Are Mormons Christians?

[quote=“tash”]Why 12 pages? The OP’s question was answered in first two posts.
… you boys really have a lot of spare time, don’t you? :wink:[/quote]

I helped.

This thread is evidence of something.

“On the evening of the . . . twenty-first of September [1823] . . . I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God . . . .
“While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.
“He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant.

False Prophet.

[quote] For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.2 Tim 4:3

The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?Jer 5:31 [/quote]

…let’s not forget about the “Golden Plates” and the Urim and Thummim, the magikal glasses of “translation”…

[quote]“At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, having gone as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge: That I should be responsible for them; that if I should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut off; but that if I would use all my endeavors to preserve them, until he, the messenger, should call for them, they should be protected.
“I soon found out the reason why I had received such strict charges to keep them safe, and why it was that the messenger had said that when I had done what was required at my hand, he would call for them. For no sooner was it known that I had them, than the most strenuous exertions were used to get them from me. Every stratagem that could be invented was resorted to for that purpose. The persecution became more bitter and severe than before, and multitudes were on the alert continually to get them from me if possible. But by the wisdom of God, they remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.” [/quote]
How oddly “convenient”…LOL

Smith and Hubbard have too much in common.

Joseph Smith claimed he saw God. He claimed he was given an ancient record and the means to translate them. If it’s true, he’s a prophet. You don’t believe it, so you call him a false prophet.

I say he’s a true prophet. And you know something else? I say so because I prayed to God to know this and I got my answer.

End of story.

[quote]Joseph Smith claimed he saw God. He claimed he was given an ancient record and the means to translate them. If it’s true, he’s a prophet. You don’t believe it, so you call him a false prophet.

I say he’s a true prophet. And you know something else? I say so because I prayed to God to know this and I got my answer.

End of story.[/quote]
…makes not a whit of difference. Same is true of every other religion and its followers.

[quote]# 7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. [/quote]

Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits Isa 30:10

If Mormons believe in the Bible and claimalso that BofM is the word of God, they by default admit to following a False Prophet.

Sorry, I don’t quite follow you. Why is that a default admission?
Because you declare their prophet false? Then they’ve made no such admission.
Does the bible say there will be no more prophets? Does the bible say God would stop speaking to people after its edges were gilded?

Just curious.

If you read from the Old testament: God speaks in dreams.
posted before
Moroni the angel did not appear in a dream.
However Point #7 of the Mormon way …makes it AOK.
SO: If you believe in the Bible…then point #7 is a statement of convenience to lead the masses away from the Bible and true words of Christianity.

Not to mention all the yak about the golden plates and magickal glasses of “translation”…which no one but J.Smith ever laid eyes upon…and had to keep “safe” because God and his host of Angels couldn’t do it on their own…???

For the Record…I neither like nor dislike Mormons. They are not better and not worse than any other “religion.”

Yet to Claim to be “Christian?” Is not correct.

Smith is right there with Hubbard…making money through eternal salvation.

[quote=“SoulDragoN”]If you read from the Old testament: God speaks in dreams.
posted before
Moroni the angel did not appear in a dream.
However Point #7 of the Mormon way …makes it AOK.
SO: If you believe in the Bible…then point #7 is a statement of convenience to lead the masses away from the Bible and true words of Christianity.
[/quote]

By “God speaks in dreams” are you claiming that this is the ONLY way in which God communicated to people in the Bible? And since Moroni the angel didn’t appear in a dream, then this could not have been a valid communication from God? Is that your point?

Also by Point #7 are you referring to the following article of faith (which I got off Wiki)?
“We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues[,] &c [and so forth].”

And so Christianity doesn’t have any of the things in this list?
Just trying to understand what you’re saying here.

By “God speaks in dreams” are you claiming that this is the ONLY way in which God communicated to people in the Bible? And since Moroni the angel didn’t appear in a dream, then this could not have been a valid communication from God? Is that your point?

[quote]For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.2 Tim 4:3

They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.Tim 4:4[/quote]
Quite the little story Smith told…

My point is that the Bible says otherwise to the claims of J Smith. Point #7…opens up a wonderful can of worms. shrugs The Bible itself and by its definitions of a prophet and warnings of the dangers of False Prophets has pretty much got Mormonism by the balls from all angles.

Smith made interesting changes to the Law of the Lord, the priesthood and whatever else…ie. Polygamy as the ticket to Godhood in the hereafter.

[quote] Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us. Isa 30:11

Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon:Isa 30:12[/quote]
Polygamy could be thought of as rather perverse… it was one of the reasons Mormons were not exactly welcomed by the Christian community…How many 'celestial" wives did Smith have…which he happily consummated in the flesh?

