Mormonism

Remove all ads!

Yes, but, to most other Christians, the differences are huge. Let's take a look at the Nicene creed:

We believe in one God (1),
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father (2);
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin (3) Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven(4)
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

(1) Since Mormons believe that we all can become as God, they clearly do not believe in just one God.

(2) LDS theology rejects trinity. Mormons believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different beings united in purpose, love, and perfection; they also believe that the Father (and Christ after his resurrection) has a physical body. In contrast, Trinitarian theology teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different persons united in substance (or essence), and that the Father does not have a physical body.

(3) Mormons don't believe in the virgin birth. Per Brigham young:

Further, as I mentioned in (2), Trinitarian theology flatly states that neither the Holy Spirit or God the Father have a physical body.

(4) The fact that Christians believe that Christ ascended into heaven without passing go, collecting 200 dollars, or visiting an offshoot tribe of Jews living in the new world is also a rather substantial theological difference of opinion.


** Now the differences I've listed may not seem too big to a member of the LDS church, but to most Christians, they are huge. Trinity (which Mormons flatly reject) is the Core component of Christian theology. Most Christians will not consider you "Christian" if you do not believe in Trinity.

[ May 11, 2007, 22:35: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Well, actually, the Mormons DO believe in the virgin birth. I can see why you interpreted Brigham's statement that way -- but a virgin birth was required by the prophesies (I believe from Isiah).

Brigham Young was a loon IMO -- he was prone to say very inappropriate things at odd times. However, Mormons do not believe their leaders to be perfect -- the prophet is only speaking for God when given a revelation. The key words in your quote are 'I believe' at the very beginning. Brigham Young was expressing an opinion, not spouting doctrine. I believe he was trying to justify his own sexual and marital habits, but that's a different issue.

The trinitarian beliefs you state are supported by the majority, but not all, of Christians (even excluding Mormons). Such beliefs are therefore not fundamental to Christianity (but are widely accepted) -- however, the beliefs I stated in my previous post are cornerstones of Christianity.

But Mormon beliefs go beyond that -- Jesus is Jehovah, and the God of the old testiment (under the tutelage of God, the father). During the first part of his reign as God he did not have a body. It was only after his birth, death and resurrection that he obtain a physical body in the hereafter. Nothing divine is done on this earth that does not go through Jesus. The Holy Ghost does not have a body -- he will be the last to receive a body on this earth at the end of the Second Coming.

More than one God: yes, but none other are worshiped except the one Christian God. Although the Mormons believe that Jesus is the God and creator of this world, they worship the Father, not the Son.

John 10:16 is often used by Mormons to indicate that Jesus knew of other people in the world who would need his teachings. The Mormons believe he was referring to the American continent.

 

Here's the most complete list I can find of Chrisitans following a non-trinitarian school of thought:

American Unitarian Conference, Arian Catholicism, Arianism, Bible Students, Christadelphians, Christian Science,Church of God General Conference,Church of the Blessed Hope, Creation Seventh Day Adventism, Doukhobors, Higher Ground Online, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Living Hope International Ministries, Molokan, Monarchianism, New Church, Oneness Pentecostals, Polish Brethren, Socinianism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Way International, Unification Church, Unitarian Christians, Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship, Independent affiliates of the Unitarian Universalist Association.

I doubt most people have even heard of most of these denominations. Further, most of the ones that seem familiar are actually offshoots of the "familiar" denomination. For the denominations that people have heard of, I would like to point out that these denominations are just as often accused of not being Christian by Trinitarian Christians as the LDS church is. While that doesn't make it right, that's still the way many Christians choose to see things.

 

Actually, some such "Christian" religions have many inconsistencies from the Bible itself. For example, The Bible forbids paid ministry. How many churches pay their ministers? The Bible teaches that forbiddance of marriage is a false doctrine. Requiring priests and nuns to remain celebate would qualify as such forbiddance. The Bible teaches that baptism is to be administered by immersion. How many faiths teach that?

If you insist on splitting hairs, you could go as extreme as Nietzsche and say that "the last Christian dies on the Cross." I believe that it is simply a case of other religions not wanting to accept the new faith on the block...

 

Uh....no, it doesn't. Take a look at Paul's argument about why he should be paid for his efforts in 1 Corinthians 9:3-8

You should also check out Philippians 4:10-20.

Wrong again. It never says anything at all about whether or not it is acceptable to require celibacy of the clergy. The subject simply never comes up in the new testament. However, it does strongly encourage celibacy for everyone.....not just priests.

There you have it. Paul says you should only marry if you lack the self control to remain celibate.

Not really.
The New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism. The common argument is that the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means "to immerse" and that immersion reflects the symbolic significance of being "buried" and "raised" with Christ. It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself (the Greek word here is baptizo) seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (baptizo) before dinner."

