Are Mormon's Christian?

[DjDan]

Are Mormon's Christian?

^ (continuing that topic here..)

Yes.

I can give you a full assurance of this answer, for I myself am a Mormon. People are always asking this question, and I cannot understand why... neither do I understand why, when they are answered their question.. they refuse to accept it.

"We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins". Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:26

How can anyone sincerely claim that we are not Christian? Is not a 'Christian' a follower of Christ?

Christian
adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Am I not a Christian? I am according to the words that define the term 'Christian'. I am according to my God and the lord Jesus Christ, for they know it so.

I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is our Saviour... and i exercise my faith in him. This I know... and this I have been taught as a member of the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'. We know that it is by grace that we are saved.. and we look to that glorious day, when we will be with Christ and our father again.

How can anyone be so ignorant as to dispute my faith in my Saviour?

 

[rahul_sharma]

I think Yes, aren't they? With so many denominations , it's all so confusing now. Christianity is supposed to be one strict way, right?

 

[bahaiguy]

I think Yes, aren't they? With so many denominations , it's all so confusing now. Christianity is supposed to be one strict way, right

Thats what i always thought. sects vary in so many different things.
I saw on CNN a thing about the poligimus mormons and it was scary. a woman was married at 15 and he was almost 50. he also have like 5 other wives other than her. Is it true that you are the only religion with a living prophet? but doesn't every generation have a prophet?

-Allah'u'Abha

 

[Osiris]

^ (continuing that topic here..)

Yes.

I can give you a full assurance of this answer, for I myself am a Mormon. People are always asking this question, and I cannot understand why... neither do I understand why, when they are answered their question.. they refuse to accept it.



How can anyone sincerely claim that we are not Christian? Is not a 'Christian' a follower of Christ?

Christian
adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Am I not a Christian? I am according to the words that define the term 'Christian'. I am according to my God and the lord Jesus Christ, for they know it so.

I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is our Saviour... and i exercise my faith in him. This I know... and this I have been taught as a member of the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'. We know that it is by grace that we are saved.. and we look to that glorious day, when we will be with Christ and our father again.

How can anyone be so ignorant as to dispute my faith in my Saviour?

People always try to make their beliefs out to be the correct ones.
That is why you don't see Hindus, Muslims, Catholics claiming their religion to be false.

In your case, since the beliefs of your christianity and the christianity differ so much, other christians find themselves thinking... "Either I am right or DJDan is right, but we cannot both be right... " -- and since all religious people usually don't claim their beliefs to be wrong, you will have some christians claiming that other christians are not christians.

Jehova's Witnesses have to go through this as well. They view themselves as christians but other christian denominations don't recognize them as christians.

If I were you DJDan, I wouldn't pay any attention to it... just think of it this way: If other people claim that you are not christian, their definition of christian is different than yours and their definition of being a christian doesn't really have a meaning to you as it does to them. And with the same token, those people aren't christians either when using the standards of LDS's definition of christian.

 

[msindiausa]

Sorry, Mormons are not Christians...Joseph Smith was not a prophet...Jesus did NOT come to America.

 

[msindiausa]

Thats what i always thought. sects vary in so many different things.
I saw on CNN a thing about the poligimus mormons and it was scary. a woman was married at 15 and he was almost 50. he also have like 5 other wives other than her. Is it true that you are the only religion with a living prophet? but doesn't every generation have a prophet?

-Allah'u'Abha

This is a common practice. A lot of young men are being excommunicated from the so-called church so the old men can marry the young girls.

They do believe that god still sends prophets to earth...President Hinkley.

 

[DaveS]

Well in my book if you believe yourself to be Christian then you are Christian, why should the views of others matter? Afterall, Jesus did say stand out from the crowd and don't let the (possibly wrong) views of others affect you.

Dave

 

[looking4wisdom]

Well in my book if you believe yourself to be Christian then you are Christian, why should the views of others matter? Afterall, Jesus did say stand out from the crowd and don't let the (possibly wrong) views of others affect you.

Dave

um, that sounds nice on paper, but with that philosophy anybody can claim to be christian no matter how far they stray from the bible.

 

[DaveS]

Hmmmm.. but does that really matter? I say that anyone is good to go as long as they have faith and more importantly, love.

Dave

P.S - Remember, Christians are supposed to follow Christ and make up our own minds, not spend hours trying to interpret a rather large book and then finally getting the "wrong" answer. I just feel Christ didn't mean that to be, the Bible is simply a basic guide, the rest us up to you.

 

[looking4wisdom]

Hmmmm.. but does that really matter? I say that anyone is good to go as long as they have faith and more importantly, love.

