Is Mormonism Considered Christian by the Forums?

Boy there "keys of the kingdom" keeps getting lost and found. How about Joseph Smith said if he lived untill he was 85 he would see Jesus return. But he changed that a few times. You see its the stuff they say that is not even in there there word. The same with JW. I have one next door. I showed him writings from his own people and how they have twested and said things that were never said in the word. There was stuff that he was never told and never new. After he looked it up himself he said, we did get some things wrong back then but were doing better.

Blackhawk:

That particular Criteria is not all that historical. The Roman Catholic Church has long maintained that scripture and tradition together constitute doctrine. Even the Nicene creed was far from unanimous. Only some nimble political skullduggery which conveniently ended up in the death of the leader of the opposition (which had considerable following) made it possible for the Nicene to be with us in it's present form. Had Arianus only a little more political sway with Constantine you would all be Arians right now.

What matters is the baseline. The baseline for defining Christians is one who follows Christ. All Christian sects claim to do so, which is why all are defined as Christian by Religious Studies departments in secular Universities, who are unbiased in that they have no stake in the outcome.

Originally posted by Blackhawk
That is a good fairy tale but simply not true. For example the book of mormon was first found (supposedly) in a language that has never been used before.  I think it was given the name new egyptian heirglyphics or something like that.  Now the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and Armaic.  all known languages spoken in the day of the writing.  And that is just one of many examples of how the book of mormon falls way short.  Another one would be that it contradicts the Bible. 

Click to expand...

When it comes to the language, Mormons have come up with their own defense as seen here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#egyptian. 

Also, the Bible itself is attacked for being self contradicting.  Yet the general argument against that is something like "God is mysterious" or "it makes sense if you study it enough."  Any contradiction problems with the Mormon book has been dealth with like the thousand of other Biblical contradictions.

It is hard to say one version is more accurate than the other when logic and physical evidence are tools seldom used to evaluate them.

Scott (Quath)

Originally posted by Havoc
Blackhawk:

That particular Criteria is not all that historical. The Roman Catholic Church has long maintained that scripture and tradition together constitute doctrine.

Click to expand...

True but tradition never goes against scripture. I have debated doctrine with my RCC brothers many times and never when I say the Bible is against such and such doctrine do they say it is okay because Tradition supports it. 

Even the Nicene creed was far from unanimous. Only some nimble political skullduggery which conveniently ended up in the death of the leader of the opposition (which had considerable following) made it possible for the Nicene to be with us in it's present form. Had Arianus only a little more political sway with Constantine you would all be Arians right now.[/B]

Click to expand...

 

Well we are not and hundreds of years of Orthodox Christianity has labeled him as a heretic so I do not think your point has a leg to stand on. 

What matters is the baseline. The baseline for defining Christians is one who follows Christ.[/B]

Click to expand...

 

No. That is not the definition given by orthodox Christianity.  One can't jsut say " folloe Christ" and not believe in what Christ taught.  It might be a short definition that some use but in it is the assumption that in following Christ one has to believe in what he taught. 

 All Christian sects claim to do so, which is why all are defined as Christian by Religious Studies departments in secular Universities, who are unbiased in that they have no stake in the outcome. [/B]

Click to expand...

First they are biased and do have a stake in the outcome.  Second why do they get to define what is Christian?  Thirdly their define what is Christian just based upon a relgion tree.  You know this religion came from this one and so forth.  Since Mormons and Jws say they are Christians the secular sources let them be Christians without looking at the vast difference of beliefs. 

Originally posted by Quath
When it comes to the language, Mormons have come up with their own defense as seen here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#egyptian. 

Click to expand...

 

Okay and I am just saying that their arguments are not good ones.   

Also, the Bible itself is attacked for being self contradicting.  Yet the general argument against that is something like "God is mysterious" or "it makes sense if you study it enough."  Any contradiction problems with the Mormon book has been dealth with like the thousand of other Biblical contradictions. [/B]

Click to expand...