Just when/how/why was polygamy taken off the books? How incredible was the timing when those in the neighborhood put the squeeze on?

God didn’t create Eve and 4-5 sisters. shrugs
Multiple marriages were a cultural construct that benefited one. The man. Go figure

Genesis is funny reading as well…

No it doesn’t.

Only if you have a very narrow interpretation of the scripture that isn’t actually supported by the context. You could apply the exact same criticisms to Moses and the apostle Paul.

Either that, or the persecutions of the Romans + the Catholic church did, and God put it back the right way and set up his church again through Joseph Smith. One or the other.

You dare insult Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Oh, and Moses.

Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it. Of course, there is another way to look at it.

You could make that argument. Doesn’t make it true, though.

At the end of the day, though, Mormons still believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior and Redeemer. They still believe the Bible is true (though they have a different understanding of it than mainstream Christianity). And they still will help you out if you are in need of help. Whether the LDS church is right or wrong, it’s still Christian.

I think orthodox Christians can safely call Mormons heretical. But then, are heretics Christians? They are heretics because they are Christian. If they weren’t Christian they wouldn’t be called heretics. They’d be called pagans, infidels, or unbelievers.

Still going to hell, of course, but not because they aren’t Christian. Because they’re the wrong kind of Christian and have terribly wrong beliefs not supported by what another group of Christians agreed was essential.

If by “Word” you mean “Jesus” then that’s 100% correct. If by “Word” you mean “book of scripture” then we think differently.[/quote]

I think this is one thing we agree on.

[quote]John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[/quote]

Something to ponder whilst engaging in all this witty banter basking in our own brilliance and intellectual magnificence:

[quote]Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.[/quote]

And two good reasons why I’m not all that bothered if folks don’t agree with me:

[quote]John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.[/quote]

and

[quote]John 17:14
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.[/quote]

At the end of the day I’m just a stubborn bastard. I had doubts about all and sundry and I’d liken myself more to Thomas than anyone else as I too needed to feel the wounds of Christ in my own way. I have prayed and looked for the answers that have brought me to the point where I am today and as such there is no amount of smart reason in the world that could detract me from what I believe.

At the end of the day, faith is a personal journey that each must travel in his own way. Perhaps you are right and Mormons are Christians by whatever definition you choose to give it. Perhaps they aren’t. Personal beliefs aside, one thing is sure. After we die we’ll all have the answer, for better or worse. But some on this thread have mentioned the word “hate”, and I’d like to point out that that is about as far as anyone can go from true Christianity regardless of creed or religion, for as pointed out in John 12:47 above, that is the last thing Jesus would ever have stood for.

No it doesn’t. [/quote]
Rather clearly it does state the opposite of your constant affirmations.

Hardly! You would have to show me the scriptures that you would choose to misinterpret …

[quote]
Either that, or the persecutions of the Romans + the Catholic church did, and God put it back the right way and set up his church again through Joseph Smith. One or the other. [/quote]
God put it back the “Right way?”…ummm…No. Scripture clearly states the contrary. However try to twist/ warp/ ignore the scriptures…they are very clear and concise.

Why will you not argue based on the scripture? Conjecture is not proof, only your misguided opinion.

I am sure that neither is rolling in their graves.

Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it. Of course, there is another way to look at it. [/quote]
Not really. Other than yet another timely “Prophetic Vision”…contrary to the founding father? It made Mormonism a hard sell…so it was time to get rid of that aspect.

Sure…of course I can argue that…and Genesis supports the obvious.

Only Mormons make it past the pearly gates? the Pearl of Great Price

Mormons suffer from a strange form of Hubris. Doesn’t mean that many aren’t perfectly nice people.

…at the end of the day…no matter how they try to twist scripture, the Bible doesn’t support their brand of Christianity. Their actions in the present will be judged or not ,for that matter, once they, like all others…take the last step.

In the mean time, like most all organized religions…convert and make $$$$ and be a good little soldier for the cause…don’t think too much , let others do it for you.

No it doesn’t.

However you try to twist/warp/ignore them, they most certainly do not.

I don’t read scripture to argue. Quoting scriptures back and forth in an attempt to call each other names would be juvenile.

I believe every scripture you quoted. They’re all correct. But it’s pretty obvious that you’re attempting to twist their meaning.

There are lots of scriptures about false prophets. There are false false prophets. And we are warned by the scriptures to be wary of them.