Yes, yes, Christ was baptized by immersion...however, it never states anywhere in the bible that immersion is necessary for baptism. In fact, the bible gives no explicit instructions at all.

 

I have never understood how people can single out any one religion as particularly nutty, weird or even wrong. Any statement supposed to falsify one religion can mostly unchanged be used on any other.

Sure the Mormons seem silly for a non-believer with the gold plates and its Brigham Young but how silly isnt the very idea that what some random ancient shaman saw in his twisted mind or even thought up one evening when he was bored is allowed to dictate the lives of billions of people today?

 

Drew, you just accurately expressed one of the issues with the bible -- any studious person can find contradictory statement on some portions (if I felt inclined I could find the references Gnarff mentioned). Sure it is mainly the trivial issues that have such contradictory verses, but it is based on those verses that new sects are founded (such as the Mormons).

 

Actually, the Mormon church was founded on the Book of Mormon....not a difference of opinion Joseph Smith had about how to interpret the bibile. Now, I'm not defending any specific interpretation of what the bible means, but merely trying to point out how most Catholics and Protestants feel about Trinity, paying their clergy, baptism by immersion, etc.

The reason I took Gnarff's argument apart point by point was because the bible doesn't state you shouldn't pay your clergy (in fact, it states that you should on at least 2 separate occasions in the New Testament), the bible doesn't say that you have to baptize by immersion*, it never states that you can't require your clergy to be celibate, and references to trinity can be found as early as Isaiah. I'm not trying to argue that Mormons aren't Christian (but merely trying to clarify why other sects don't see them that way**). While there are plenty of valid points that can be made against modern Christian doctrine, but none of the examples of deviations that Gnarff brought up are actually true unless you are drawing from non-biblical sources like the book of Mormon for your information.

* In fact, liturgical handbooks dating all the way back to 70 AD show that immersion was not required for baptism in the early Apostolic Church.

** Remember, we've had schisms over Transubstantiation (the idea that the bread and wine literally, not figuratively, becomes the body of Christ). Compared to the mole hill of transubstantiation, Trinity is a mountain.

 

There are millions of Christian who do not believe in the trinity and even millions who do not believe that Jesus was God. There is no set Christian belief. If you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ then you are a 'Christian'. I have studied many different forms of Christianity and as far as I can tell the only thing they truly agree on is that their religion is based on the teachings of Jesus.

Some Christians believe in the Trinity, some do not. Some Christians believe in Hell, some do not. Some Christians believe their Church is the only true Christian Church and some do not. Arguing about what Christians believe is similar to arguing about whether my cats have souls or not.

 

I was pretty much going to say what Nakia said about the definition of a Christian.

 

Hey, folks, I'm only mentioning the reasons that many Christians choose to exclude certain groups who also call themselves Christian from being deserving of the name. I'm not defending it.

Being that more than a third of the world (whose population is over 6 billion) is Christian, millions of Christians is actually a rather small percentage of the whole. Further, the Catholic Church (nearly half of all Christians right there), the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Coptic, the Presbyterian, The Methodist, the Pentacostal, and the Anglican Churches will not recognize any non-trinitarian baptism as valid, and also will not recognize any faith that denies the divinity of Christ as being "Christian", either. Again, I'm not defending it. That's just the way they are.

[ May 13, 2007, 05:05: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Drew, I'm not Mormon anymore. I don't believe in God. Why should I lie to you about Mormons or the bible?

Most Mormons know more about the Bible that they do about the Book of Mormon. They believe in the Bible and view the Book of Mormon as an addition to the Bible. The Bible is the core of their beliefs (as it is with all Christian faiths).

To pick your points apart -- the Bible does mention unpaid ministry (my Bible is in storage somewhere and I have no desire to locate it). I used to 'Bible bash' all the time. I only used the Bible arguing about the Mormon church (never the Book of Mormon). And I used that passage many times. The Bible has many contradictory statements (how are you saved, by faith or by works). The Bible also states the church should be led by prophets and apostles. Jesus' own example should be an adequate indicator for baptism by immersion.

As I said, everybody has their own interpretation of the Bible.

 

Not quite. Paul was stating that the ministers ought have their own labours to feed themselves and not rely on payment for preaching. The Language used in references forbidding paid ministry is much stronger. Also, allow me to put forth the example of the Prophet Balaam in the Old Testament (Numbers 22 to 24). He was a prophet, but met his doom trying to be paid for his services. Also note that in a previous link I provided, Joseph Smith was not allowed to begin translation of the Book of Mormon until he seperated from the Money Diggers as they were evil, and that his gifts from God were not to be used to gain personal wealth.

