Based on the discussions here, this is the bottom line. You must leave all forms of Mainstream Christianity to become Mormon. You must alter the biblical view of Jesus. You must change your belief that Jesus alone saves you and that you must do all the Mormon stuff to be qualified for salvation.

So, Christians are not Mormon, but, Christians are every other biblically based religion and also those who just believe in Christ and do not belong to a religion.

Christians seem to get a kick out of telling others what they are and are not.

The thing is there is not ONE way to be a christian.

Mormons are just another addition, another type of an already saturated definition.

They are a type of christian whether or not disgruntled other types of christians care.

nonsequiter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thing is there is not ONE way to be a
> christian.
>
> Mormons are just another addition, another type of
> an already saturated definition.
>
> They are a type of christian whether or not
> disgruntled other types of christians care.


Totally agree. However, one caveat- there really is only one way to be Mormon.

Depends.

FLDS claims to be mormon.

LDS also claim to be mormon.

Which is mormon? Which is not?

Or are they two types of mormons?

Ha ha. Great point! I'm recovering from the LD$ inc version. So, that is what I'm referring to.

FWIW, I'm a nevermo who has studied mormonism for quite a while (why do you think I'm here), and for the life of me I couldn't give a coherent summary of Mormon Christology or explain the Mormon godhead. The theology of the LDS church is constantly shifting, and because it has no professionally trained clergy, what theology there is gets seems to be interpreted at the stake and ward level in radically differently ways. What is orthodox in one stake / ward it seems could land you in a court of love elsewhere.

At < 200 years, Mormonism is a young religion, but without a professional clergy, it seems unlikely to me that it will ever develop a coherent theology, even at the level of the highly fragmented Pauline western church. The Mormons do not have an Augustine, Anselm, Martin Luther, or John Calvin; or (and I cringe when I say this) a Paul of Tarsus, to pull the whole mess together. Without an intellectual core to solidify it's beliefs, the church probably will not survive to see it's 400th birthday.

There is no coherent belief structure, and that is why the inept church leadership has to controll information. No mainstream Protestant church, nor any Catholic church has to tell its members to avoid "anti" literature. Either you read the opposing views or you don't; and if you do read them, you either accept them or you don't, and nobody shuns you for your opinion.

They seem to relish telling me I'm going to hell, too. I let them have their fun.

Quite the tautology.

This applies to *every* sect of Christianity.

All Baptists are Christian, but not all Christians are Baptist.
All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic.
All 7th-Day-Adventists are Christian, but not all Christians are 7DA.

The notion that Mormons worship a 'different' Jesus is stupid. Presumably every sect worships a slightly different Jesus, else the sects wouldn't exist in the first place. Baptists worship a Jesus that requires baptism. Catholics worship a Jesus that requires Catholic marriage.

Catholics have a different Bible than everyone else. Also, the NT didn't exist in Jesus' time, so the idea of 'biblical Christianity' is ludicrous. Paul, the driving force behind the NT, never even met Jesus, of whom we have no contemporary records. Most of modern Christianity (including the concept of the Triune God) were borne out of considerations made hundreds of years after jesus' death.

I'll write what I wrote in the previous thread: Find me a definition of 'Christianity' that allows Jesus' original followers (who had no Bible) to remain Christian, and you may have arrived at a good definition. Until then, the notion that Mormons aren't Christians (believers in Christ's divinity being the definition I'll go with) is semantic hair-splitting.

I, for the record, am neither Christian nor Mormon. But this kind of discussion is the 21st century equivalent to the medieval discussions regarding how many angels could dance on the head of a pin; interesting, but ultimately useless in improving things.

Alpiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I, for the record, am neither Christian nor
> Mormon. But this kind of discussion is the 21st
> century equivalent to the medieval discussions
> regarding how many angels could dance on the head
> of a pin; interesting, but ultimately useless in
> improving things.

While I agree that it can be useless in improving things to determine whether or not Mormons are Christian, I disagree that it is equivalent to the 'angel dancing' discussion.