 

I see your point here because many apologists say these things.  However I do not know of a good apologist who uses these as copouts.  I will admit that the first one is a good argument in some circumstances.  Some arguments can't be proven and if god is God there should be mysteries we can't solve.  For example the Trinity is one where I would say something like it is a mystery.  But I would not say it if I was arguing that the Bible is myterious in its support of a Trinitatian God.  Also the second does not make sense in the form you gave it but I cna see me saying " If you study scripture and the context in which it was written it would make sense."  That is jsut an argmument for you to do further study. 

It is hard to say one version is more accurate than the other when logic and physical evidence are tools seldom used to evaluate them.

Scott (Quath) [/B]

Click to expand...

Who said logic is seldom used in evaluating Christianity?  I have not.  I believe logically we must know that logic can't explain everything.  That we must take somethings on faith.  That is what I do with some of the arguments for Christianity.  I make an educated assumption and then go with it.  You do much the same with your beliefs.  Neither of us can prove anything without first making some very logical leaps of faith. 

I'm moving this debate out of Apologetics and into the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines Forum.

Originally posted by Blackhawk
True but tradition never goes against scripture. I have debated doctrine with my RCC brothers many times and never when I say the Bible is against such and such doctrine do they say it is okay because Tradition supports it. 

 

Well we are not and hundreds of years of Orthodox Christianity has labeled him as a heretic so I do not think your point has a leg to stand on.  

Click to expand...

The point is that your Doctrine is not only arbitrary is has changed several times over the course of history. This removes your arguement of historicity. The only arguement that remains as far as I can see is one of validity, which is the only arguement that matters. You cannot show your criteria as being more valid than theirs.

What you say is basically "Only people that believe as I believe are Christians". Being as that is exactly the same thing every other sect says. Since you cannot prove your claim the definition of Christianity has to belong to the basline, or remain undefined.

Originally posted by Havoc
The only common definition is that a Christian is one who follows Christ. Anything beyond that is in dispute.

The concept that the your Bible is the criteria for Christianity is your criteria. You have not shown that it is the only valid criteria, or even more valid than the Mormon or JW criteria.

That's really what it comes down to. Who's criteria is correct? You cannot show that your Bible is the infallible Word of God so your criteria cannot superceed theirs. Both of you claim to have the God given Criteria, none of you can show it.

Click to expand...

 

 Seeing that Christianity is based on the Bible, this is the doctrine used, and the Mormons and JW's and whatever use OTHER dotrinal beliefs, they are not Christians. They are Mormons.

 What if I claimed to be a witch, but said I had the Bible that proved it?

Originally posted by Havoc
The point is that your Doctrine is not only arbitrary is has changed several times over the course of history. This removes your arguement of historicity. The only arguement that remains as far as I can see is one of validity, which is the only arguement that matters. You cannot show your criteria as being more valid than theirs.

What you say is basically "Only people that believe as I believe are Christians". Being as that is exactly the same thing every other sect says. Since you cannot prove your claim the definition of Christianity has to belong to the basline, or remain undefined.

Click to expand...

 

What Changes?

 

 But lets get deeper, why do you reject Christian theology.

 

And Havoc:http://www.christianforums.com/threads/25474.html

If you want to continue this in PM, I would be more than happy to.

Amen Josh.

It wasn't until recently that Mormons even wanted to be considered "Christian". Before they wanted it to be known that they were NOT Christians but Latter Day Saints. Why all of a sudden are they wanting to be included in historic Christianity?

Originally posted by Hojo Hominygrits
It wasn't until recently that Mormons even wanted to be considered "Christian". Before they wanted it to be known that they were NOT Christians but Latter Day Saints. Why all of a sudden are they wanting to be included in historic Christianity?

Click to expand...

Huh?

The name of the church is: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". Sounds to me like they consider themselves Christian.

That is the first that I've ever heard that mormons didn't want to be considered christian. All my life, I have never considered myself not to be a christian, except recently but that's another story. All I'm saying is where I'm from, we've always consider ourselves to be christians.

Originally posted by Auntie
Huh?

The name of the church is: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". Sounds to me like they consider themselves Christian.

Click to expand...

