Continuing on, I would like to repost the continuing conversation that started with Mormons are NOT Christians: Here’s Why. There is a third entry in this series, Mormons are NOT Christians: Here’s Why 3.
Let me recommend this blog: Progressing Pilgrims Anonymous for more detailed examination of the differences between LDS and Christianity.
The original forum from which all this comes is Mormons ARE Christians: Here’s Why.
-
WhatAboutThis says:
One of our church’s statements of basic belief states that we believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it has been translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Also, we believe all that God has revealed, all the He does now reveal and the He will yet reveal many great and important thing pertaining to the kingdom of God.
I’m sure that you understand that for us, the Bible a foundational book of scripture but clearly there are others. Any version of the Bible that currently exists had been through too many ungodly interpretive hands over the centuries to qualify as God’s only doctrinal link to man and to accurately deliver everything that God intended for His children to have. I recently read that our current Bibles are made up of over 1,500 documents and not one of them is an original. They are copies of interpretations of translations.
The Nicene Creed is still being interpreted and ecumenically debated 1,500+ years later. There is a 1975 version and a 1977 version that the Catholics are finally going to accept. I also understand that many of the traditional churches have their own slightly different versions of it. If churches want to use it a foundation of their faith, that’s fine, but we don’t use it at all.
I’m not sure which church you attend but using the same basic creed and Bible has resulted in literally thousands of different religions in the world each with their own interpretation and views of those basic building blocks. Clearly the differences are significant enough to motivate men to start another new church…Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Church of Christ…etc.
If a person wants to belong to those churches and become a follower of Jesus Christ and live a good Christian life, that’s not a bad thing. Every person can/must exercise their own personal agency and live with the consequences of their choices.
Another one of our beliefs…we claim the privilege of worshipping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where of what they may. Apparently your church does not afford mankind those same privileges without a measure of disrespect, conflict and confrontation.
Think about it…in Biblical times when God wanted to interact with His children, he literally talked to them…sometimes in a dream, in a burning bush, face to face etc. The scripture and other historical writing of that time like the Dead Sea Scroll are literally full of that interaction. It’s His normal way of doing things.
Yet the traditionals’ view has taken a few simple words in the Bible uttered by Jesus…It is finished…and parlayed that into an interpretation that the heaven’s are closed, revelation has ceased, God no longer talks to His children and we are now separated from God. The traditionals have placed the whole hope of their salvation on an incomplete and imperfect book and block access to anything better than that that God might want to offer.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
In our faith we’re encouraged to constantly validate what leaders teach with inspiration and confirmation from God. I’ll ask God if what I have just been taught is correct and I get an answer. I think more church goers of all faiths should do that. And when/if they come to an understanding that what they just heard is not correct, irrespective of the tradition that’s been taught, they need to personally act on that inspiration. The asking should be an easy thing to do but surprisingly for many, it takes a lot of moral courage. It’s like asking God directly is a form of capitulation.
I accord unto you and any other man the privilege to worship how and when he/you wish, and NO; I won’t be scanning your church’s blogs to perpetually post derogatory and confrontive comments about your erroneous doctrine.
If God someday deigns to give you your own personal burning bush experience and communicate with you directly even if its in a manner that your church doesn’t teach, I’d advise you to temporarily suspend your disbelief long enough to accept the invitation and listen to Him very carefully and see what He has to say to you. It can happen.
May God bless you.
_______________________________
-
Pooka says:
The numerous divisions in the church are a result of either direct conflict over the Gospel and essential theological truth, ethnic/nationality issues including languages, social/political and any other number of influences.
The origin of the LDS church falls in this place with the first: Gospel and Truth. They do not come from a strict, Gospel believing background. The belief that Scripture is incomplete and inaccurately translated underlines what Orthodox (traditionalist?) Christianity understands to be error, or false teaching.
That being said, There is nothing in our books that says we are to deny you or any other belief system the right to worship as required by the belief system itself. Those who demand conformity are being just as rotten as described. The correct Christian approach should always be from a position of “I hold the truth and I want you to hear it. Please listen.”