However, there is no scripture that says Joseph Smith lied or that he was a false prophet. No scripture that says there can be no scripture. No scripture that says God cannot appear or send angels to appear. Nothing that says specifically any of the things you are saying here.

You believe that’s what they mean. But you are taking them out of context and misapplying them.

But hey, if you want to keep quoting scripture, go right on ahead. At least that much will be true, even though pretty much all your commentary on it makes no sense at all.

I’ll keep reading the Bible to edify myself, not to go around trying to argue. There is a place for using scripture in such a discussion, but not the way you’re doing it. What you are doing is of the spirit of contention, and is not of God.

Not really. Other than yet another timely “Prophetic Vision”[/quote]
Exactly. God said so. And God said so to avoid having the church destroyed.

Of course, you can keep thinking what you want.

Yeah, Genesis is true.

Geez. You really need to understand what you’re reading. I was talking about heretics and what Protestants think. Protestants think that anyone who fails their litmus test of orthodoxy is going to hell. Same with the Catholics. Anyone with heretical beliefs will go to hell.

I mean, you do think Mormons are going to hell (unless the repent and convert to orthodox Christianity), right?

Hah. You realize that is a reference to one of Jesus’ parables, not to the gates of heaven, right? Maybe you should read the Bible more instead of trying to use it to argue.

So do evangelicals, atheists, and people get online to post on Forumosa. However, in this case it wasn’t a matter of hubris, but you misunderstanding my sarcasm.

Yes it does, no twisting required.

Generalizations are not good arguments. The LDS church as it stands in the present is kind of hard to attack on those grounds. While the income of the church through tithing is pretty high, so are its expenditures on church grounds, temples, etc.

How so? Just because it warned of false prophets? Did it say ALL prophets henceforth will be false, or did it say that there will be some false prophets? If the former, then your statements are supported. Unfortunately for you it seems to say the latter, so you’re really not making much sense so far here other than some vague, poorly supported assertions that the Bible contradicts Mormon beliefs.

A bit more clarity and logic would take you far. :wink:

Actually one of the problems is that even standard LDS sources acknowledge there is no evidence that Smith translated anything. That’s actually where I start with the BOM, quite apart from everything else. I’ve spent months online discussing the LDS Church and its beliefs with members, and I also spent some weeks (in Australia), in regular meetings with local LDS preachers.

It’s a very useful exercise in comparative religion, all else aside. Examining truthfully another religion ensures that you look at your own with the same critical eye, and you learn to subject your own beliefs to the same level of examination, which prevents you falling into the trap of special pleading.

I know. in so far as it IS scripture

However…you have yet to show me where in the scriptures it states that one is to follow another path…simply doesn’t exist. Neither did the Gold Plates…that God and Angel Morini had to entrust to a human for the safety, like the powers of the heavens were insufficient? WHY oh WHY do I doubt that soooo much… The illogic of it.

Insert twilight zone music…

Sounds like Xenu to me…LOL

Doesn’t say that in the Bible…hmmmmmmmmmm…???

lol…and all this time the scriptures called it Immaculate conception…??? Okies…

Oh my goodness…now it’s a PLURALITY of GODS???
Jeeez,…Us…the good book only talks about ONE…???

False Prophet aggrandizing himself a bit much…likening himself to Jesus? …LOL

Book of Mormon = Ludicrous
Are you going to tell me that those “Doctrines” stand up against the Bible???

Spare me the navel gazing drivel of “opinion.” Work with Source Materials. oh wait…there aren’t any for the B of M…

[quote=“SoulDragoN”]Insert twilight zone music…

Sounds like Xenu to me…LOL[/quote]

SD, with respect I’d like to point out that neither you nor I would appreciate such treatment, and whatever we may think of RDO’s personal beliefs I don’t believe it’s appropriate to characterize them in this way. It doesn’t contribute constructively to the discussion, and I’m reminded of 2 Timothy 2:24-26.

Actually no they don’t. Firstly, the term ‘Immaculate Conception’ never appears in the Bible. Secondly, the reason why it never appears in the Bible is that it is a much later theological term which is used to describe the birth of Mary. The doctrine of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ of Mary (often confused with the virgin birth of Christ), is the doctrine that Mary was born free from ‘Original Sin’. This was an early medieval doctrine constructed as an ad hoc means of avoiding an otherwise infinite regression. It was necessitated by the general acceptance of Augustine’s doctrine of ‘Original Sin’.

Actually one of the problems is that even standard LDS sources acknowledge there is no evidence that Smith translated anything.[/quote]
Fair enough. You could say that God translated it and Joseph Smith just read it aloud for another to record (assuming it actually happened), so that it wasn’t actually Joseph Smith translating.