Dave

P.S - Remember, Christians are supposed to follow Christ and make up our own minds, not spend hours trying to interpret a rather large book and then finally getting the "wrong" answer. I just feel Christ didn't mean that to be, the Bible is simply a basic guide, the rest us up to you.

What are you talking about? DO you know christianity at all? Christians are suppose to follow christ, and the teachings of christ which are found in the bible. You cannot claim to be christian and then go against the words of Christ.

 

[Osiris]

Sorry, Mormons are not Christians...Joseph Smith was not a prophet...Jesus did NOT come to America.

Your definition of christian is different than the definition mormons hold.

 

[msindiausa]

Your definition of christian is different than the definition mormons hold.

That is for darn sure. Jesus never endorsed poligamy. Acting in such a way is not christian.

 

[DaveS]

What are you talking about? DO you know christianity at all? Christians are suppose to follow christ, and the teachings of christ which are found in the bible. You cannot claim to be christian and then go against the words of Christ.

It is not so much the words but rather the actions of Christ that I find of most importance. As Christ's actions did usually go with His words it is of little importance as far as the Bible is concerned but it is important in our every day lives. Basically, I believe that Christ didn't mean us to huddle over his every word, sure he knew that his words were important but I think he hoped that we would learn from his actions - his actions of unexpecting, agape love - and from there that we could build as strong a relationship with Him as possible.

Dave

P.S - With regards to the 'Do you know Christianity at all?', I try to learn as much about Christ as possible. One of the best lessons I've learnt is to be accepting of others views even if I don't hold them myself.

 

[ravenscape]

Welcome to CF, DjDan! I'm inclined to leave the validity of people's claims to Christianity up to them and their God. If you believe you are a Christian, that's good enough for me . If you change your mind, let me know!

 

[msindiausa]

It is not so much the words but rather the actions of Christ that I find of most importance. As Christ's actions did usually go with Hid words it is of little importance as far as the Bible is concerned but it is important in our every day lives. Basically, I believe that Christ didn't mean us to huddle over his every word, sure he knew that his words were important but I think he hoped that we would learn from his actions - his actions of unexpecting, agape love - and from there that we could build as strong a relationship with Him as possible.

Dave

P.S - With regards to the 'Do you know Christianity at all?', I try to learn as much about Christ as possible. One of the best lessons I've learnt is to be accepting of others views even if I don't hold them myself.

Well, actions are important, but so is doctrine. If you follow the doctrine of christ YOU ARE FOLLOWING CHRIST.

You cannot go so completely against doctrine and then call yourself a christian. This is true in all religions. A muslim cannot call themselves a muslim and worship the trinity...A hindu cannot call themselves a hindu and eat beef all the time.

 

[DaveS]

Well, actions are important, but so is doctrine. If you follow the doctrine of christ YOU ARE FOLLOWING CHRIST.

You cannot go so completely against doctrine and then call yourself a christian. This is true in all religions. A muslim cannot call themselves a muslim and worship the trinity...A hindu cannot call themselves a hindu and eat beef all the time.

I suppose the problem is then actually defining what is the doctrine of Christ... my No. 1 standard and possibly my only standard is love. From this, all things can ppprrobbaabbly be based and anyone can be sure that they will get there in some shape or form! As regards to the beef-hindu thing... I dunno, I suppose you could believe yourself to be which is enough really to be.. dunno

Dave

 

[DjDan]

This is a common practice. A lot of young men are being excommunicated from the so-called church so the old men can marry the young girls.

They do believe that god still sends prophets to earth...President Hinkley.

That is utter ignorance!

There is no polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. None whatsoever. That comment is totally disrespectful and i know that you intended it that way. For your arrogance though, i will just ignore it. You obviously know nothing about the LDS church.

 

[msindiausa]

That is utter ignorance!

There is no polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. None whatsoever. That comment is totally disrespectful and i know that you intended it that way. For your arrogance though, i will just ignore it. You obviously know nothing about the LDS church.

What ever helps you sleep at night.

http://www.myfortress.org/mormon_polygamy.html

http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Cults/Mormon8/

 

[msindiausa]

Some members of the Mormon Church have made fantastic claims about archaeologists using the Book of Mormon. For example, one letter written by a prominent Mormon, dated May 3, 1936, maintained that the Book of Mormon was used by "the government to unravel the problem of the aborigines.… it was 1920 before the Smithsonian Institute officially recognized the Book of Mormon as a record of any value.… it is true that the Book of Mormon has been the guide to almost all of the major discoveries.... This record is...recognized by all advanced students in the field."