Not “I hold the truth and you better stop right now or else I will…” God is sovereign, not Christians. Christians have the right to discipline those who are in the Church, not those outside. The Gospel is to be proclaimed to the World, not implemented (which is actually impossible in any case since the Gospel is a message, not a to-do list).
Manuscripts and everything else? So it’s complicated how everything came to be in Scripture. That is no more complicated than Smith having a visit from an angel (in his private moment, not in public) and translating the secret message to become the Book of Mormon. If we want to go to brass tacks, the historicity is more consistent between the myriad documents that comprise the original texts of the Bible and the Creeds of the Historic Church than the claims of the LDS church. But again, we’re willing to discuss this with you rather than come to fisticuffs over it.
Finally, the claim that Christians are consistently the flagship for intolerance and bigotry, abusing liberty and rights in order to harm, belittle or repress other religions is only partly true. Yes, there is a history of religious persecution from the Christian Church. There is also the same from Communism, Atheism, Islam, ancient pagan religions, the Roman Empire, Catholics and just about every other major religion in history. This only proves that every man, to the man, is a sinner who puts his own evil ways before everyone else.
I argue that tolerance and willingness to debate has largely swung opposite the historical trend in that Christians are being repressed and persecuted these days in most of our secular institutions, on the street and in their places of work. Since Christians claim to have the truth, we are branded as intolerant and suppressors of liberty. Funny how that works out when we consistently have a willingness to teach our truth, enter into dialogue with other men who do not hold our beliefs and include them in our lives. Yet to say “I’m a Bible-believing Christian” in, say a big College or at work tends to lead right into a scene that includes words like “bigot” or “persecutor.”
Me? I am convicted that this forum, one where you can type and I can type, is what the whole religion discussion should be like. Respectful and willing to answer honestly rather than sling dirt and epithets at one another. If I cannot win you to the Truth of Christ in the Bible, so be it. It should not end in either of us becoming vicious or even resentful.
Soli Deo Gloria
October 28th, 2011 at 10:13 am
In a discussion ensuing from this blog entry of mine, claims were made that the work was not objective, but insensitive and bigoted. I think my response can be included here as a pre-emptive answer to further dispute. I’d certainly like to see honest and “sensitive” discourse on the subject.
The ENTIRE goal of my correspondence on this is to A) Demonstrate that the LDS is NOT Christian and B) Proclaim the Gospel and correct view of Scripture. Now, I ain’t no genius theologian, pro-apologist or even a good writer, but these two goals are both attainable for dumb-heads like me as much as super-dudes.
Disrespect? None… No Respect? Probably, at least for baseless criticism.
By definition, the LDS church is not Christian. In my first article, http://lordandhearth.com/2011/10/26/4824/ you’ll see where I defined the terms and (respectfully) explained how, though the name claims Jesus, the Jesus of the LDS is not the Jesus of the Bible. His claims are denied, His message is denied, His divinity is denied, Original sin – Pretty much all of it. If you look at it with an eye to the original texts (which the LDS church still keeps in inventory), there is no keeping with the Bible in general. Lifting a few traditions and important names and then claiming orthodoxy is just plain bogus.
It’s not an insult to state the truth. If anything, the insult is to Christianity, however I hope you’ll notice that I don’t play much into that end. We expect the offense, as Christians.
In answer to Those Who claim Extensive Theological Study, you’re unwilling to take a look at the arguments presented here. There’s no attack on liberty or rights here – only a peaceful, respectful assertion of truth. Call it philosophical, religious, fact or belief, no matter – it’s theological and founded theology at that. Objectivity cuts both ways. The ability to look at both sides is probably the most valuable skill in a discussion.
I believe I looked carefully at the LDS beliefs that were presented by the opposing view, appreciated them and then kindly represented my own convictions – WITHOUT demeaning the other or setting up false situations or a straw-man. It is sad to see that, in one case today, the whole attempt at clear discourse by making a blanket statement against the proponents of one view – namely that they are bigoted, insensitive, disgusting, un-objective, disrespectful and offensive.