The term translated has to be used loosely here.

And there is no proof that it wasn’t Joseph Smith making it up. This is one of those things a person must take on faith if one is to believe it. Just as there is no proof of many of the things claimed in the Bible, which I also take on faith.

So, in the future, when I say “Joseph Smith translated”, I say it for brevity and convenience, and the process described in detail (however unclear that is) is what is meant.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Actually one of the problems is that even standard LDS sources acknowledge there is no evidence that Smith translated anything.[/quote]
Fair enough. You could say that God translated it and Joseph Smith just read it aloud for another to record (assuming it actually happened), so that it wasn’t actually Joseph Smith translating.

The term translated has to be used loosely here.[/quote]

Thanks RDO. This is a fundamental stumblingblock as far as the BoM goes. The word ‘translated’ is commonly used to describe the process, even in the Church’s own literature, despite the fact that what the witnesses claimed to see was not a process of translation. By their own statements (and Smith’s), no process of translation took place. If there is no evidence, even from the witnesses themselves, that what was recorded in English as the BoM actually came from information on the plates, then the BoM is a non-starter.

I appreciate you saying this. And of course there are many things in the Bible I take on faith. However, I do not take them on blind faith. I believe there is sufficient evidence that the Bible is worth my trust, and so I take on faith the minority on the basis of the evidence for the majority.

The fact that it’s unclear what is meant is a bit of a problem.

Cheers!

I know. in so far as it IS scripture[/quote]
You just quoted scripture. I think what you meant to say was “as far as it is translated correctly”. Which means, if we’re there reading English and the translators got it wrong and the original text actually meant something else (not all that uncommon, depending on what translation you are working with), then our misunderstanding is not the word of God. The original meaning is the word of God.

What you quoted, though, was scripture.

Of course it doesn’t. There’s only one correct path. Straight is the gate and narrow the way that leadeth to salvation.

So, you think you know the way? Right. So do I.

What? You mean, you’ve got a problem with God using a human agent to do His work? Or are you referring to something else, just incoherently?

Of course not. God could do everything. Just, God chooses to let people serve Him. And God knows sometimes that they’re gonna screw up.

You think God needed Moses to hold up the staff in order to be able to give the Israelites victory in battle? Of course not. But that’s what happened.

[quote] The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,”

Doesn’t say that in the Bible…hmmmmmmmmmm…???[/quote]
Nope. Good thing we’ve got the Pearl of Great Price to tell us more.

That’s wrong. The word sex is not even found in that part of Journal of Discourses. That’s an interpretation anti-Mormons use to make things that are not intended to sound like it’s about sex sound like sex. It’s not what Mormons believe that means. Non-Mormons telling Mormons what Mormons believe and what they meant. :loco:

That commentary (and no, it is not considered doctrinal except where it agrees with canon) is there to say that God the Father is the father of Jesus, not the Holy Ghost. Jesus is literally the Only Begotten Son of God.

If you want to hear what Mormons say about their own beliefs, try looking here instead.

Are you quite sure about that? Why does God say “Let us make man in our image” not “Let man be made in the image of God” then?

The very term for God is a plural, though admittedly it is intended to be an honorific.

Actually, it was a true prophet praising another prophet, and placing him a step below Jesus. Mormons tend to say nobody has done more than Joseph Smith except for Jesus. But only God is worthy of worship. Prophets just deserve respect and admiration.

[quote]Book of Mormon = Ludicrous
Are you going to tell me that those “Doctrines” stand up against the Bible???[/quote]
The Book of Mormon is the word of God. But it’s ok if you don’t recognize that.

But as for the doctrines, are they comparable to the Bible? Absolutely! The teachings of the Book of Mormon are very clear and powerful testimony of God and his love for all men. You can grow closer to God by living its teachings. But your use of “stand up against” is misplaced. The Book of Mormon stands beside the Bible, and they are in harmony.

Of course, it’s easy to quote scriptures and then try and show a contradiction, but you’ll have to interpret things your specific way to do so.

Remember the Golden Rule? What audacity to come on and spit out all the uninformed and offending opinions you have, and then make that statement.

Not very Christian of you.

With respect RDO, the phrase used is clearly speaking of sex and that’s how it was understood.

How were we begotten of our fathers? Sex. Other LDS statements:

There are plenty of similar comments to be found. That the Church may now have a new interpretation does not change this. This is not a matter of ‘Non-Mormons telling Mormons what Mormons believe and what they meant’.