Replies to this message

Re: Response for Vicki Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Ramona ® 06/15/2003, 09:58:38 Author Profile Mail author 1) The religion must correspond to the Bible. Wait a minute here, Adventists aren't quite listed among the Orthodox. http://www.biblebelievers.com/SDA/SDA1.html This is a fun site, with Q.'s and A's . http://www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/egw_bible.html Boy there sure are alot of non-christian christians out there. Ramona | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Bear with me while I repost some comments Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 12:58:00 Author Profile Mail author Dan, I'm going to ask you to bear with me while I repost some comments. I am concerned that others will make irrelevant remarks because they don't know what transpired and also, I want to remind us of our discussion. You will recall that these discussions came about because Sarah Sue called into question whether or not Mormons are Christians. I created a separate thread for her to respond and she left. No big surprises there. You created another thread, at my invitation, that turned from discussion Mormons being Christians and we decided to rule that out because I agree that many Mormons are Christians. We set out to discuss theology and you called for reasons why I think Mormonism itself is not Christianity. I began giving you replies to that, expanded with a list, which you then formatted with numbering. Here was my first response to you: I am going to ** significant points that I want to emphasize and will CAP comments on my list of reasons that Mormonism does not meet the criteria for Christianity, Dan. _______________________________________________________________ Hello Dan, I'll be glad to answer your questions to get this ball rolling. Q1. Are Mormons Christian? A1. Yes, I think many Mormons are Christians, not all. Q2. What defines a Christian? A2. I'm going to answer inspite of your instructions. *I think that a Christian is one who believes in the Christ of the Bible, and who is devoted to following his teachings including the teachings of his appointed apostles. Q3. How do Mormons fail to meet this definition? A3. *I don't think that Mormons themselves "fail" to meet that definition. *I think the THEOLOGY of the LDS church fails to meet it. I think that Mormons themselves have been immersed in a non-Biblical concept of Christ and aren't aware it's different nor have they put two and two together and realized that *the Christian concept of God in the Bible is the foundation for a monotheistic religion and that Mormon doctrine which adds to the Biblical concept of God is the foundation for a polytheistic religion. While I do think that many Mormons are Christians, I do not think that Mormonism is Christianity. Q4. Considering the wide range of beliefs in "Christian" churches, shouldn't the def. be fairly broad, or is there a single belief which qualifies or disqualifies each sect? A4. I think that one can be a Christian regardless of what church they attend. *I think the definition of Christianity though, can not be broader than the descriptions, characterizations, and concepts that are contained in the Bible. Broad is one thing, *entirely changing the nature of God is quite another. *When the doctrines or additional scriptures of the LDS Church CHANGE the nature of God it becomes another religion. I think a more accurate title for the religion in question is Mormonism. It is not Christianity. Victoria _______________________________________________________________ Here is your reply: Hi, Vicki: Again, we are dealing only with theology, and "Christianity," as opposed to individuals and "Christians." > The Bible doesn't lack detail on Christ's nature, Dan. The > entire NT is strewn with characterizations of Christ and BY > Christ regarding his nature. Since this doesn't affect the discussion, I won't focus excessively on this. However, when I say the NT lacks detail on Christ, I mean it is insufficient to determine much about his nature. I will accept that you consider it sufficient without further comment. Now, you previously had said, "I think that a Christian is one who believes in the Christ of the Bible". You defined "Christ of the Bible" quite simply: "God." I'm going to give you a chance to get more specific. Unless I misunderstand you so far, you're saying Christianity is based on believing: 1). That Christ is God. 2). In Christ. Surely this can't be all there is to it. Otherwise, Mormonism fits the definition of Christianity. Mormons do believe Christ is God, and they certainly believe in Christ. So, let's sum it up in the following question: 1). What requirements must be met for a religion to be considered a Christian religion? -Dan _______________________________________________________________ Here is my reply: Hello Dan, I'm going to c/p your post and intersperse. DAN: Let me get some things out of the way before I zero in on the obscure part of your response. (Dan quotes me) "Yes, I think many Mormons are Christians, not all." And many "Christians" (members of the various Christian sects) are Christians, but not all, correct? VICKI: Yes, I think that's an accurate statement. I can't generalize about individuals. DAN: (quoting me) "I think the THEOLOGY of the LDS church fails to meet it." Ok, then we will direct further comments towards the theology, not individuals. VICKI: I'm fine with that. DAN: (quoting me) "I do not think that Mormonism is Christianity." I understand what you are saying. However, are the following sects Christianity?: VICKI WITH ANSWERS: 1. 7th day adventists (I'm not sure, I don't know well, their beliefs. I think they have a prophetess who wrote additional scriptures. If that is so, I'd have to say no. I think they may be a Christian cult.) 2. Baptists (yes) 3. Jehovah's witnesses (no, I think they're a Christian cult) 4. Catholics (yes) 5. Methodists (yes, I think so but you might know a point of belief I'm not aware of) 6. Presbyterians. (yes,I think so but you might know a point of belief I'm not aware of) DAN: (quoting me) "I think a more accurate title for the religion in question is Mormonism. It is not Christianity." Ok, see questions 1-6 above. DAN: (quoting me) "I think that a Christian is one who believes in the Christ of the Bible, and who is devoted to following his teachings including the teachings of his appointed apostles." I'm sure you realize this is a fairly subjective requirement. VICKI: Yes, I do. DAN: The Bible lacks detail on Christ's nature, and nearly every religion believes things about Christ that aren't taught in the Bible. VICKI: The Bible doesn't lack detail on Christ's nature, Dan. The entire NT is strewn with characterizations of Christ and BY Christ regarding his nature. Yes, nearly every religion believes things about Christ that aren't taught in the Bible. DAN: How do you define the "Christ of the Bible"? VICKI: Christ is God. (aside, this is going to look messy, I tried my best to clean it up and organize it. Also, if you want to discuss the religions you listed, I'd have to take a good look at their beliefs before doing so and address them separately. Perhaps you have information to compare and contrast these? ) _______________________________________________________________ I threw in an additional question which you evaded answering and has to date, gone without reply from you. Hello Dan, Not to worry, I'll try to get on one thread with you eventually. Turning the tables just a little, for now... What does the Bible lack in describing the nature of Christ? What else would you want to know? Victoria p.s. I am willing to write you a detailed comparison between Mormonism and Christianity, but not tonight. I will include references from both Mormon triple and the Bible to support my position. It's Friday, and I'm quite tired! I was hoping that Sarah Sue would join this thread or the one that I started. So far, no bites... _______________________________________________________________ Then we got ourselves back on one thread and you asked me to answer three questions to which I responded as follows: Here, I am going to CAP my comments. Hello Dan, I realize you posted again. I'm answering here to aggravate you. ;-) Q1. Does Mormonism qualify as a "Christian" religion? A1. No, I don't think so. Q2. What defines a "Christian" religion. A2. In my view, a Christian religion is one that is consistent with the teachings of Christ that are found in the Bible. This would include, the nature of Christ and salvation. (I might want to add to that another time) Q3. How does Mormonism fail to meet this definition? THIS IS WHERE I LIST EXAMPLES: A2. I'll begin with these examples: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE: Mormonism is a POLYTHEISTIC religion, Christianity is MONOTHEISTIC. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE: Mormonism "teaches" a Christ that is inherently different than the Christ described in the Bible. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE: Mormonism "teaches" a God that is inherently different that the God of the Bible. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE: Mormonism "teaches" a different method of salvation than that described in the Bible. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, though admittedly nit picky! Mormonism is a legalistic religion. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE: The additional scriptures contained in Mormonism do not just "add" to the teachings of Christ, they CONTRADICT the teachings of Christ. THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT IN THE FORM OF A **RHETORICAL QUESTION*** WHICH YOU INCORPORATED INTO YOUR NUMBERED DEFINITION AND I FAILED TO CORRECT YOU ON. At least one of the additional scriptures contained in Mormonism has been proven to be a fraudulent rendering by Joseph Smith. If Smith lied about the Book of Abraham what else did he lie about? Victoria _______________________________________________________________ Dan, Ask yourself this question. Did I ever once use the hoaxes of Joseph Smith in the evidence I supplied to support my position that Mormonism is not Christianity? No, I didn't. Let's get off this hobby horse now. I'm going to repost my sequential posts for the running record, and then I'll go back and reply to your post here. Vicki Modified by Victoria! at Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 13:24:19 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Nature of Christ... Re: Bear with me while I repost some comments -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive Posted by: nofaith ® 06/15/2003, 17:49:50 Author Profile Mail author > What does the Bible lack in describing the nature of Christ? > What else would you want to know? 1). What happened to Christ after he was resurrected? 2). Did he retain his body? 3). If not, where is his body now? Did it die up in heaven? 4). Did he discard his body later? 5). Does God(Christ) have a body now? Also, the Bible lacks general detail on the Trinity (because it isn't a biblical belief). This isn't a problem with the Bible, but with Christianity. Many churches contain additional information on the Trinity in their creeds. Where does this information come from? How do people know things about Christ that aren't in the Bible? -Dan | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: Nature of Christ...thank you Re: Nature of Christ... -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 19:26:47 Author Profile Mail author Dan, I'm going to c/p your questions and answer them in my own words. If you need Bible ref's I can supply them from the KJV. It's a good thing for you that this is Father's Day and you're dialoging with the Mom of the house! > What does the Bible lack in describing the nature of Christ? > What else would you want to know? 1). What happened to Christ after he was resurrected? He walked on the earth, was seen, then ascended to heaven. 2). Did he retain his body? Not so far as I know, Dan. His human body was resurrected, it changed (there is a word for that, I can't think of it right now) and then he ascended up to heaven. This is the same thing that is supposed to happen to all of humanity. Our human bodies will be resurrected, changed and go on to one of two eternal destinations. That's according to the Bible and not the perspective of all religions of course. 3). If not, where is his body now? Did it die up in heaven? No, again, his body was resurrected, it was changed (I hope someone will come out with the word for that), and he ascended to heaven. 4). Did he discard his body later? No, as I stated already...his body was changed. 5). Does God(Christ) have a body now? I'm not sure...I think that Christ still has the same body that ascended to heaven since according to prophecy he will be SEEN by us at the second coming. Also, the Bible lacks general detail on the Trinity (because it isn't a biblical belief). This isn't a problem with the Bible, but with Christianity. Many churches contain additional information on the Trinity in their creeds. Where does this information come from? How do people know things about Christ that aren't in the Bible? Ah, I agree with you that Trinity doctrine is a can of worms! Where does it come from? The verses that describe Christ as saying that "the Father and I are one"...then you have Christ talking to God. All the things I just stated are in the Bible. Would you like me to dig out the ref's for you? If you do, that will most likely be my last post to you today unless I feel in the mood to return. I will log off for awhile and see if you have responded here. -Dan (aside...all the time I've been posting here today I've done so with the Rolling Stones singing in the background. LOL, what a contrast) | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: Nature of Christ...thank you (with ref's) Re: Re: Nature of Christ...thank you -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 19:55:31 Author Profile Mail author Hello Dan, In Luke 24 we read a description of Christ as being in the body and not a spirit. In John 20 we read the same description however it is clear that while Christ appears "in the body" this body has different characteristics than what we know as a human body since he appears suddenly in a closed room. In Mark the ascension is described. In my view, this presents a bodily resurrection and the body itself takes on new qualities. I think also, if you look at the words of Paul (the ref escapes me at the moment, it's the one used to sanction Baptism of the Dead) you will see that the concept of resurrection of the dead was thought to be a "given" in those times. The pagans believed in resurrection, Christians did as well. I think that Judaism doesn't include bodily resurrection. Also, you asked someplace here if the Bible denies that we can become Gods. As I quickly looked up the ascension ref's I came across Luke 16:20 that tells us we are to be equal to angels as the children of God. No where in scripture, so far as I know, are we told that angels can become gods. They remain in their state as angels. If Christ taught that we are to be equal to angels, I don't see how that can allow for exaltation to godhood. One more thing. If you want to get technical here, you COULD say that God has a body. It would be the body of Christ. But, I don't think that is what Mormonism theology is getting at when it characterizes God as once having a mortal body. Vicki | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Follow up remarks for Dan Re: Re: Nature of Christ...thank you (with ref's) -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/16/2003, 01:16:30 Author Profile Mail author Hello Dan, It seems to me that we could take this off in a number of directions. I feel that I have presented all the material that I wanted to in order to support my position. I remain firm in that position. I likewise feel that my position has been misunderstood but not necessarily by you. I don't think that I have ever accepted a "agree to disagree" solution on these boards in the entire time that I've been here. I feel at a loss in where to go with this. If my arguments haven't persuaded you, I accept that. The only other useful points I can come up with that might help us reach a conclusion other than "agree to disagree" are these: 1. Seek out a definition of Christianity from a scholary source. I don't know what source that might be. Do you have suggestions? 2. Discuss the main elements of religion and what distinguishes one world religion from another. IOW, *why* do we make a differentiation between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? What criteria is used to characterize these as separate world religions? If we were able to do that we might be able to use that criteria to determine if Mormonism is Christianity or if it constitutes a separate world religion. 3. Hope that another poster has a concise way of helping us to come to terms with our perspectives or help us with my suggested #2. Though, I sincerely doubt we will ever be able to reconcile them. Beyond that, I really don't know where else to take this and I will not be able to sustain lengthy discussion like this during the week. What would you like to have happen here? Vicki p.s. It's been a pleasure discussing these issues with you Dan. I appreciate your temperate handling of this discussion and the freedom to express myself without personal digs contaminating the dialogue. Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Jun 16, 2003, 01:19:50 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page Mormonism=Christian Cult (making my case) REPOST Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 13:26:15 Author Profile Mail author Mormonism=Christian Cult (making my case) Post Reply Forum Posted by: Victoria! ® 05/24/2003, 15:37:21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author Profile Mail author Edit Hello Dan, Following is my position regarding the Christianity of Mormonism. I hope you will find it presented to your satisfaction and a good spring board for continuing discussion. I am going to use the Bible(KJV which is accepted by the LDS Church as scripture) and Mormon writings to discredit the claim that Mormonism is Christianity. The Bible authors warn us via the words of Christ himself in Matthew 24: 24 "For there shall arise FALSE CHRISTS and FALSE PROPHETS, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect. The Bible authors warn us in II Corinthians 11:4 "For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received, or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which yea have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." The Bible authors warn us in Galations 1:8,9 "But though we, or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again; If any man preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." I put forth to you Dan, that Mormonism is NOT Christianity. It is a Christian CULT. A Christian cult is, in my view, a religious system based on DECEPTION, a false view of God, a false view of Christ, that bases it's path to salvation on a system of works and score keeping APART from Jesus Christ to gain some type of after death experience APART from what is stated in the Bible. The hallmark of Christian cults is that they are based on "ANOTHER REVELATION" or SOURCE OF SCRIPTURURAL AUTHORITY OTHER than the Bible. Mormons fall squarely into this category. They use the same outer wrappings, the same terminology, with a TOTALLY DIFFERENT definition and conotation. They have a wrong view of eternal hell compared to what Jesus taught in the Bible. They have a FALSE characterization of the Jesus of the Bible, a FALSE characterization of the God of the Bible, they have a FALSE or COMPLICATED understanding of basic salvation of GRACE through FAITH as Jesus himself described in the Bible. Christian cults typically have one key charismatic leader who was disillusioned with mainstream Christianity so much so that he or she created THEIR OWN doctrines and successfully got a group of people to rally around their cause. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young BOTH fit this description. It can be accurately stated that Brigham Young himself extended the spiritual concepts of Mormonism with his doctrine of exhaltation to godhood to the point where it completely DIVERTED from Christianity and became not an offshoot of Christianity, but a TOTALLY DIFFERENT RELIGION. Christian cults use deception, sometimes use coercive tactics to control their congregations and keep the true beliefs and doctrines of their religion away from the average church person. The LDS Church is presently attempting to affilitate itself with mainstream Christianity in order to santize it's Non-Christian belief system in the public eye. CS Lewis: "There are only two religions in the world. Christianity and Hinduism. One teaches that we are separate from the one true God by sin, and God became a man to die for our sins; the OTHER teaches that men are not separated from God but that each person has within himself the POWER to over come evil and thus BECOME GOD OR AT LEAST *A* GOD." We shall see, where Mormonism falls into the above description as I post regarding the separate claims I made above. And you can decide for yourself, whether you were involved in Christianity or something else. Victoria | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Mormonism=Christian Cult (making my case) REPOST Re: Mormonism=Christian Cult (making my case) REPOST -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive Posted by: JAK ® 06/17/2003, 21:54:58 Author Profile Mail author Hi Victoria, The term “cult” is sometimes used as a pejorative, and you seem to use it that way. Nevertheless, your title of this post is a recognition that Mormon is a division of Christianity. Your title: “Mormonism=Christian Cult” Christianity in the early centuries of its evolution was widely regarded as a cult. It was small and had strange beliefs and practices. Size is important in the legitimization. There is strength in numbers. When numbers are sufficiently high, greater regard is given to groups which achieve higher numbers. But there is no real negative connotation for the word cult. It is the root for the word culture. We don’t necessarily regard a culture in a negative light. Previously, I cited several sources which listed some of the thousand divisions of Christianity today. Those divisions are generally understood to be denominations, sects, and/or cults. We also generally don’t regard denominations as negative in the context of Christianity. Perhaps some do, but it is not the norm. Some of those websites were these which identified divisions of Christianity: Christianity Denomination Categories History of Christianity A Roman Catholic View Families of Christian Denominations Many Competing Definitions The great doctrinal shift which began with the Protestant Reformation has resulted in those thousand specific, individual groups (small and large). The Mormon Church is one of those. The religion is Christianity. To regard the Mormon Church as a “Christian cult” is questionable unless you do not intend a pejorative reference. But you do intend the pejorative. Charging that a particular division of Christianity (or “Christian cult”) uses deception as if other divisions do not is naive. Since divisions of Christianity disagree with one another on various doctrines and since all divisions of Christianity make use of the Bible and scripts therein, all are deceptive. The degree to which a division is deceptive is largely, if not entirely, a matter of applied bias. Since the Mormon organization has existed for less than 200 years, it does not have the longevity that the Lutheran Church has at 500 years. Even so, size of membership is a relevant factor in recognizing religious organizations along with longevity, acceptance, and influence. It is generally the case that the larger the membership, the greater the wealth -- the greater the influence within the sphere in which that particular organization exists. Vicki, it is the big picture which is relevant here not tiny focus on verses. When you write in other posts: “What the Bible says about God,” you fail to recognize that you are selecting as with tweezers snippets upon which you place your own interpretation. The Bible doesn’t say anything absent interpretation. What groups of Christians have done is to develop doctrine based on interpretation of scripts which they have selectively held up. You are doing that here. But, the interpretations vary. The same Bible you quote to say “What the bible says about God,” others quote with different interpretation. When you write, “The Bible authors warn us...,” you are selecting for focus what some other Christian may not or do not interpret as you interpret. “Another gospel” is what denominational pluralism is. Each denomination which preaches with a different tone, with a different emphasis, with a different dogma IS a variation on the (good news) gospel. “False” then, becomes what some doctrine-maker (denomination) declares false. Many a spokesperson for a particular Christian group has declared false what some other spokesperson in another group preaches. That mentality leads to My religion is right -- your religion is wrong view. There are numerous variations on that theme which permeate various Christian groups. It is part of the competetion for God. In addition, the degree of importance any group or individual places on a given script is also a matter of interpretation of all the writings in the 66 books. Holding up an individual script, quoting it, declaring it is paramount is interpretation about what is important. Each group (denomination, etc.) does that just as YOU do that in multiple posts. And each group or individual “sees” as paramount something different than another group or individual. That fact in part accounts for the evolution of doctrine within the Christian religion. Of course of we were looking at interpretations of the Koran, we would be looking at a different religion. Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, and others are looking at Christian doctrines. That larger picture is critical in understanding the pluralism inherent in Christianity today. While you may focus on one set of “most important scripts,” others see other “most important scripts.” And even when there is agreement on some, some of the scripts as important, there is disagreement on just what those scripts mean. Hence, the pluralism of denominations. That is a crucial concept to embrace in recognizing the plethora of Christian groups. Christianity is split and splintered by this thousand separate groups which use the Bible including many translations over time and many interpreters over time. Whether you call a group a cult, sect, or denomination is largely a word choice of little importance. Dictionary definitions of all three have much similarity. No individual or competing group can authoritatively set up pretentious definition with the intent to exclude and do it with scholarship of honest investigation of Christian pluralism today. Some Protestants look back historically at the Roman Catholic Church and say it is not Christian. Those who do this wish to believe that they are Christian. That is just as inaccurate as to look at a recently formed group (relatively speaking) and to say that it is not Christian. The pluralism in Christianity today is documented in the thousand-plus groups which carry the Bible, quote it along with their own favorite commentaries and interpretations. They regard themselves as Christian. To say that Mormonism does not equal Christianity is correct in this sense. The whole of Christianity is not encompassed by a single denomination. It would also be correct to say Catholocism does not equal Christianity. We could do that with any individual Christian group. No individual Christian cult, sect, or denomination equals Christianity. JAK Modified by JAK at Tue, Jun 17, 2003, 22:54:40 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page God: Mormonism vs Christianity REPOST Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 13:27:48 Author Profile Mail author God : Mormonism vs Christianity Re: Mormonism=Christian Cult (making my case) -- Victoria! Post Reply Top of thread Forum Posted by: Victoria! ® 05/24/2003, 15:51:08 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author Profile Mail author Edit GOD:MORMONISM vs CHRISTIANITY Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.10, page 223. "God was once a man on earth, with a physical body of flesh and bone who through spiritual development became the God that we know--an exalted man who is now in charge of our planet." "The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming gods like himself. We are created to become gods like unto our father in heaven...Those who attain exhaltation are gods". What the Bible says about God: Psalm 93:2 God is eternal 1John 5:20 God is true Genesis 1:1 God is self existent Deut. 6:4 God is one (monotheistic) Isaiah 44:6 God is First and Last,apart from him there is no other Isaiah 43: 10-11 Before me there was no other God formed John 4:23-24 God is spirit Romans 11:33-36 No one knows the mind of the Lord Isaiah 42:8 God will not share glory 1Timothy 1:17 God is eternal, immortal, invisible Malachi 3:6 God does not change Jeremiah 10:10 God is the true God, the eternal God Numbers 23:19 God is not man or son of man Victoria | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Christ: Mormonism vs Christianity REPOST Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 13:29:52 Author Profile Mail author Christ : Mormonism vs Christianity Re: God : Mormonism vs Christianity -- Victoria! Post Reply Top of thread Forum Posted by: Victoria! ® 05/24/2003, 16:02:11 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author Profile Mail author Edit CHRIST: MORMONISM vs CHRISTIANITY Jospeh Smith, History of the Church vol 6, pgs 408-409 "I am the only MAN that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor JESUS ever did it. I boast that no MAN ever did such a work as I! The followers of JESUS ran from him; but the Latter Day Saints they never ran away from me yet" Mormonism: Jesus is the literal offspring of a flesh and bone God who had sexual relations with Mary. The Virgin Birth is rejected. Mormonism: Jesus is not the same person as God, but a separate person and NOT EQUAL with God. Mormonism: Jesus had a BEGINNING, he ATTAINED godhood. Mormonism: Jesus was our elder brother who was the brother of Lucifer. What the Bible says about Jesus: Luke 1: 34-37 The Holy SPIRIT came upon Mary Genesis 1:26 Jesus was involved in creation John 1:1-18 Christ was God Colossians 1:15-17 Christ was BEFORE all things John 10:30-33 Jesus is God John 17:1-5, 20, 21 Jesus shared glory with God BEFORE the world began Phillipians 2:6-8 Christ was God Colossians 2:9 Christ is God John 8:23 Jesus is not from this world John 10:30 "I and my Father are ONE" Further warnings: 2 John 7-10 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is COME in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an ANTI-CHRIST. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hat not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and BRING NOT THIS DOCTRINE, recieve him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." Victoria | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Man: Mormonsim vs Christianity REPOST Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 13:31:15 Author Profile Mail author Man : Mormonism vs Christianity Re: God : Mormonism vs Christianity -- Victoria! Post Reply Top of thread Forum Posted by: Victoria! ® 05/24/2003, 16:16:16 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author Profile Mail author Edit MAN: MORMONISM vs CHRISTIANITY Joseph Fielding Smith, Former LDS President "Doctrines of Salvation" vol 1, pages 113-115 "The fall of man came as a blessing in disguise. I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as sin, nor do I accuse Adam of sin. We can hardly look upon anyting resulting in such benefits as being a sin. Adam fell, but he fell in the right direction, toward the goal, he fell upward". Mormonism: We are all uncreated "gods in embryo" who have been progessing eternally ypward in various forms and stages of ever-highter development in the spirit realh. The literal sons of "Mother and Father God", we are not born "gods" but we are requried to come to this earth to take on a physical body in order to prove ourselves "worthy" of godhood. Mormonism: Satan TOLD THE TRUTH to Adam and Eve in the garden. Following Satan, instead of God, was a blessing. What the Bible says about Man: Genesis 1:27 Man was created in God's image, God created male and female Psalm 8:5 God created man Genesis 2:2-5 God created man Romans 5:12 Adams one SIN brought death Romans 3:23 Man is a sinner Romans 3:24 Man is redeemed by GRACE through Jesus Christ Victoria | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Salvation: Mormonism vs Christianity REPOST Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 13:32:51 Author Profile Mail author Salvation : Mormonism vs Christianity Re: God : Mormonism vs Christianity -- Victoria! Post Reply Top of thread Forum Posted by: Victoria! ® 05/24/2003, 16:27:26 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author Profile Mail author Edit SALVATION: MORMONISM vs CHRISTIANITY Brigham Young, "Come unto Christ" pages 125-132 "No man or woman in this age will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by Joseph Smith, it will be through his authority that he has received." Mormonism: Jesus suffered for our sins in Gethsemane. He provided salvation CONDITIONAL on OBEDIENCE to the laws and ordinances of the LDS GOSPEL- baptism, temply worthiness, word of wisdom and temple sacraments. Mormonism: Jesus death on the cross provided GENERAL SALVATION wherby we will be judged by our works. Mormonism: Celestial marriage or sealing for "time and eterninty" in the temple is REQUIRED for exaltation. What the Bible says about salvation: John 14:6 Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father, eternity in heaven Luke 20:35 There are no marriages in heaven Ephesians 2:8-9 We are saved through GRACE, not of works Romans 10:9-10 We are saved when we believe in Jesus and confess him as our Lord Titus 3:5 He saved us not because of anything we have done. We can't "earn" salvation. Ephesians 1:7 We are redeemed through the blood of Christ Romans 5:16 Grace is how we are saved, it is a FREE GIFT, it is GIVEN, is NOT EARNED. 