There are numerous differences between Mormonism and the majority of Christian religions. Mormonism is not just another sect. It is guilty of what I would call 'double replacement theology'. Mormonism replaces BOTH the Jews and the mainstream Christians with themselves. The theological differences between Mormonism and biblical Christianity or gigantic. They may claim to believe in the same personage of Jesus, but, after that the theology and practice of Mormonism is closer to Islam than it is to mainstream biblical Christianity.

I have a lot of friends who have left their Christian Church and remain in great standing with family and friends. They didn't need therapy or go through a huge grieving process.

But, leaving Mormonism is not like that. (Leaving JWs and in some instances Catholicism, can be similar to leaving Mormonism). My point is, there are many theological, practical, emotional, spiritual, social, and psychological reasons to insist on demonstrating that there is a HUGE difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity.

There may be individual Mormons who are Christians depending upon the personal relationship with Jesus, regardless of Mormon doctrine, because He does break through everywhere.

However, if one follows solely the Mormon doctrine and believes solely the religion as taught and espoused by the LDS church then it is unlikely that any will be Christians because of the perversion of the message of grace.

Jews and Muslims also share the Old Testament.

Yes, Jesus came to save individuals. It is not necessary to say one belongs to a particular denomination of Christianity in order to be a Christian. You will hear people say...relationship not religion.

This is especially healing for those of us who have left a controlling religion like Mormonism.

Some Christians are very fundamental in their beliefs but Christianity embraces all people, as I believe that Jesus embraces all.

I would Argue that Anyone Telling you, That Believing The Right Way is Enough, is Missing Jesus' Message ...

One of My Favourite Stories of The Apocrypha, is The Post-Crucifixion Jesus, Breaking into The Under-World and Freeing The Biblical Patriarchs, to Join him in His New Paradise ...

If The Great Schism had Not Occurred, it Probably would Have Found itself Inserted into Luke's Gospel, Along with The Tale of Bloody Tears, and The Woman Taken in Adultery!

The Bible does teach that Christ preached, during the period between the crucifixion and the resurrection, to the souls of those who had died earlier. JS, however, denied this teaching by changing scripture.

Can you cite your source for that? I'm not as well read in some parts of the New Testament as I'd like to be. It's hinted at in the Nicean Creed, but I never found scriptural evidence in my readings.

Have no other good God/gods before me.

Mormons must (are taught/forced to) worship not just at the Mormon Church, but the Mormon church itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2014 08:08PM by moremany.

Alpiner said,
“The notion that Mormons worship a 'different' Jesus is stupid. Presumably every sect worships a slightly different Jesus, else the sects wouldn't exist in the first place.”

Christian groups or sects do NOT worship various versions or forms of Jesus. The differences between sects are relatively minor and have nothing at all to do with the person of Christ or the means of salvation, so to say that Mormons worship a different Jesus is not stupid at all, it happens to be a fact. G.B.H. the Mormon ‘prophet’ actually agreed with Christians making this claim when he said:
“The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the fullness of times.”

Now I don’t speak as a Christian or for Christians but I do speak as one who knows the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus so let’s look at those differences and why GBH would say such a thing.

Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate
The cult says that Jesus was Gods first son and a brother of Lucifer (A person who does not actually exist)

Christians believe that Jesus has existed from all eternity
Mormons say that Jesus was the offspring of a god and one of his wives.

Christians believe that Christ is the second person of the Trinity.
Mormons don’t even accept the Trinity.

Christians believe that all things were created through Christ.
Mormons believe that matter has always existed but was ‘rearranged’ by God to form everything around us. Jesus didn’t enter into it at all.

The Mormon God is just one of countless millions of gods and was originally a sinful man, his countless sons and daughters (Jesus simply being the first) were procreated in the normal way. Jesus as a Human on Earth was the result of an incestuous relationship between God and his daughter Mary.

Are you sure there’s no difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus?

Interested observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate
> The cult says that Jesus was Gods first son and a
> brother of Lucifer (A person who does not actually
> exist)

The Jesus you speak of was defined by a number of Ecumenical Councils that happened in the 4th century more than 300 years after Jesus would have lived and died. Even after Nicaea and Constantinople the issue remained unresolved. Arianism was forcibly purged by military conquest, and even then resurfaced during the reformation. Today there are a number of Christian sects beyond the Mormons that are based in Arianism or Modalism.