 

 No, they consider themselves true followers of Christ, but they claim that all other churches are abominations. They believe that the Church died when the Apostles died. They also believe the Bible to be corrupt and mistranslated.

 

About God the Father

There is more than one God
God was once a man
God is progressive
God has a body
God cannot create man, man's spirit has always existed


About Jesus
Not conceived by the Holy Ghost
Conceived by sex with Mary
Spirit brother of Lucifer
Was a polygamist father

About the Trinity
The Trinity is the false doctrine
There are countless gods
Preexistence

Human spirits have always existed and are eternal
Choices in preexistence determine position on earth
All earthly humans chose Christ in preexistence

About the fall

Adam's choice was right
The fall made it possible to become a god
Adams choice was a transgression, not a sin
About apostasy

Christ's church was overcome by Satan
All current Christians are in a state of apostasy

About the Bible

The Bible is corrupt
About the Book of Mormon

The most accurate book ever

About the Atonement

Covers only Adams transgression
Some sins are beyond Christ's atonement
Atonement in Gethsemane, not on cross
About Grace and Works

Saved by grace alone is false doctrine
Salvation by grace coupled with work

About Heaven and Hell

Three kingdoms of Heaven
Outer darkness
About Communion and Baptism

Sacrament of salvation
Saved by Baptism

Priesthood Authority

Melchezidek priesthood
Aaronic priesthood
God needs priesthood to function
The Word of Wisdom

Abstain from certain food and drinks

About the Temple

Only for the worthy
Baptize the dead
Eternal marriages

STATEMENT DM192





Book of Mormon vs. The Bible (or common sense)


by Marian Bodine





“. . .If we compare the historical, prophetical, and doctrinal parts of the Book of Mormon with the great truths of science and nature, we find no contradictions–no absurdities–nothing unreasonable.” Talmage’s Articles of Faith, page 505

1. Compare I Nephi 1:2 with Nehemiah 13: 23-27. The Egyptian language was a very corrupt language from idol worshiping people who had persecuted the Children of Israel as Hitler did the Jews during World War II. No Prophet of God would have ever used a corrupt language to convey God’s message at this point in history. See the above quote from Nehemiah as to that prophet’s reaction to a mixed language.

2. The Book of Mormon speaks clearly that it was not inspired by God when you compare it with what God has already said about inspiration. I Nephi 1:3; 19:4-6: II Nephi 11:1; 25:7; 33:1; Mormon 1:2-6; Jacob 7:26-27, contrasted to Deuteronomy 4:2; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20-21.

3. I Nephi 2:5, Sam is a Yankee name, Samuel would have been a Jewish name.

4. I Nephi 2:8. There is no river in all of Arabia now or ever in recorded history, and no river which empties into the Red Sea!

5. I Nephi 5:14. How could a devout Jew not know what tribe he was from until he saw the “plates?”

6. I Nephi 8:4, “Methought,” an Elizabethan English poetic word.

7. I Nephi 10:8, exact quote from John 1:27. (An example of plagiarism.)

8. I Nephi 10:11, “Holy Ghost” is a King Jamesism and was not known in 600 B.C.

9. I Nephi 10:17, “Faith on the Son of God.” A term never used by an Old Testament Prophet, keeping in mind that was allegedly written between 600-592 B.C. The Messiah, who would be King and Deliverer was expected but not, the Son of God.

10. I Nephi 10:18, “same yesterday and forever”; a quote from Hebrews 13:8, 600 years before it was written.

11. I Nephi 11:21, “Lamb of God,” strictly New Testament language. Compare with John 1:20.

12. I Nephi 11:27, baptism of Jesus–John 1:29-34. The one who wrote the Book of Mormon had read much of the New Testament.

14. I Nephi 13:23, why the explanation to Nephi when they had these “plates” containing this information all the time (cf. 5:11,16)?

15. I Nephi 16:18, bows of steel? “Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Nuggets of native copper were used in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.” (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution)

16. I Nephi 16: 28,29, faith given to the “ball.” Does God ask us to have faith in anything but Him?

17. I Nephi 21 and 22, copied from Isaiah 49, 50 (another example of plagiarism).

18. II Nephi 4:17, “O wretched man that I am,” exact quote from Romans 7:24 by the Apostle Paul, 600 years before he was born?