2Cor 12:9 "My grace is SUFFICIENT for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness" John 3:16 Whoever believes on Jesus Christ, that he is the son of God, sent to this earth to save, IS SAVED. Victoria Modified by Victoria! at Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 13:33:07 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Checklist for cults from rpcman's site REPOST Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 13:34:40 Author Profile Mail author Checklist for "cults" Re: Thanks and if you want -- Victoria! Post Reply Top of thread Forum Posted by: Victoria! ® 05/25/2003, 16:49:34 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author Profile Mail author Edit I found a checklist for cults by digging into rpcmans stuff: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm I'm going to try to c/p the list here. It was felt to be a good checklist since it's not directed at the Mormon church. Checklist: The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. The group is preoccupied with making money. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth). The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations). The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities). The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Richard Packham's comments rpcman's site REPOST Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 13:37:10 Author Profile Mail author The following exchange took place on Eric's ex-Mormon mailing list. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 Characteristics of a Cult.... 1. They have a persecution complex. 2. They claim to be the only true church. 3. They claim to have the only true prophets on the earth. 4. They challenge the infallibility of the Bible. 5. Some cults claim to be the true Israel. 6. They defy man, man is God or will become one. 7. They humanize God. They limit God to a body. 8. They all have a procedure by which they attack the deity of Jesus Christ. 9. They claim to have divine books. (Esoteric doctrines to be understood by them only in addition to or in place of the Bible). 10. They have unswerving loyalty to their leaders, one never questions leadership. 11. They have an elite society, they create a racist system, they may always have earthly temples where only a select few may go. 12. They have or have had abnormal sex practices. (celibacy, free sex, sex with their leader only, or polygamy). 13. They have good works as a means to gain salvation. 14. They claim that salvation and exaltation comes only through their organization. 15. They encourage their members not to read materials of the opposing views, materials that are not faith promoting. 16. Each cult is a financial empire and the myth must be promoted at all costs to keep the ninety % at the bottom from realizing they support the ten % at the top. They have doctrines of surrendering all worldly goods and lands to the organization. And/or they have a strong tithing law toward this end. 17. A subtle doctrine of the cults is the church state, their own, instituted some day in America. Millions of dollars are spent toward that goal, such as propaganda, lands, banks, t.v. stations, radio stations and other businesses. 18. They excommunicate or ban dissidents in order to keep and maintain control of doctrine, through patterns and requirements of the other followers. 19. They use deception in recruiting and fund raising. 20. They us secretiveness and vagueness regarding activites and beliefs. 21. They seperate recruits from family, friends and society. A change in personality or values is seen and substitution of the cult as the new family takes place. They call each other brother and sister. 22. They promote the goals of the group over the individual and approve unethical behavior while claiming goodness. The above received the following response: This list, or one very similar, was posted several months ago and drew a lot of objection, and, I think, rightly so. It is obviously a tailor-made list to make Mormonism out to be a cult, written by a Christian. (See esp. #6, 7, 11, 17). The list that was posted before had originated with an ex-mormon who became a devout Christian. The Christian bias of this list is apparent (esp. #3, 4, 13). It weakens one's argument, IMHO, to use such a specific list. It is like Mormons who, when asked how to recognize the true church, would argue that "It must have a living prophet at its head, it must have been restored by a visitation from God himself, it must have the name of Jesus Christ, etc...." with no objective reason for those requirements except that they support one's argument. Mormonism is a cult, but this test would not identify any group other than Mormonism as a cult. A much better checklist, and one which can identify many other cults besides Mormonism, is here. It is based on extensive examination of many cults, not just Mormonism, and thus is much more valuable. Richard Packham | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Re: Response for Vicki, Vicki's reply DONE Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 14:21:04 Author Profile Mail author Dan, I am going to CAP my comments within the context of your post. I don't know of a better way to respond in an organized manner. Best of luck in reading it! _______________________________________________________________ In response to this post. Hi there, Vicki. Let me just clear some things up before I respond to your comments. (1) I have never contended that "Mormonism is Christianity." Such a statement would be absurd as the two classifications apply on totally different levels. The issue is whether Mormonism would be correctly classified as a Christian religion. The distinction may seem trivial but it is crucial to understanding the debate. DAN, I CONTEND THAT MORMONISM IS NOT CORRECTLY CLASSIFIED AS A CHRISTIAN RELIGION. THE CLOSEST ONE CAN CHARACTERIZE THE THEOLOGY, IN MY VIEW, IS AS A CHRISTIAN CULT. IT CONTRADICTS CHRISTIANITY AND THEREFORE IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM CHRISTIANITY. (2) I have never contended that Mormonism is consistent with the Bible or the New Testament, or indeed any of the LDS "standard works." I will accept as a given that Mormon theology is not entirely consistent with N.T. teachings. I should add that I don't know of any religion that is. DAN, I AM NOT CERTAIN WHY YOU PHRASE YOUR STATEMENTS IN THIS DEFENSIVE WAY. WE HAVE BEEN, ALL THIS WHILE, DISPASSIONATELY DISCUSSING THEOLOGIES. MY POSITION ISN'T THAT IT IS "NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH NT TEACHINGS" ...IT CONTRADICTS THEM. (3) I don't have a problem with Mormonism being classified as a non-Christian religion. However, to do this I need two things: a credible definition of Christianity, and an explanation of how Mormonism fails to meet the definition. If you provide me with this information I would gladly concede. I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT TO YOU IN MY EARLIER POSTS WHAT I THING A CREDIBLE DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY IS, DAN. YOU ARE FREE NOT TO ACCEPT IT. IT ISN'T IMPORTANT TO ME THAT YOU "CONCEDE" THIS ISN'T A CONTEST TO ME, IT IS A SIMPLE DISCUSSION BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE SHARING THEIR VIEWS. MARS/VENUS, DAN. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't appreciate the tone of your reply here, Dan, since the comment that I made had to do with the fraudulent practices of Joseph Smith and you incorporated it into your definition. I didn't correct you and you capitalized on that in laying out your definition. The Character of JS is an entirely separate issue and has no bearing on my assessment that Mormonism is not Christianity. I could have pointed out that separation but I was more interested in discussing the theology which I did when I presented my position and supporting evidence. As it was, we were discussing Mormonism specifically and I included a comment about Joseph Smith which again, you chose to incorporate into your definition. The fraudulent practices of Joseph Smith are evidence that the scriptures that Mormonism is based on are counterfeit. That is NOT a factor in determining whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. Well, Vicki, I'm perfectly happy to let you change your position. But let's be clear about it, because this paragraph does not represent what you originally said. The sequence went as follows: Dan: What defines a "Christian" religion...How does Mormonism fail to meet this definition? Vicki: At least one of the additional scriptures contained in Mormonism has been proven to be a fraudulent rendering by Joseph Smith. If Smith lied about the Book of Abraham what else did he lie about? (you also listed several other problems with Mormonism being Christian). DAN, THAT IS NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN US. THAT IS *EXACTLY* WHY I REPOSTED THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE THAT LEAD TO YOUR ISOLATING THAT PART OF MY POST AS PART OF A DEFINITION. I AM NOT CERTAIN WHY IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU CONTINUE TO CENTRATE ON ONE RHETORICAL QUESTION THAT I MADE AND IGNORE THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE I SUPPLIED. PERHAPS WE'VE BEEN TALKING PAST EACHOTHER THROUGHOUT THIS DISCOURSE BECAUSE WE EACH HAVE OUR "EYE" ON DIFFERING GOALS. I FULLY ACCEPT THAT IS THE CASE. MY "EYE" WAS ON DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE. Dan: Plenty. But it's irrelevant to whether the religion he founded qualifies as "Christian." Vicki: No, it's entirely relevant, Dan. The only reason I show this sequence (as Cal did, once) is to remind you of the context in which I wrote the list of points to define Christianity. I suggested that Smith's lies were irrelevant to the issue--you disagreed and said that they were. So, when I wrote my list of rules, I obliged and included a line: Vicki, let me know if any of the following is wrong. Requirements for a religion to be considered "Christian": ... 10). Founder of religion must not have lied about things (you'll have to help me out on getting this more specific) Now, when I made the list of 10 points, which I specifically asked you to correct if it contained errors, you didn't dispute point (10). Rather, you elaborated, and provided the extended point (10) which clearly referred to Joseph Smith (see here). Your final sentence said: Work with these statements as I've reworded them, please. DAN, I WAS CARELESS IN NOT POINTING OUT THAT IT WAS NOT PART OF MY WORKING DEFINITION. BY THE SAME TOKEN, DAN, YOU ARE BEING CARELESS HERE AS WELL. I RE-WORDED THOSE NUMBERED POINTS AFTER JAK TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO "SCORE" THEM. HIS REMARKS TOOK MY ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE CONTEXT. Now you are blaming me for including point (10) in the definition. Well, let's be clear: you brought it into the discussion; I suggested that is wasn't relevant; you confirmed that it was; when I included in a working definition, you didn't strike it, but rather increased its specificity. If you want to strike it now, that is fine by me. DAN, NO, I HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT I WASN'T FOCUSED ON YOUR DEFINITION, I WAS FOCUSED ON DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE I SUPPLIED. I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT I FAILED TO ASK YOU TO STRIKE IT. RE-READ THE POSTS YOU ARE RESPONDING TO, DAN. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nonsense. I laid out my position with supporting evidence. I used the Bible, Dan, not an arbitrary made up definition of Christianity. In the evidentiary posts that I laid out I separated them by topics. THOSE Dan, are indicators of Christianity. Your goal here, was to rope me in and centrate on a contrived definition. My goal was a comparison of the theologies using the Bible which is the foundational scripture of Christianity, matching it against Mormon theology. My goal was to determine what criteria you were using to classify Mormonism as non-Christian, and determine its validity. I would have no problem if you were to provide a objective definition which eliminated Mormonism from the Christian groups. THERE IT IS, DAN, IN BOLD BLACK AND WHITE. OUR GOALS ARE DIFFERENT HERE. I FEEL STRONGLY THAT I *DID* SUPPLY YOU WITH A WORKING DEFINITION. IT IS IN MY "BEAR WITH ME" REPOST OF OUR EXCHANGES. *THEN*, YOU ASKED ME HOW I THINK MORMONISM DIDN'T FIT THAT CRITERIA. THAT IS WHEN YOU NUMBERED MY COMMENTS AND REWORKED MY WORDS AS IF THEY WERE A DEFINITION. THOSE *WERE NOT MY DEFINITION* OF CHRISTIANITY! THEY WERE MY *REASONS* WHY I THINK MORMONISM DOESN'T FIT THE CRITERIA FOR CHRISTIANITY. BACK UP HERE DAN, I DID SUPPLY YOU WITH DEFINITIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. I THEN ANSWERED YOU QUESTION ON HOW I THOUGHT MORMONISM FAILED TO MEET THAT. WHEN I LISTED MY REASONS YOU REWORDED THEM AND USED THEM AS A DEFINITION. THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES HERE. THOSE WERE REASONS, NOT DEFINITIONS. WHY DID YOU USE THOSE INSTEAD OF THE COMMENTS I MADE REGARDING WHAT I THINK CONSTITUTES CHRISTIANITY? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ME: Again, I didn't formally "list" it, Dan. It was an additional comment that YOU incorporated into your definition. If I failed at anything, I failed to correct your use of my words. Apparently, you failed to correct the list to your satisfaction. I was trying to summarize your criteria, and I asked for your corrections. You did reword that list and you asked me to use the new version in the future of the discussion. If you are unhappy with your rewording it surely isn't my fault. AGAIN, AS I JUST STATED DAN AND FINALLY REALIZED...THOSE WERE NOT MY DEFINITIONS OF CHRISTIANITY...THOSE WHERE MY *REASONS* WHY I THOUGHT MORMONISM DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA OF CHRISTIANITY. YOU IGNORED MY COMMENTS ON WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS, THEN TOOK MY REPLY TO YOUR QUESTION ON HOW I THINK THAT MORMONISM FAILS TO MEET THE CRITERIA OF CHRISTIANITY...AND YOU MADE *THOSE* THE DEFINITION! AGAIN...ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION, WHEN I LAID OUT MY EVIDENCE...DID I EVER ONCE USE THE HOAXES OF JOSEPH SMITH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who is entitled to define Christianity or the term Christian is the wrong question, Dan. Yes, when a group emerges it can define what it means to be in their group. The Bible constitutes the DEFINING SCRIPTURES of Christianity. The single authority, Dan, is the Bible. Fair enough. Ignoring for now the problems with interpreting the Bible, does this mean that if a Church's doctrine disagrees with the Bible in any way it is not Christian? IN MY VIEW, IF IT CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE'S DESCRIPTION OF GOD,JESUS AND MAN AND COMPLETELY CHANGES THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF EACH AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO EACHOTHER...IT IS NOT CHRISTIAN. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, nonsense. Let me drift off here for a moment, Dan. If you don't think there is ample bias on the non-believing side of this house, Dan, you are mistaken. As soon as a believer, like me, lays out a position like this the deep thinkers on this forum toss out their ability to objectively evaluate evidence and reduce the assessment to "mine is superior to yours" which has nothing whatsoever to what I've stated on this board. The truth is Dan, that any non-believer on this board could have laid out the same position I did using the same evidence that I did and other non-believers would accept their post except for the ex-Mo's who typically return to apologetic mode and defend their former church. How do I know this? JAK complimented me highly when I posted the SAME position and the same evidence over two years ago when he didn't know that I was a believer. On the current threads, he criticizes the SAME position and the same evidence. The position hasn't changed, the evidence hasn't changed. The ONLY thing that has changed since then is that JAK came to know I was a believer. Please! Interesting anecdote regarding JAK. I am not JAK, however, so I don't know the circumstances. But it seems entirely possible that JAK has changed and/or learned since that time. So it is not necessarily the fact that you are a believer that causes the difference. BE GLAD THAT YOU AREN'T JAK OR I WOULD HAVE CALLED YOU ON THE SAME BS. In any case, I can assure you that your posts make it very clear that you are Christian. Your points of attack, your emotional attitude, and your tone all signify that you are a Christian who considers Mormonism non-Christian. However objective you may consider yourself to have been, you never approached this discussion as a dispassionate third party. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A DISPASSIONATE THIRD PARTY, DAN. MY ENTIRE POSITION RELIES ON AN EVALUATION OF THE THEOLOGY. I HAVE NO WISH TO REMAIN A DISPASSIONATE THIRD PARTY. I HOPE TO DISCUSS DISPASSIONATELY AND RATIONALLY, HOWEVER, I MOST DEFINITELY HAVE A POSITION ELSE I WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN IT HERE! I believe someone who were truly neutral would make much more conservative and reasonable judgements, such as: "Mormonism is technically a Christian religion but differs substantially from all other sects," or "under a simple definition, Mormonism is a Christian religion, although in a category of its own." PLEASE FIND SOMEONE WHO IS TRULY NEUTRAL. THERE ISN'T ANYONE HERE ON THIS BOARD THAT I COUNT AS TRULY NEUTRAL. I HAVE CHRISTIAN BIAS, MANY OF THE EX-MO'S HAVE MORMON BIAS, SOME OF THE NON BELIEVERS ARE BIASED AGAINST BELIEVERS, SOME ARE FLAT OUT BIASED AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY DISLIKE ME PERSONALLY....THERE ISN'T ANYONE. GUNNAR AND CRAIG ARE AS CLOSE TO NEUTRAL THAT I CAN FIND HERE. IS THERE ANYONE YOU'D LIKE TO ASK TO RULE ON THIS? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't make a "rule" like #10, Dan. It was a comment I made that you incorporated into your definition, that I re-worded to get on with a discussion of theology comparison and I failed to call you on it because it wasn't important to me. It was, apparently, critically important to you to find some sticking point. I'm not "uncomfortable" with Mormonism. I AMPLY demonstrated how Mormonism is not Christianity in my lengthy and topical posts where I compared specific issues of belief found in the Bible to Mormonism. These discussions were carried out on two thread, Dan. Perhaps you wrote this before you read my lengthy topical posts. Your words here do not represent what I did on the other thread. Understood. GOOD, I'M GLAD THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ Yes, that is remarkably simple but it doesn't not include Mormonism. Mormonism is diametrically opposed to Christianity, Dan. As soon as Mormonism injects the deification of Man it becomes another religion entirely. It is not Christianity. Do Catholics believe they can become deified? Do Protestants believe they can become deified? I don't see how this fails to include Mormonism. Mormons DO profess belief in the "teachings of Christ" (as defined by the Bible). The also profess belief in other teachings, but the definition doesn't exclude such individuals. DAN, AS YOU MAY KNOW BY NOW PATIENCE IS NOT ONE OF MY STRONG SUITS. COMMUNICATING VIA THIS COMPUTER ENTIRELY DRIVES ME NUTS BUT I'LL TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND TRY TO ANSWER YOU WITHOUT WIGGING OUT. IN MY SERIES OF TOPICAL POSTS, I LAID OUT WHAT I BELIEVE ARE EVIDENCES THAT MORMONISM CONTRADICTS CHRISTIANITY. DAN, I KNOW THAT MORMONS PROFESS A BELIEF IN THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST. AS I STATED JUST RECENTLY, I AM CERTAIN THAT THEY FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST PROBABLY FAR MORE EARNESTLY THAT I DO OR COULD EVER HOPE TO DO. BUT DAN, I STILL THINK IT IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT THAT THE TEACHINGS OF MORMONISM CONTRADICT THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST. IF TWO THINGS CONTRADICT HOW CAN THEY EVER BE CONSIDERED CONGRUENT? HOW CAN YOU IDENTIFY A RELIGION AS FOLLOWING THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST WHEN THE RELIGIONS'S TEACHINGS CONTRADICT THEM? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because Dan, Mormonism includes the deification of man which results in pluraltiy of Gods, and that ain't Christianity. What basis do you have for saying this? Does the Bible deny such a possibility? DAN, PLEASE READ AGAIN MY EVIDENCES. THE BIBLE RULES OUT THAT POSSIBILITY IN IT'S DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF GOD. *************************************************************** DAN, I CANNOT COMPLETE MY RESPONSES RIGHT NOW. PLEASE, PLEASE, IF YOU CAN, WILL YOU WITHHOLD YOUR RESPONSE UNTIL MINE ARE DONE? I WILL TRY TO COME BACK TO IT LATER IN THE DAY. *************************************************************** BACK NOW, DAN, I HAD TO RESPOND TO THE CALL OF THE TRIBE ;-). I SEE THAT YOU HAVE POSTED A COMMENT. THANK YOU FOR WAITING TO REPLY TO THIS ONE. THESE LONG THREADS BEAT ME TO DEATH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, I am disqualifyint the religion as being Christian at all. Yes, I am. Mormonism started out as close to Christianity as a new religion could come. When JS and others introduced polytheism (I am NOT referring to trinity doctrine) and exaltation to Godhood it split off and AWAY from Christianity and created an entirely NEW religion. I don't totally disagree with you here. Mormonism *was* a new religion. But Christianity itself contains multiple religions. Christianity is not one religion, it is many. The question, then, is not whether Mormonism was a new religion, but rather whether its beliefs somehow failed to qualify as "Christian." I DISAGREE WITH YOU IN THIS REGARD. CHRISTIANITY IS ONE RELIGION WITH MULTIPLE DENOMINATIONS. I THINK THAT THOSE DENOMINATIONS HAVE THEIR OWN "PERSONALITY", IF YOU WILL BUT THEY RETAIN A CONSISTENT VIEW ON THE NATURE OF GOD. I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO DAY IT DAN UNLESS I STAY AT THE COMPUTER AND TYPE FOR HOURS ON END EVERY LITTLE DETAIL OF MY THOUGHTS ON THIS. I JUST CANNOT DO THAT. I do not know of any significant Christian religion that does not have beliefs beyond those specified in the Bible. Therefore, having new beliefs is not sufficient to disqualify a religion as "Christian." AGAIN, DO THEY DIFFER ON THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF GOD, THE NATURE OF CHRIST, THE NATURE OF MAN AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIETY AND MAN? WHICH CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS, DAN, BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN BECOME GOD? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To say that Mormonism isn't Christianity at all is an objective evaluation of the theologies Dan. That statement takes it one step further toward reality. You may be right. Unfortunately, I have yet to see an objective evalution of the theologies. So far, every one I have seen has been extremely subjective. DAN, I THINK MY SCRIPTURAL EVAL'S WERE OBJECTIVE. YOU ARE FREE TO PREPARE YOUR OWN EVAL IF YOU THINK THAT WOULD HELP? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There it is, Dan. As I stated earlier, you toss out your ability to objectively evaluate the theologies using the scriptures of those theologies and reduce it to "mine is better than yours". What superficial nonsense. I will repeat what I said on another thread. While they have certain scriptures in common...Judaism is not Christianity. Christianity is not Islam. Mormonism is not Christianity. They are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RELIGIONS. I have many friends of other churches who are not "Christian the way that I am Christian" and NON of them believe they can become deified. The very thought of that to a Christian is abhorrent. I am not reducing this to "mine is better than yours." Rather, I'm suggesting that you are refusing to accept that the Christian title includes far more than just your particular branch of Christianity. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE, DAN. I ACCEPT THAT OTHER BRANCHES OF CHRISTIANITY ARE CHRISTIAN. THIS IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN MY REPLIES TO YOUR LIST OF DENOMINATIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT I THOUGHT THEY WERE CHRISTIAN. Catholocism is not Methodism. Lutheranism is not Presbyterianism. They are entirely different religions. Yet, they are all usually classified as "Christian." YES, THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS CHRISTIAN. MANY OF THOSE WERE IN YOUR LIST OF DENOMINATIONS WHICH I REPLIED TO. I DON'T THINK LUTERAN'S APPEARED ON YOUR LIST. TELL ME, DAN, WHICH ONE THOSE YOU HAVE LISTED BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN BECOME GODS? WHEN I WROTE OUT THE COMMENTS ON JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM AND MORMONISM I AM NOT DESCRIBING DENOMINATIONS THAT EXIST UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA, THOSE ARE, IN MY VIEW, DIFFERENT WORLD RELIGIONS. You seem to be increasingly focused on the deification of man. Could you please show me where the Bible denies this possibility? DAN, I THINK MY INITIAL SEQUENTIAL POSTS DEMONSTRATED THAT. I WILL GO BACK AND RETRIEVE THE SPECIFIC SCRIPTURES, DAN AND PLACE THEM IN A SEPARATE POST. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, Christianity includes all sects which profess to follow Christ. The only problem here, Dan, is that while the LDS Church professes that it "follows Christ" it's doctrine represents an entirely different religion that is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what Christ taught. It isn't a "distinct brand"...it is a cult. Is it "some kind" of Christianity? Yes, it is false Christianity. "false Christianity" Interesting. Perhaps "pretend Christianity" would be more in line with what you mean. "False" sounds like you are challenging the veracity of their beliefs, rather than their classification as a religion. DAN, WHY DO YOU SUBSTITUTE THE WORD "PRETEND" FOR FALSE? IF IT'S NOT CHRISTIANITY AND TOUTS ITSELF AS CHRISTIANITY IT IS FALSE CHRISTIANITY. I'M SORRY YOU DON'T LIKE HOW IT SOUNDS. AS I STATED IN THE ORIGINAL THREADS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LDS CHURCH STEP OUT IN IT'S OWN RIGHT AND DECLARE ITSELF WHAT IT IS...A NEW WORLD RELIGION. IF YOU ARE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WORD PRETEND, I'M AGREEABLE TO THAT. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan, the Bible is my definition. I hope you mean it contains the definition. DAN, THE BIBLE IS THE DEFINING SCRIPTURE OF CHRISTIANITY. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did not "assert my beliefs" that Mormonism fails to aggree with Christianity. I supplied evidence of that. Diversity is welcome by me, Dan. Opposite teachings are not diversity Dan, they are representative of an entirely different religion. I wholly accept diversity of religion. I do not accept false labeling. Understood. So, if a Church were to have an belief "opposite" to the Bible then it would automatically not be Christian? I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE THINKING OF HERE. IS THIS ANOTHER MARTIN LUTHER GOOSE CHASE? I'VE ALREADY INCLUDED IN MY ORIGINAL SERIES OF TOPICAL POSTS WHAT I FEEL ARE IMPORTANT TENETS OF CHRISTIANITY. YOU CAN WORK FROM THOSE TOPICS IF YOU WISH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christianity, in a sense, IS an unified body. And Dan, I hate to tell you this but no one wants to "vote out" Mormonism. What I would like to see is truth in labeling. I would like to see the LDS Church actually come through with its claim of truth and present itself as what it authetically is. It is not Christianity, it is Mormonism. In a sense, Christianity is unified. However, in a sense Mormonism is part of that unified body (e.g., in politics, Mormons are often part of Christian alliances). However, in terms of beliefs, Christianity is not a unified body. It is several bodies that fall under one category. I STILL DISAGREE WITH YOU HERE. I THINK THAT MORMONISM STANDS ON IT'S OWN SEPARATE AND APART FROM CHRISTIANITY. IT IS NO MORE CHRISTIANITY THEN JUDAISM, ISLAM, HINDUISM OR BUDHISM (sp). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan, Mormonism fails to meet the theological requirements of the defining scripture of Christianity, the New Testament. It is not a case of whether or not Mormonism doesn't "agree with MY belief system" Dan. This isn't a pissing contest between "me" and Mormonism. For you to reduce it to such is a clear denial of the evidence. You misdirected these discussions into an evaluation of me. Can't you objectively evaluate the theology, Dan? I gave you a full and complete comparison of the Biblical views on the nature of God, Jesus, Man and Salvation. I set those along side of LDS views. Mormonism doesn't disagree with "me", Dan, it disagrees with the Bible. Even JAK would have agreed with me, and he did, but that was before he knew I was a believer. Go figure. I did not misdirect this conversation at all, Vicki. I repeatedly inquired in attempts to get you to provide a solid definition of what it takes to be a Christian religion. When your definition began including statements specific to Mormonism, I pointed out that you were crafting a definition which was guaranteed to disqualify Mormonism by its very nature. NO DAN, I ORIGINALLY GAVE YOU WHAT I THOUGHT DEFINES CHRISIANITY. THEN YOU ASKED ME WHY I THOUGHT MORMONISM DOESN'T MEET THAT CRITERIA. I ANSWERED SPECIFICALLY TO MORMONISM IN RESPONSE TO YOUR MORMON SPECIFIC ANSWER AND THOSE COMMENTS WERE WHAT YOU CHOSE TO USE AS YOUR DEFINITION. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on what I have read here, I believe the list can be shortened signicantly: 1). The religion must correspond to the Bible. I assume this means that (a) the religion cannot contradict the Bible in any way, and possibly (b) the religion cannot have beliefs not found in the Bible. I doubt you would accept (b) but maybe I am wrong. If you accept this list perhaps we can have a more meaningful conversation about how Mormonism fails to meet the definition. -Dan DAN, GO BACK AND READ MY ORIGINAL REPLIES TO YOUR QUESTIONS ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY ON THE MATTER IS CONTAINED IN ALL THE POSTS I'VE REPOSTED HERE TODAY. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO FIND A WORKING DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY HOW DO YOU PLAN TO GO ABOUT THIS? BY ASKING ME? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO USE THE "FOLLOWS THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST" THEN THAT SHOOTS MORMONISM OUT OF THE CHRISTIAN WATERS IMMEDIATELY. I'VE ALREADY INCLUDED THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST IN MY SERIES OF TOPICAL POSTS, DAN. YOU AGREED THAT THEY CONTRADICT. WHAT ELSE IS THERE LEFT TO SAY? Modified by Victoria! at Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 19:15:01 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Biblical justifications for a G-d with a body. Re: Response for Vicki -- nofaith Top of thread Archive Posted by: Ramona ® 06/15/2003, 14:41:47 Author Profile Mail author These are some of the biblical justifications for the L.D.S. belief in a Diety with a physical form. Exodus 8 19Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said. Exodus 31 18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God. Psalm 42 2My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?[1] Footnotes 42:2 Following Masoretic Text and Vulgate; some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Syriac, and Targum read I see the face of God. Psalm 80 3Restore us, O God; Cause Your face to shine, And we shall be saved! Genesis 6 8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Deuteronomy 11 12a land for which the LORD your God cares; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from the beginning of the year to the very end of the year. You claim the bible defines christianity, please site chapter and verse. Ramona | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Incorrect Re: Biblical justifications for a G-d with a body. -- Ramona Top of thread Archive Posted by: Victoria! ® 06/15/2003, 20:07:14 Author Profile Mail author Ramona, I'm going to reply to you just once here. I think you are incorrect in your offering of scriptural basis for the LDS belief that God has a body. The Book of Mormon states in Alma and other chapters that God does NOT have a body, that God is a spirit. Please read your BOM. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and other prophets of the LDS Church introduced the God/Body concept. In that regard, Mormonism contradicts ITSELF. I claim that the Bible, specifically the NT, is the defining scripture of Christianity. Do you disagree with that? I've already cited chapter and verses regarding the nature of God, Christ, Man and Salvation in a series of topical post which I've reposted here. Would you like me to hyperlink them for you? I'll be glad to do that when you are willing to repeat your "hyperlinked" beliefs on this forum. You are most welcome to read the reposts and write whatever you wish in the way of response or offer up what YOU feel constitutes the Christian religion. If you define Christianity as "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" then you automatically exclude Mormonism from Christianity as it's teachings CONTRADICT not only it's own but the teachings of Christ. If you disagree with that statement you are free to prepare your own posts to present your perspective as I have done. That is the only response I have for you Ramona. Whatever time I spend on this thread I intend to spend it on Dan as we are completing a previous discussion. Vicki Modified by Victoria! at Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 20:24:31 | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page Scriptures are incorrect? Re: Incorrect -- Victoria! Top of thread Archive Posted by: Ramona ® 06/15/2003, 21:22:37 Author Profile Mail author You believe me to be incorrect? I almost entirely stated scripture. Here is more: Hebrews 1 2has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[1] purged our[2] sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, John 4 24God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Ramona - Traditional Christians fail the same test you offer those L.D.S. Vicki - The Book of Mormon states in Alma and other chapters that God does NOT have a body, that God is a spirit. Please read your BOM. Ramona - I have read the BOM in its entirety, have you? I offered the bible pro-body and bible pro-spirit. Your own books seem inconsistent, just like the mormons. Vicki - Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and other prophets of the LDS Church introduced the God/Body concept. In that regard, Mormonism contradicts ITSELF. Ramona - They were able to use the bible to support this claims. And I have shown only some of the examples.