As for Lucifer, if you are a bible believer than why would he not exist. And if you believe that Jesus is a creation of god than why would they not be family. This belief is solely a logical offshoot of the belief that Jesus was created of god.

>
> Christians believe that Jesus has existed from all
> eternity
> Mormons say that Jesus was the offspring of a god
> and one of his wives.

See the above. The offspring thing is again an idiosyncrasy of the theological goulash of Mormonism. It isn't all that dissimilar than the 18th century push to deify Mary.


>
> Christians believe that Christ is the second
> person of the Trinity.
> Mormons don’t even accept the Trinity.

Mormons accept the Trinity they just disagree with the explanation.

>
> Christians believe that all things were created
> through Christ.
> Mormons believe that matter has always existed but
> was ‘rearranged’ by God to form everything
> around us. Jesus didn't enter into it at all.

Mormons believe that Christ organized everything at the direction of the father. Not all that different.

>
> The Mormon God is just one of countless millions
> of gods and was originally a sinful man, his
> countless sons and daughters (Jesus simply being
> the first) were procreated in the normal way.
> Jesus as a Human on Earth was the result of an
> incestuous relationship between God and his
> daughter Mary.

The Mormon god is an eternal being that has been organized in different ways at different times. Something that isn't all that dissimilar from Nicaean Christianity. Different strokes for different folks. As for Jesus being a creation of god, as stated above that isn't even remotely unique to Mormonism.

What you're doing here is exactly what people are trying to highlight. There is no devil in the details, only confusion. Christianity has never been just one thing it has always been very integrated.

>
> Are you sure there’s no difference between the
> Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus?


There are plenty of differences, and I don't have any problem with saying that Mormons are not Ecumenical Christians. I would however say that Ecumenical Christians are not the only Christians.

Here's one of many explanations why mormons can't be Christians. This is from Matt Fradd, a Catholic apologist;

http://mattfradd.com/is-mormonism-a-christian-religion/

Is Mormonism, that is, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Christian religion?
What Makes a Christian a Christian?

In order to answer this question we must first ask, what makes a Christian a Christian?
In the Gospel of John, chapter three, Our Lord says to Nicodemus
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5).
The Church has always understood these words to refer to water baptism.

In fact, I defy you to find me one Church Father who believed this verse to mean something contrary to water baptism – after much research, I’m convinced it can’t be done.
The Code of Canon Law states:

Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. (CIC 849)
Ordinarily then, if one is not validly baptized, then, he can not be considered a Christian, since he has not been regenerated.

Do Mormons Have Valid Baptisms?
Before answering this question we should look at what constitutes a valid baptism. There are three main requirements for the valid administration of baptism: Form, Matter and Intent.
Form: The invocation of the trinity: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19); (CCC 1240).
Do Mormons have valid form? Yes; “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73).
Matter: “True water” (CIC 849) “conferred either by immersion or by pouring” (CIC 854)

Do Mormons have valid matter? Yes; Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74).
Intent: Though the ordinary minister of Baptism is a Bishop, Priest or Deacon, “in case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so (CIC 861:2). In other words, the one administering the baptism, even if he be an atheist must “will to do what the Church does when she baptizes (CCC 1256).

Do Mormons baptize with proper intent? No; for Mormons deny original sin, and that Jesus Christ established the sacrament of baptism, and that Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons in which subsists the one Godhead.

Rather they believe that they are three gods who form one divinity, that one is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372).

For these reasons, Pope John Paul II officially declared that the baptism of administered by Mormons is invalid (See document here). www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

For (at least) this reason, Mormonism is not to be considered a Christian religion.

Like it or not, the mormons didn't want to be Christians, why are they making a big deal about it now???

When I was a Mormon, I was glad we didn't do infant baptisms. Who looks at a new little baby and thinks, "They'd better get that kid sprinkled ASAP, because he is full of evil sin. I'd be a shame if he dies and goes to hell." Sick

You can say that. But here are some reason's why Catholics practiced infant baptisms.

The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly
say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even
infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the
kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me.....
for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the
promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39).