I respectfully offer the following for consideration:
Does the LDS church believe in the Christian God of the Bible, to include the entirety of His Trinitarian Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Does the LDS church believe in the doctrines of Original Sin, Depravity of Man, Grace, Atonement, Heaven and Hell, Infallibility of the Scriptures, Canonicity of Scripture? (These are known as key issues in determining orthodoxy)
If the LDS church believes these things as laid out over the last umpteen thousand years (in particular the last Two Thousand), then I will (and I assume the remainder of the Christian world) grant that they are Christian. Until this occurs, the LDS church is NOT Christian. By definition, not opinion.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
[...] EXCERPTED FROM Kingdom Of God Worship source http://lordandhearth.com/2011/10/28/mormons-are-not-christians-here%E2%80%99s-why/ [...]
November 1st, 2011 at 12:26 pm
[...] Continuing on, I would like to repost the continuing conversation that started with Mormons are NOT Christians: Here’s Why. The 2nd part of this series is Mormons are NOT Christians: Here’s Why 2. [...]
November 25th, 2011 at 2:16 am
Your assertions suffer from vagueness, failing to define important terms.
Speaking as a Catholic, tell us what you mean that differentiates the LDS from Protestant denominations that the Catholic Church also declares not to be following “a strict, Gospel believing background”
Tell us what a “Orthodox traditionalist church” is given there exist thousands of Christologies among only the Protestants. I thought as a Catholic, the word “Orthodox” only applies to things Catholic?
Tell us what “Christianity (in total) understands to be error, or false teaching” means as applied to the LDS but not Protestants? I thought as a Catholic you thought this same comment refers to Protestant churches, all of them.
You state “Those who demand conformity are being just as rotten”. You are in denial of your own Catholic history. More people and families have been destroyed in the demand for conformity of “Christian” belief by war fomented by the Catholic Church in order to consolidate power than any other organization, period.
You state “it’s complicated how everything came to be in Scripture.” Of course you didn’t mean scripture. You meant the Bible. Well which Bible is the sacred text is divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired? Is it the Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible? The Bible became “Everything” hundreds of years after the death of Christ and all the Apostles, unapproved by them. Your Christian tradition is therefore not sourced in Christ.
From there you meandered off course, offering no more “proofs” that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a Christian Church.
November 25th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Robin,
I wonder at your impression that I’ve been vague and that I’ve failed to get terms right. I also am confused on what you’re trying to say about which sacred text is the Bible. Perhaps you haven’t read all 3 of the articles I’ve posted? I’ve linked to each of them at the top of this article now – making them easier to find. Perhaps you’re just being funny here? If not, why does your argument sound as if you, a Catholic, are making it sound as if the LDS are a Christian church?
I would think that, as a Catholic person, you’d be able to connect the dots in my reasoning, especially those that claim the Bible as the prime source of revelation. I don’t believe that the extant R.C. documents are considered inspired by your church, only the Bible. I also believe, based on statements by your own Catechism, that only the death of Christ on the cross for our sins saves a man from eternal damnation. We differ from there, Protestants and Catholics, but the root Gospel is still persistent in both churches, correct?
My arguments took the LDS to task for using the excuse about canonized scripture being corrupted by mankind at Nicea (and elsewhere), and surely you agree that 2,000 years of church history has no support for the false “revelation” that LDS use to append and distort the Bible which Catholics and Protestants hold as the Word of God. The Bible has been everything all along. Look at the passage in Luke: Road To Emmaus and how Christ explained everything from the Scriptures.
There is only one valid Christology, and true Christians all adhere to it. It’s a fairly simple test that is found in the Nicene Creed in basic terms:
…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end…
Here’s a reference from your church that goes through the creed line-by-line: The Nicene Creed: Symbol of the Catholic Faith
LDS do not accept this at the root of their religion. They have overridden the truth of Scripture with their own brand of work-for-your-salvation.