19. II Nephi 1:3, “land of promise” for the Jew was the land of Canaan. See Genesis 13:14-18.

20. II Nephi 4:21, the love of God causes his flesh to be consumed?

21. II Nephi 5:21, black is not beautiful!

22. II Nephi 5:23, don’t marry a Lamanite or you will be cursed. Mormons tell us that the Lamanites are the American Indians.

23. II Nephi 6-8, compare with Isaiah 50-51. (Example of plagiarism.)

24. II Nephi 10:7, a false prophecy. The Jews are back in their own land, only in unbelief. Compare with Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

25. II Nephi 12-24 are Isaiah 2-14. (Example of plagiarism.)

26. II Nephi 13 compare with Isaiah 3. (Example of plagiarism.)

27. II Nephi 25:19, “Christ” was not His last name. Christ means “The Anointed One” or the Messiah. The name “Jesus” was not foretold in Old Testament times. Check Isaiah 9:6. The first time the name was mentioned was when Gabriel told Mary as recorded in Luke 1:31, “and shalt call his name JESUS.”

28. The Book of Mormon is purported to be “a second witness to the Bible.” Who needs the kind of witness that condemns? See II Nephi 29.

29. II Nephi 28:8-9, seem to condemn Mormonism’s doctrine of repentance after death.

30. II Nephi 29:11-13, God dealt only with the Children of Israel and commanded them speak in His name in Old Testament times. In the New Testament, John 12:47,48, Jesus tells us we are to be judged in that last days by the the things He has spoken.

31. Jacob 2:23-3:12, condemns polygamy, see Doctrine and Covenants 132.

32. Jacob 7:27, “Adieu,” French in 544 B.C.?

33. Mosiah 2:3, “. . .offer sacrifice and burnt offering according to the law of Moses.” The Book of Mormon “Nephites” and “Lamanites” were from the tribe of Manasseh, (Alma 10:3). No Manassite could give attendance at the altar according to the law of Moses. Exodus 28-31; Numbers 3:7; Nehemiah 7:63,65; Hebrews 7:12-14 tells us only the tribe of Levi and particularly the Sons of Aaron could give attendance at the altar.

34. Alma 7:10 Jesus born at Jerusalem? See Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4. The Mormon argument is that “Jerusalem” referred to the general vicinity, but in I Nephi 1:3 it is called a “city.”

35. Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry. Alma in Hebrew means a betrothed virgin. Hardly a fitting name for a man.

36. Alma 46:15, “Christian” in 73 B.C., contradicted by Luke in Acts 11:26.

37. Alma 44:12-16, the bad guy gets scalped and suffers nothing but anger, causing him to fight more powerfully afterward. Incredible!

38. Ether 1:34-37, the language of the Jaredites not confounded at the Tower of Babel, contradicts Genesis 11:9.

39. Ether 1:43, the Jaredites are promised by the God of the Book of Mormon to be the greatest nation on earth, and that there would be no greater nation. However, in the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:1-5; 17:1-9, 19; 18:17,18; Romans 2:2) this promise is made. The seed of Abraham is still with us and the Messiah came through that lineage. The Jaredites destroyed each other and within a few generations ceased to exist.

40. Throughout Ether chapter 2, we find the God of the Book of Mormon needs to be given instructions and corrections, for his instructions are foolish. See Job 38-40, for God’s reaction to anyone who might try to instruct Him.

41. Ether 3:9-13, 19, redeemed from the fall because the brother saw the finger of the Lord. Compare Hebrews 9:11-15, 22. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. See also Abel’s offering (Genesis 3:7).

42. Ether 15:30,31, Shiz struggles for breath after his head was cut off.

43. IV Nephi 6, 57 words are used to say 59 years had passed away.

The question should be asked:

“HOW MANY LIES DO YOU HAVE TO FIND IN A BOOK TO KNOW IT IS NOT FROM GOD?”