The Question: Are Mormons Christian? A Biblical Approach

[_madeleine]

This has been pretty interesting to follow, but I think there are some definitional problems. I think it might help to define "God" and "god" as those terms are being used at various places in the scripture. What I think makelan is arguing is that LDS believes there is only one God, that they also believe that there are multiple gods, and that there is no Biblical requirement that one must reject belief in these other gods. The non-LDS Christians seem to be arguing that not only must one believe that there is one "God" but also that one must not believe in the existence of other gods. It seems to me that you agree that there is only one God, although you define his characteristics differently. So, how does everyone define "god"?

Christian understanding of God begins with Jesus Christ, the God who we worship. God"s,word perfectly revealed. As has been shown, Jesus taught there is one God. The Son is revealed by the Father and the Son reveals the Father.

Jesus, the Person, is where our understanding of God is centered.

We view the Old Testament in the context Jesus, and so you will see the term "salvation history". God, ever so patiently, continuously faithful to Hus covenants, bringing us to Him. Culminating in the Word of God full revealed.

Mormonism, seems to remove Christianity from salvation history, claiming Jesus left us as orphans, to wander. So if we are going to speak of cultural and historic context, Mormonism seeks to obliterate both, and insert itself as a rewrite of both Christian culture and history. Denying, ir at the very least, showing no recognition of God's work in history.

we can speak all day of the polytheism of the Hebrews and Israel, but ignoring Jesus, the Word of God, who revealed Himself as One, is not a Christian approach. We begin with Jesus.

that is what I see.

[_madeleine]

You shouldn't assume I am an uneducated newb.

Then prove I'm wrong and tell me about the contexts. That's all it will take to shut me up.

So you ask for Biblical support, which is context, I give it to you and you apparently can't fit the obvious contradiction to your view, so, the Biblical source is out of context.

No, you didn't give me context at all. You just quoted a few verses before and a few verses after. You haven't even accurately represented the text segment.

okee dokee.

I'm taking you less serious than I was before.

So you cannot give any legitimate context?

Idolatry, the belief that a deity inhabits an object, is forbidden by the God of Israel, yet we see over and over examples of individuals and groups who adopt pagan idolatry beliefs and practices. So we see over and over exhortations and teachings that denounce man made objects as empty. Nothing but wood, stone and metal.

In the context of this thread, I see you making an argument that the errors of idolatry beliefs and practices indicates a truth about God that we should follow, if we are true Christians.

What I'm saying is, Christians see the errors and don't follow them.

A context of 1 Cor is Justin Martyr, who makes a similar argument. That is, pagan gods are demons masquerading as God. There is an ancient Christian understanding, but I'm not seeing that you acknowledge.

[_maklelan]

Idolatry, the belief that a deity inhabits an object, is forbidden by the God of Israel,

Yes, beginning in the exilic period. Would you like to challenge me on this, or are you just going to ignore my concern and continue to assert the above over and over again, like you're currently doing with the claim about Jesus saying there's only one true God?

yet we see over and over examples of individuals and groups who adopt pagan idolatry beliefs and practices. So we see over and over exhortations and teachings that denounce man made objects as empty. Nothing but wood, stone and metal.

In the context of this thread, I see you making an argument that the errors of idolatry beliefs and practices indicates a truth about God that we should follow, if we are true Christians.

What I'm saying is, Christians see the errors and don't follow them.

A context of 1 Cor is Justin Martyr,

Justin Martyr wrote almost 75 years after 1 Corinthians was written. Justin Martyr is not the context of 1 Corinthians in any way, shape, or form.

who makes a similar argument. That is, pagan gods are demons masquerading as God.

Not only does Martyr's rhetoric have absolutely nothing to do with 1 Corinthians' argument, but you're equivocating with your use of the word "God." What you mean is "gods," with a little "g." Martyr is trying to align Christianity with Greco-Roman cosmology to make it more palatable to the intelligentsia of the day. However, Justin Martyr also calls Jesus "another god," and insists his unity with the Father is one of will. Nowhere does he suggest any ontological identity. Jesus is a separate divine being in Martyr's view. You're not going to find help by appealing to Martyr.

There is an ancient Christian understanding, but I'm not seeing that you acknowledge.

I have spent far more time studying the ancient Christian understanding of deity than you, so save your attempts to condescend.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, makelan. Sorry, but sometimes I have to take baby steps to make sure I'm following. So, what is the consequence of the category "gods" being functional and not ontological?

I think the best definition of a deity from the time of the Bible would be any entity that exercised divine agency. What is significant about this is that that agency could extend to any entity, be it a preternatural being, a human, or even a cultic object. In all the countries of the ancient Near East, you have cultic objects called deities and even offered worship. They are connected with some prototypical deity from the heavens. While most people tend to think of the biblical literature as flatly denouncing that practice, the truth is it is only denounced in literature dating to the exilic period and after. Jacob sets up several altars, and he even names one "El, the God of Israel." This is significant: he doesn't dedicate the altar to the God of Israel, he names the altar "El, the God of Israel." The altar is to be identified as "El, the God of Israel." This exactly matches the practice

Is your argument something like this:

The authors of the Bible believed there were many gods but only one God -- the god that is to be worshipped. Mormonism includes a belief that there are many gods, but only one God -- the god to be worshipped. Therefore, Mormons belief in many gods is not inconsistent with Christianity? Something like that?

Close enough, but that's really the other side of the coin. Primarily I'm showing that the contemporary Christian claim to "biblical" notions of deity is misinformed. They're not any more biblical than Mormonism. I don't really think all doctrines have to be biblical for someone to be considered a Christian, though. Really the most important criterion--and this is according to the Bible--is the notion that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of humanity. I wish mainstream Christians could acknowledge that.

Thanks. Although I have no dog in the fight, I agree with you.

[_sr1030]

are you going to respond to my previous post?

I must have missed it, sr.

So that's it?

Sr

Sr1030,

Is the previous post to which you refer the one in which I asked who Jesus was speaking to on the cross, and in which you answered that you were not interested in such a discussion?

If so, I am not sure what response you are looking for. We both agreed that it was an "out of bounds" question on my part, I thought.

If it is something else, please quote it or re-post it.

No, that wasn't the post. Doesn't matter, I will just summarize what has happened so far, from my point of view.

1) You agree that in John 17:3 Christ clearly taught that there was only one true, real, or genuine God.
2) You agree that LDS do not follow this teaching.

Is this correct? a YES or NO would suffice here.

Do you agree that anything or anyone can be called a God or god without truly being such? Not being a true, real or genuine God?

Do you agree that to be considered a "follower of Christ" or "Christian", one would have to follow the teachings of Christ?

sr

[_Megacles]

No, that wasn't the post. Doesn't matter, I will just summarize what has happened so far, from my point of view.

1) You agree that in John 17:3 Christ clearly taught that there was only one true, real, or genuine God.
2) You agree that LDS do not follow this teaching.

Is this correct? a YES or NO would suffice here.

Do you agree that anything or anyone can be called a God or god without truly being such? Not being a true, real or genuine God?

Do you agree that to be considered a "follower of Christ" or "Christian", one would have to follow the teachings of Christ?

sr

Thank you for the summary, sr1030.

With your first statement I agree; with your second I do not. We believe there is only one true and living God the Eternal Father.

Do you agree that anything or anyone can be called a God or god without truly being such? Not being a true, real or genuine God?

Well, yes, I suppose anyone can call anything anything. I could stick a feather in my cap, as it were, and call it macaroni. It would still be just a feather in my cap, though. Human civilization has always looked to a god of some sort, we have Greek gods, Roman gods, Norse gods, Egyptian gods, Inca gods, and Aztec gods (for example).

Do you agree that to be considered a "follower of Christ" or "Christian", one would have to follow the teachings of Christ?

This one gets a bit tricky. Jesus' core teachings, yes, of course we follow them. I am not about go to cutting off my hand or foot, or gouge out my eye though (Mark 9:43-48). And what of the apocryphal teachings of Jesus? Are we to follow every single one of those?

[Guest]

With your first statement I agree; with your second I do not. We believe there is only one true and living God the Eternal Father.

I guess I have to narrow this down some with another statement and question. To believe there is only one true and living God would mean that you believe there is no other true, real or genuine God in existence. Is this the case? Do you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods? Emphasis on Existence. This could be Gods with less authority, less power etc.

Do you agree that to be considered a "follower of Christ" or "Christian", one would have to follow the teachings of Christ?

This one gets a bit tricky. Jesus' core teachings, yes, of course we follow them. I am not about go to cutting off my hand or foot, or gouge out my eye though (Mark 9:43-48). And what of the apocryphal teachings of Jesus? Are we to follow every single one of those?

For example, I would gouge out my eye if I truly believed that my salvation depended on it. But it doesn't, at least not at this point. It just seems like whenever you refer to some other teachings of Christ it is a distraction. If I could not follow all the teachings of Christ, I would not consider myself a Christian or follower of Christ. But there again, this is distracting.

I believe that we have established that:

1) you believe that Christ taught that there is only one true, real or genuine God.
2) you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods other than the Eternal Father, that may not have progressed as much as the Eternal Father, or are less powerful etc. but do exist.

You have confirmed number 1, I wish you to confirm number 2

sr

[_Res Ipsa]

Christian understanding of God begins with Jesus Christ, the God who we worship. God"s,word perfectly revealed. As has been shown, Jesus taught there is one God. The Son is revealed by the Father and the Son reveals the Father.

Jesus, the Person, is where our understanding of God is centered.

We view the Old Testament in the context Jesus, and so you will see the term "salvation history". God, ever so patiently, continuously faithful to Hus covenants, bringing us to Him. Culminating in the Word of God full revealed.

Mormonism, seems to remove Christianity from salvation history, claiming Jesus left us as orphans, to wander. So if we are going to speak of cultural and historic context, Mormonism seeks to obliterate both, and insert itself as a rewrite of both Christian culture and history. Denying, ir at the very least, showing no recognition of God's work in history.

we can speak all day of the polytheism of the Hebrews and Israel, but ignoring Jesus, the Word of God, who revealed Himself as One, is not a Christian approach. We begin with Jesus.

that is what I see.

Thanks. I had a friend who said that Christians read the Old Testament through the spectacles of the New Testament. Is that similar to "salvation history?"

I've tried to follow the discussion pretty closely. I don't understand maklelan as ignoring Jesus. I do see you and he giving different interpretation to some language in the Bible. As I do not read Hebrew or Greek, I'm not qualified to translate. But how he's approaching interpreting the language makes some sense to me. He's taking words that are used to describe or refer to God and looking at other instances where the same words are used to describe other things. Do you consider that to be an invalid method for trying to understand what the author's meant when they used particular words?

[_maklelan]

I guess I have to narrow this down some with another statement and question.

"In order to make clear exactly what semantic region of these words I am shackling Christ to."

To believe there is only one true and living God would mean that you believe there is no other true, real or genuine God in existence.

That does not follow. As I pointed out earlier, to say that the Broncos are the only genuine football team in the NFL does not really mean that there are no other football teams in existence. It just means they're the only one you care about. This is rhetoric. It's hyperbole. It happens all the time in the Bible, like when God says that the people who make idols are "nothing," or that the nations that fight against Israel are "less than nothing." They aren't really "nothing," are they? When Isaiah has the personified Babylon say "I am and there is no other," it doesn't really mean the city is claiming to be the only city in existence, does it? Of course not, it means the city is claiming to be the only city that matters. This is the rhetoric of YHWH's "I am and there is no other" claims written by the exact same author. When 1 Cor 8 says "there are many gods and many lords, but for us there is only one God," it means there is only one God that matters. Jesus is not making an ontological claim, he's using praise language in a prayer. Do you want me to copy and past the dozens of Egyptian prayers that alternatively praise this and that god for being the only god that exists? Their rhetoric is a lot more decisive, but I guarantee you you still won't believe they actually think each god is the only god that exists. It's called the rhetoric of incomparability. Look it up some time.

Is this the case? Do you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods? Emphasis on Existence. This could be Gods with less authority, less power etc.

Do you agree that to be considered a "follower of Christ" or "Christian", one would have to follow the teachings of Christ?

For example, I would gouge out my eye if I truly believed that my salvation depended on it. But it doesn't, at least not at this point. It just seems like whenever you refer to some other teachings of Christ it is a distraction.[/quote]

So you bark about how someone has to believe all of Christ's teachings, and then when someone brings up a teaching in which you clearly do not believe, suddenly his teachings are just a distraction?

If I could not follow all the teachings of Christ, I would not consider myself a Christian or follower of Christ. But there again, this is distracting.

Because it undermines your point. Your eyes and your hands have obviously sinned, and yet you refuse to cut them off. Why do you not believe in Jesus' teachings?

I believe that we have established that:

1) you believe that Christ taught that there is only one true, real or genuine God.
2) you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods other than the Eternal Father, that may not have progressed as much as the Eternal Father, or are less powerful etc. but do exist.

You have confirmed number 1, I wish you to confirm number 2

I wish you to stop trying to play semantic games that you don't even understand.

[Guest]

SR1030,

Surely you agree that when dealing with the Bible, we are not discussing a simplistic text. This tome has been around for thousands of years, and has been debated for centuries.

I guess I have to narrow this down some with another statement and question. To believe there is only one true and living God would mean that you believe there is no other true, real or genuine God in existence. Is this the case? Do you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods? Emphasis on Existence. This could be Gods with less authority, less power etc.

We worship God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. No other God (if they exist) matters. The church has no official doctrine (to my knowledge) of other gods, but it seems logical that there would be since being exalted means that we can become like God. There is way too much we do not know for me to answer this question with certainty, but again it matters very little.

For example, I would gouge out my eye if I truly believed that my salvation depended on it. But it doesn't, at least not at this point.

Okay, so where does the Bible state that certain teachings of Jesus are essential to salvation while certain others are not? Can you just pick and choose which ones you want to follow?

It just seems like whenever you refer to some other teachings of Christ it is a distraction. If I could not follow all the teachings of Christ, I would not consider myself a Christian or follower of Christ. But there again, this is distracting.

So where does that leave you if my answer to your last question is correct?

And yes, I am sorry, I should not have brought up the apocrypha; this thread is biblical only.

I believe that we have established that:

1) you believe that Christ taught that there is only one true, real or genuine God.

Correct, his father God the Eternal Father.

2) you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods other than the Eternal Father, that may not have progressed as much as the Eternal Father, or are less powerful etc. but do exist.

You have confirmed number 1, I wish you to confirm number 2

sr

I believe it is certainly possible, but that we do not know the nature of other celestial beings well enough to make a judgement. (Are angels gods? Are demons gods? Are exalted beings gods? Are we gods (Psalm 82:6)?)