a Mormon to also be a Mormon Fundamentalist, but I believe it is not likely.

Thus, even if technically "Mormon" and "Mormon Fundamentalist" are not mutually exclusive, in practical terms, I believe they usually are mutually exclusive, based on these (my own) definitions.

And again, these are my *own* definitions, with the meanings I intend to convey whenever (or if ever) I use these terms. Other people can have alternative definitions-- I don't care. Just let me know what your definition is if it differs from these, and if you ever engage me in a conversation that uses these terms.

Nevin Pratt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2014 12:30AM by nevinpratt.

Evangelicals define themselves as "Christian" and then hold up themselves and their beliefs saying "This is Christianity" and if the other churches don't "fit" into what they believe or act, then those other churches "Aren't Christian". From my own study of 35 years of studying the writings of the early Christians (Ante-Nicene Fathers, etc.), I would say that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have the most right to the word "Christian" not the Evangelicals or Catholics or Mormons or JWs. From my studies, the "Orthodox" Christian churches truly abide by the early Christian teachings. The Roman Catholic Church often does not, nor do the Mormons, or JWs, or Seventh-day Adventists, etc. NOR...the Evangelicals. The Evangelicals are very much like the Wahabists of Islaam, who claim to be "Muslims" and if you don't match with their beliefs, you are "not a Muslim". Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are examples of radical Wahabists.

Now, on my mission for the Church we ran into lots of "Christian" bullies who'd threaten to kill us, or spit upon us, or try to run our bikes off the road, because we were "Mormons". These kinds of men remind me of the fanatics of the "Islamic State" of Syria and Iraq. They'd murder and rape Mormons...if they didn't fear the Law coming after them. Again, MOST Evangelicals are NOT like that, but I would say about 2% are THAT fanatical!!! Evangelicals are just as ignorant as Fundamentalist Muslims. No difference. It's a "personality type". Some Mormons are like that, but they usually leave the Church and join Polygamist groups. When were we threatened or spit upon by "Christians" on my mission I would say: "Didn't Jesus say...do unto others as you want them to do unto you!" Then the BIG "Christian" men would come one inch from my face and SCREAM: "DON'T QUOTE THE BIBLE TO ME...YOU FUCKING MORMON! THAT VERSE APPLIES TO BROTHER CHRITIANS ONLY...AND YOU"RE NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!!" Again...these men are just like the Fanatical Muslims who kill and rape little Christian girls, thinking that they can do so because they are the Elect of God, and that the Qu'ran doesn't apply to Infidels. Truly, Evangelicals are simply an ignorant people, easily mislead by evil men who want to make money and live in big homes. That's why the televangelists are so popular among Evangelicals. They are simply "simpletons" with simple minds, easily led. I could NEVER be an "Evangelical". Why? Because I have a brain, and, unlike them, I actually use it.

I would conclude the the LDS church, because of how it defines Christ and adds scriptures which are clearly wrong, is not Christian. However, some Mormon do not accept those teachings and scriptures and are Christians.

Mormon's may have historically odd doctrines but most mormon's are 'normal' unless they've been converted from the crazy house by dunk anything missionaries.

Evangelists on the other hand are bat chit crazy imo. All the speaking in tongues and creepy devotion. The illogical faith without works. I don't care what the bible says, any God that let's people be crazy but saves them just cause they have faith sounds nuts to me.

As for the bible being authoritative I just don't see it. That's an argument that simply doesn't stand up.

I'm saying this as a theist, someone who feels there is something more going on, but whatever that something is, it ain't telling the jews to genocide nations, it ain't threatening to flood the world or having some bronze age dude build a giant boat or live in a whale.

The 'are mormon's Christians' debate makes me think of a bunch of cats arguing that they're all dogs but another one isn't.

I loved the comment about the Grape Nuts box....that was great.

What ever definition one puts on Christianity....accepting Christs sacrifice and Atonement...is critical...IMNTBSHO.....so there is no way Mormons are Christian....when they deny the power of Christ to Atone for their sins....just ask Brigham, he'll tell you straight up that's why the Mormons need Blood Atonement....Christ sacrifice wasn't good enough....so all in favor of Blood Atonement...bow your head and say YES !! (Did you notice how all the TSCC's sheeple just bowed their heads...lol)

Hey...as a side note since thois is allllll sooooo important...does anyone know why sharks always swim round and round people with their dorsal fins sticking out of the water ?


It's because they learned that people taste a whole lot better when they're not full of poop...LOL

Mormons accept the atonement of Christ. It is incorrect to claim that they do not.

That's a Mormon answer. And you're absolutely wrong. They don't accept the atonement at all.

Ehh, it isn't a Mormon answer because I am not a Mormon. You are naive and small if you think I am.

But yes, Mormons accept the atonement. They might not do it in an extremely narrow and shallow "faith is better than works" way that some Christians delude themselves into doing, but they accept it and talk about it nonetheless.

Then you really don't understand Mormonism or Christianity. Just because Mormons "talk" about the atonement doesn't mean they accept it.

I can talk about it all day long and not have to understand it.

This is the same argument as "Hey guys, Mormons are Christians. It's in their name the church of Jesus Christ of lds".

Bullshit

For not being a Mormon you sure use their talking points well

What you are trying to do is to use the word "Mormon" as a pejorative to try to make me stop contradicting your worldview. That is an immature way to approach this conversation and takes away from any sort of meaning that we might actually have. Like I said, you are naive and small if you think I am a Mormon. You can't be too intelligent either if you keep on thinking that it is actually going to work.

I do understand Mormonism and I do understand Christianity. The idea that a person has to do something to pay for their salvation has been a part of Christianity since way before the idiotic wave of American Christianity that is now claiming faith before works is the best way to approach the religion. Mormonism differs from modern Christianity in a few ways, and that is one of them, but in no way to they fall outside of Christianity as a religion.

To claim that Mormons do not accept the atonement of Christ because they do not accept faith before works is not only Biblically unsound, but it sidesteps the majority of Christian history and culture.

Edit: Well, Biblically unsound could definitely be argued. It really depends on how you look at it and what dogma colors how you view things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2014 12:24PM by snb.

Sorry man, but when you come on an anonymous forum and spout mormon talking points, I'm gonna assume your Mormon. And I definitely will use Mormon as a pejorative cus it disgusts me. As a recent ex-Mormon who is now an agnostic/atheist I find it easy to see why Mormons claiming to be Christian would be offensive to actual Christians. When I was Mormon I used every talking point you just used. But none of it really holds up.

When I was on my way out of the Morg, one of the sites that helped me understand the differences of Mormonism and Christianity was Mormon Coffee (http://blog.mrm.org)

Even though I no longer ascribe to any religion, that site was instrumental in helping me study and see clearly the divide of the Mormon and the Christian.

Just because Mormons use Christian terminology does not mean they can be accepted on the same ground. Mormons have re-defined every single thing. If Mormons are Christians then why can't Christians be Mormons? They can't unless they leave Christianity behind. Mormons want it both ways.

It didn't use to be that way, and as it was pointed out by someone else, Mormons prided themselves on not being Christian. The attitude of "we're Christian too!" is a recent development.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2014 12:37PM by johnnyboy.

When I was a kid growing up in the Mormon Church, the teachers made a point that if anyone asked if we were Christian we were to answer "no", I'm Mormon....

Funny religion.

I'm gonna start calling all Christian people Mormons from now on.