The apostolic Church baptized whole "households"
(Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children
and infants as well as servants.

There are many passages in the Bible on infants getting
baptized that most people chose to ignore!


Although many Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists—and "Bible churches" in the Baptist tradition—insist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized.

My husband is one of those people against infant baptism.
He is Baptist. But he did allowed our boys to be baptize
in the Catholic Church as infants because he can't defend
the claims about infant baptisms is/was wrong. He thinks
it's wrong, but he can't explain why!

I don't give a flying damn about bible passages that are pro-infant baptism. It sounds like a scare tactic to get parents to hurry to the nearest priest.

"It sounds like a scare tactic to get parents to hurry to the nearest priest."

Haha! that's not exactly the picture I see when people
getting their babies baptize at Church.

But hey, you're welcome to your opinion!

“The Jesus you speak of was defined by a number of Ecumenical Councils that happened in the 4th century more than 300 years after Jesus would have lived and died. Even after Nicaea and Constantinople the issue remained unresolved. Arianism was forcibly purged by military conquest, and even then resurfaced during the reformation. Today there are a number of Christian sects beyond the Mormons that are based in Arianism or Modalism.”
I’m well aware that you enjoy correcting everything I say simply because you believe me to be a Christian (I’m not) but before jumping on me as you seem to do every time I mention that awful word perhaps you should check your facts.
The Jesus I speak of was NOT defined by Ecumenical councils, the person of Christ was something already known and believed in by the Christian community. The council of Nicea was in fact instituted to 1) define in an understandable form the already accepted beliefs concerning the person of Christ and 2) to correct certain heresies that were creeping into those beliefs, the most notable of them being Arianism. The councils you mention were never, contrary to popular belief, concerned with finding a way of bringing many different beliefs together.
I was presenting the difference between Christianity and Mormonism as you well know so even if I was wrong about all of the above (I’m not) it would make no difference to the argument. If you are going to attack everything I say then at least do it within the context of the discussion.

“As for Lucifer, if you are a bible believer than why would he not exist. And if you believe that Jesus is a creation of god than why would they not be family. This belief is solely a logical offshoot of the belief that Jesus was created of god.”
That’s just nit picking and has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about, namely the differences between the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus, The reason I said that Lucifer did not exist is because Lucifer is NOT a name, it was a title given to the king of Babylon.

“Mormons accept the Trinity they just disagree with the explanation.”
Mormons are fond of quoting the first article of faith “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” in order to appear as mainline Christians. What they will NOT do is accept one of the defining attributes of Christianity, i.e. the Triune God so to say that Mormons accept the trinity but disagree on the explanation simply isn’t true.

Well my friend, it’s well past midnight here and I’m too tired to respond to your other points but let me remind you that my post was in reply to a poster claiming that there is no difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus. I think I have clearly shown that major differences do indeed exist so rather than continuing to answer all the other points you raised I’ll remind you of the words uttered by GBH
“The traditional Christ of whom they (Christians) speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.”

You can now take it up with him in the Celestial Kingdom.
Just trying to keep it light Jacob I know you’re an atheist. :-)

You failed to address the primary point -- that sectarian differences occur based on what they perceive to be significant differences in who Jesus is. That's the same problem Christians want to level against Mormons. Glass houses and stones, if you will.

The Calvinistic Jesus pre-destines everybody to heaven or hell.
The evangelical Jesus permits salvation to those who do nothing more than express their salvation.
The Baptist Jesus requires baptism for salvation.
The fundamentalist Jesus damns you to hell for being gay.
The Lutheran Jesus will let gay men be ordained to the priesthood.
And so on...

Are there differences between the Mormon Jesus and the various flavors of sects' Jesus(es)? Yes, yes there are. However, all of those differences were appropriated from other Christian schools of thought. What is referred to by so many as 'Christianity' is merely the latest Western Protestant interpretation of a long line of changes, political maneuvering, and societal sensibilities dating all the way back to Jesus time.

These are minor differences. Most Christians believe one can disagree on these issues and still go to heaven. Mormons dont think is way and would site the above as major differences.

And I should care about this why? Wasted bandwidth.

Ron Burr