Because of many false statements disseminated by members of the Mormon Church, such as the one cited above, the Smithsonian Institution has been forced to publish a statement concerning these matters. The four-page statement begins with a denial of the claims put forth by Mormon enthusiasts: "1.The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book." ("Statement Regarding The Book of Mormon," Smithsonian Institution, Spring 1986)

In 1973, Michael Coe, one of the best known authorities on archaeology of the New World, wrote an article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973. After telling of the Mormon belief in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, he frankly stated: "Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true,... nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon... is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." (pp.42, 46)

Some Mormon scholars are beginning to publicly admit that archaeology does not furnish any significant evidence for the Book of Mormon. Dee F. Green, who at one time served as editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter, published at the church’s Brigham Young University, made it plain that archaeological evidence did not prove the Book of Mormon: "The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)

Thomas Stuart Ferguson was one of the most noted defenders of Book of Mormon archaeology. Mr. Ferguson planned the New World Archaeological Foundation which he hoped would prove The Book of Mormon through archaeological research. The Mormon Church granted hundreds of thousands of dollars to this organization, but in the end, Thomas Stuart Ferguson admitted that although the Foundation made some important contributions to New World archaeology, all his work with regard to the Book of Mormon was in vain. He admitted, in fact, that he had wasted twenty-five years of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon. In 1975 Ferguson prepared a 29-page paper in which he wrote: "I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography." In a letter to Mr. & Mrs. H.W. Lawrence, dated Feb. 20, 1976, Thomas Stuart Ferguson plainly stated: "…you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere - because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology."

Dr. Ray T. Matheny, professor of Anthropology at the church’s Brigham Young University, admitted that he has a difficult time reconciling New World archaeology with the Book of Mormon:

"I really have difficulty in finding issue or quarrel with those opening chapters of the Book of Mormon [i. e., the first 7 chapters which only relate to Lehi and his family around the area of Jerusalem]. But thereafter it doesn't seem like a translation to me.... And the terminologies and the language used and the methods of explaining and putting things down are 19th century literary concepts and cultural experiences one would expect Joseph Smith and his colleagues would experience. And for that reason I call it transliteration, and I’d rather not call it a translation after the 7th chapter. And I have real difficulty in trying to relate these cultural concepts as I've briefly discussed here with archeological findings that I'm aware of....

"If I were doing this cold like John Carlson is here, I would say in evaluating the Book of Mormon that it had no place in the New World whatsoever. I would have to look for the place of the Book of Mormon events to have taken place in the Old World. It just doesn't seem to fit anything that he has been taught in his discipline, nor I in my discipline in anthropology, history; there seems to be no place for it. It seems misplaced. It seems like there are anachronisms. It seems like the items are out of time and place, and trying to put them into the New World. And I think there’s a great difficulty here for we Mormons in understanding what this book is all about." ("Book of Mormon Archeology," Response by Professor Ray T. Matheny, Sunstone Symposium, August 25, 1984, typed copy transcribed from a tape-recording, pp. 30-31)

Three years after speaking at this symposium, Dr. Matheny wrote a letter in which he made it clear that there was still no Book of Mormon archaeology:

"While some people choose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge.

"I do not support the books written on this subject including The Messiah in Ancient American, or any other. I believe that the authors are making cases out of too little evidence and do not adequately address the problems that archaeology and the Book of Mormon present. I would feel terribly embarrassed if anyone sent a copy of any book written on the subject to the National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution, or other authority, making claims that cannot as yet be substantiated.… there are very severe problems in this field in trying to make correlations with the scriptures. Speculation, such as practiced so far by Mormon authors has not given church members credibility." (Letter by Ray T. Matheny, dated Dec. 17, 1987)

While there is no archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon’s claim that there were Nephites in the New World, the existence of the Israelites in the Holy Land is verified by a great deal of evidence. The "earliest archaeological reference to the people of Israel" is a stele of the Egyptian ruler Merneptah, dated about 1220 B.C. Many ancient inscriptions mentioning the Israelites have been found, and some inscriptions even give the names of kings or other people mentioned in the Bible. The New Testament mentions a number of rulers that are known to have lived around the time of Christ. The fact that the Jews were in Palestine at the time the Bible indicates is proven by hundreds of ancient Hebrew inscriptions. Portions of every book of the Old Testament, except for the book Esther, have also been found in the manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. When we turn to the Book of Mormon, however, we are unable to find any evidence at all that the Nephites ever existed. For more information on the Book of Mormon and many other subjects see the book Major Problems of Mormonism available from Utah lighthouse Ministry for $6.95

​

 

[msindiausa]

http://www.xmission.com/~country/slcm/slcm94b.htm

http://www.lds-mormon.com/mormon_polygamy.shtml

http://www.americanreligion.org/cultwtch/polygamy.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1339341.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm