The Question: Are Mormons Christian? A Biblical Approach

[_madeleine]

This is a thread about Christianity, so the Christian faith tradition is not only relevant, it is the context. It is you who seeks to move outside of this context.

Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Also, basic Trinitarian theology. Justin says very specifically the Word of God is not cut from God, but is same *thing*, using the analogy of fire. No one says anything different now, at Nicaea or any time in between.

I hope that when you give your word, you don't believe it is something separate from you, something that lives on its own. When you give your word, it is giving yourself. there was a time when breaking your word said something negative about the person. not so much today. So maybe you are not understanding the concept? But no, Justin Martyr isn't giving a science lesson on sound waves.

This united in will business is not in the text at all. It is as if Mormons have made the will of God, to be the essence of God.

[_huckelberry]

Funny that they clarified a concept that did not exist anywhere on earth prior to the moment of clarification. In reality, what they did was create and ratify a doctrine in an authoritative context.

Like Maklelan's argument in general I think it is possible to read this statement as strictly speaking true. I have seen Catholic authors repeatedly point out the importance of the church's ongoing authoritative and inspired role in moving from the ambiguities in scripture to the relatively clarified statements in the creed. The observation is both historical and can be used to point out the shortcomings of Protestant Bible only views.

Reading Maklelan's statement a person could picture the believers in the God as family theology all converting in an instant to the sort of monotheism prevalent in Judaism and Christianity since the early decades of the fourth century.

It is odd however that the subsequent large fights were with the views associated with Arius instead of the disputes over whether or not to use the idea of one substance.


As far a I can see Madeleine is using a looser category for Trinity when seeing it in Justin while Maklelan is using a narrower meaning when not seeing it there. That is the sort of difference which could be argued over indefinately.

[_maklelan]

This is a thread about Christianity, so the Christian faith tradition is not only relevant, it is the context. It is you who seeks to move outside of this context.

Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Also, basic Trinitarian theology. Justin says very specifically the Word of God is not cut from God, but is same *thing*, using the analogy of fire.

And a son is the exact same composition of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. When I use a stick to kindle a second fire from one fire, it is not the same fire, it's just the same type of physical composition resulting from chemical reactions between substances. Good grief, this is rudimentary physics.

No one says anything different now, at Nicaea or any time in between.

So everyone has always said Jesus was another god?

I hope that when you give your word, you don't believe it is something separate from you, something that lives on its own.

First, as I pointed out, there's an enormous semantic difference between "giving your word" and "saying a word." Which do you mean? Please don't ignore this question again.

Second, it is physically and philosophically impossible for a spoken word of any kind to remain your own property. A spoken word is nothing more than a sound that symbolizes an agreed-upon concept. The sound vanishes immediately and all that is left is the connection made in the minds of the speakers and hearers between the sound and the concept, whether or not that correction is what was originally intended.

When you give your word, it is giving yourself.

Utter and complete nonsense. You are vibrating vocal chords to create sound waves.

there was a time when breaking your word said something negative about the person.

Now you're equivocating. Speaking a word and "giving your word" are entirely different things, and Martyr's comments have nothing to do with "giving your word." Good lord, are you paying any attention at all?

not so much today. So maybe you are not understanding the concept? But no, Justin Martyr isn't giving a science lesson on sound waves.

And you are not understanding Martyr at all. He's not at all talking about a promise or an oath, and this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the kids these days and your reminiscing about how pure and honest our society used to be.

This united in will business is not in the text at all. It is as if Mormons have made the will of God, to be the essence of God.

Dialogue, 56:

Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean, not in will.

You have shown yourself to be abjectly ignorant of this subject matter, and despite your earlier attempt to actually engage my concerns, it's clear there is no hope of an informed debate here. I'm out.

[_madeleine]

Apparently, I'm not conveying very well what the Word of God means to a Christian.

Jesus is the Word of God. What does this mean to a Mormon? Is this a metaphor to you? Or, do you literally believe that Jesus is a sound wave that comes from the vocal chords of God the Father?

For Christians, we view Jesus as the Word of God, revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ. He is not a metaphor, or a sound wave, He IS God's Word.

[Guest]

This is a thread about Christianity, so the Christian faith tradition is not only relevant, it is the context. It is you who seeks to move outside of this context.

Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Also, basic Trinitarian theology. Justin says very specifically the Word of God is not cut from God, but is same *thing*, using the analogy of fire.

And a son is the exact same composition of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. When I use a stick to kindle a second fire from one fire, it is not the same fire, it's just the same type of physical composition resulting from chemical reactions between substances. Good grief, this is rudimentary physics.

No one says anything different now, at Nicaea or any time in between.

So everyone has always said Jesus was another god?

I hope that when you give your word, you don't believe it is something separate from you, something that lives on its own.

First, as I pointed out, there's an enormous semantic difference between "giving your word" and "saying a word." Which do you mean? Please don't ignore this question again.

Second, it is physically and philosophically impossible for a spoken word of any kind to remain your own property. A spoken word is nothing more than a sound that symbolizes an agreed-upon concept. The sound vanishes immediately and all that is left is the connection made in the minds of the speakers and hearers between the sound and the concept, whether or not that correction is what was originally intended.

When you give your word, it is giving yourself.

Utter and complete nonsense. You are vibrating vocal chords to create sound waves.

there was a time when breaking your word said something negative about the person.

Now you're equivocating. Speaking a word and "giving your word" are entirely different things, and Martyr's comments have nothing to do with "giving your word." Good lord, are you paying any attention at all?

not so much today. So maybe you are not understanding the concept? But no, Justin Martyr isn't giving a science lesson on sound waves.

And you are not understanding Martyr at all. He's not at all talking about a promise or an oath, and this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the kids these days and your reminiscing about how pure and honest our society used to be.

This united in will business is not in the text at all. It is as if Mormons have made the will of God, to be the essence of God.

Dialogue, 56:

Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean, not in will.

You have shown yourself to be abjectly ignorant of this subject matter, and despite your earlier attempt to actually engage my concerns, it's clear there is no hope of an informed debate here. I'm out.

You've shown yourself to be willfully obstinate, and completely ignorant of Trinitarian theology. Using Christian documents as though Christians have no understanding of their meaning, for hundreds of years, but THANK GOD you've come along to set us straight. Until you have a Christian understanding (not that you need to adhere to it), then all your other questions are absolutely pointless, bordering on childish.

An inability to listen and understand is not an indication of my ignorance.

[_madeleine]

Funny that they clarified a concept that did not exist anywhere on earth prior to the moment of clarification. In reality, what they did was create and ratify a doctrine in an authoritative context.

Like Maklelan's argument in general I think it is possible to read this statement as strictly speaking true. I have seen Catholic authors repeatedly point out the importance of the church's ongoing authoritative and inspired role in moving from the ambiguities in scripture to the relatively clarified statements in the creed. The observation is both historical and can be used to point out the shortcomings of Protestant Bible only views.

Reading Maklelan's statement a person could picture the believers in the God as family theology all converting in an instant to the sort of monotheism prevalent in Judaism and Christianity since the early decades of the fourth century.

It is odd however that the subsequent large fights were with the views associated with Arius instead of the disputes over whether or not to use the idea of one substance.


As far a I can see Madeleine is using a looser category for Trinity when seeing it in Justin while Maklelan is using a narrower meaning when not seeing it there. That is the sort of difference which could be argued over indefinately.

As far as I can see, there is not an understanding of what Christians believe, and an unwillingness to understand. Which, is not unusual when speaking with Mormons. Theirs is a childish understanding of God. Stuck in the mud, is what it is.

At any rate, I think the thread shows that Mormonism teaches something other than Christians, and so make it a lie to say Mormonism is a Christian religion.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Wow, this thread has turned into a smörgåsbord of everything wrong with religion in general and with Christianity in particular, to wit...

...legalistic hair splitting--check

...dull, uninspired word mincing--check

...slavish devotion to dogmatic checklists--check

...knee-jerk hostility toward healthy skepticism--check

...appeals to unfalsifiable, supernatural phenomena--check

...unquestioning obedience to absurd, outdated tradition--check

Is it any wonder that contemporary Christianity is desperately trying to rebrand itself in the face of declining attendance and shrinking revenues?

Is it any wonder that the Internet is shaping up to be traditional Christianity's greatest foe?

If I could choose a single image to sum up the majority of the sentiments expressed in this thread it would be this:

[_madeleine]

And so Elisha died and was buried.

At that time of year, bands of Moabites used to raid the land.

Once some people were burying a man, when suddenly they saw such a raiding band. So they cast the man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off. But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and got to his feet

[_The Erotic Apologist]

And so Elisha died and was buried.

At that time of year, bands of Moabites used to raid the land.

Once some people were burying a man, when suddenly they saw such a raiding band. So they cast the man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off. But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and got to his feet

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy....

[_madeleine]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy....

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!