1 Timothy 4:3 lists Forbiddance of Marriage as a false doctrines. It says the same about a forbiddance of eating Meat...

And God would make sure that His only begotten son was baptized in the correct manner (immersion), by one with recognized authority (John the Baptist) to do so. CHrist's Baptism is a model for how baptism in the Lord's church ought to be administered.

Actually, the starting point was the first vision where the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith and told him that all the other churches had been corrupted and that he should join none of them. This occured in 1820. After 10 years, the Book of Mormon was translated and the Priesthoods restored, then they were ready to organize the Church...

1 Peter 5:2 is the reference I was looking for. Those that preach are to do so of a ready heart, and not for money (called Filthy Luchre in the scripture). There's at least one other but I can't remember which one it is.

Before the birth of Jesus Christ. Also, I have noticed translational differences in John 4:24 that may give rise to some theological differences between other Christians and the Mormons. In the one version it says that God is a Spirit, where as the version from the Joseph Smith Translation the verse refers to the Holy Ghost.

This is the definition of Christian I look to.

 

"Filthy Lucre" and "Money" are not even close to the same thing, Gnarff. That passage argues that you shouldn't be preaching solely for the purpose of making money. It isn't saying that you have to be a beggar in order to be a priest. Context is important. So is using a better translation than the KJV....which is loaded with blatant translation errors, uses words whose meanings have changed over the last several hundred years (which causes entire passages to be completely misinterpreted), and placed more value on poetics than accuracy. The KJV translation is a linguists nightmare. A more correct translation of the Passage would be:

There you go. Peter doesn't say you can't pay your clergy. He says that the clergy shouldn't fleece the flock like a televangelist.

So, you now claim to know the will of God? Seriously, Gnarff, an argument that we should baptize by immersion because that was how Christ was baptized is one thing, but arguing that the bible explicitly requires baptism by immersion is just not true. Everyone wore sandals in the bible, too. Does that mean I am going against the bible when I wear dress shoes?

Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost mean the exact same thing, Gnarff. Spirit....Ghost.....see the similarity?

[ May 13, 2007, 07:18: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Now that got me to thinking. I never knew such groups existed. To me, the definition of Christian was not someone who followed the teachings of Christ, but rather someone who acknowledges the divinity of Christ.

However, regardless of which definition you use, it would still mean that LDS members would be Christian, right?

 

Debatable by the logic you presented. Remember, Mormons believe that God was once as man is and Man has the capacity to become as God is. Placing Man on the same pedestal as God in this manner can, by certain logic, can qualify as a denial not only the divinity of Christ, but of God as well.

 

Key words there were 'by certain logic.' You can prove anything with logic as long as you allow premises to be non-factual.

Since we are dealing with religion, where there is no substantial factual proof of anything (including the existence of Jesus himself), you must be relying on some questionable premise to make your argument.

All you really need to do is go to a Mormon church and determine for yourself if they believe in the divinity of the Godhead (as they perceive it). They worship God as devoutly as any other Christian sect I have seen. Simply watch and listen, going with an agenda would defeat the purpose of the visit. But this course of action would require an open mind on your part -- which I am not sure is possible for you on this subject (no disrespect intended, you just appear to be very devout to your own beliefs).

The best time to go would be on the first Sunday of any month -- it's called Fast Sunday by the Mormons and is a time when individual members stand in front of the congregation and bear their testimonies. I hated those meetings as a kid -- they were boring as all hell. But it would let you see their beliefs on the most basic level (that of the individual member).

 

This is a remarkable thread. Keep it up.

 

@T2: If you're talking to me, you must be missing something. I'm not religious. At all. I can't be devout, because I hold equal contempt for all religious belief systems. I think they are all a sham.

Actually, no non-factual premise is needed. Christians believe that God is divine and so is Christ...who is now seated at the right hand of the Father. Theybelieve Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be the same entity....that there is only one God. Mormons, on the other hand, believe that men can become Gods. Now, that means that Mormons also believe there is more than one God. Since Mormons believe that men can become Gods, that also means that the perceived gulf between man and God (divinity) is a lot smaller in Mormon theology than it is in Christian theology since Christians believe that God is greater than man can ever be. In Christian theology, men will be as angels in the afterlife. They will not become gods and rule over a planet with their wives and spirit children.

[ May 14, 2007, 22:31: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Statistics prove what? Based on statistics there is a god. 6 billion people of whom 2 billion are Christians, another 1 billion are Sunni Islams. So right there half the world believes in a god.

Of the 2 billion Christians over half are Trinitarians so if you don't believe in the Trinity you are not a Christian?

Personally I think in cases such as this one it is the individual who defines him/herself.