The Question: Are Mormons Christian? A Biblical Approach

[_Megacles]

Who was Christ talking to? You have degraded to an elementary discussion which I am not interested in with this question.

sr

The answer should be simple, sr1030. It is a valid question. Given a hypostatic entity in a given state, can it, at the same time, communicate with its other states?

[_madeleine]

Jason15 wrote; The absolute attributes of God are those that have respect to His being independent of His relationship to anything else. The so called gods in your list certainly are not self existent.

The Christian God’s being is self-existent or underived. His is a self-caused existence. His existence is independent of everything else. The self-existence of God is implied in the name "Jehovah," which means "the existing one," and also in the expression "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14), which signifies that it is God’s nature to be.
The eternity of God, which falls in the second class of attributes, also implies His self-existence. If God has existed forever, then His existence is a necessary, underived, self-caused existence. Self-existence is a mystery that is incomprehensible to man; yet a denial of it would involve us in a greater mystery. If there is not in the universe some self-existent person or thing, then the present order of things came into existence out of nothing without cause or Creator. They could not have been the product of mere energy, for energy is the property either of matter or of life. And since science has proved that matter is not eternal, we are left to assume an eternal, and therefore, a self-existent person as an explanation of the present order of things.

So you are claiming that the other gods are not identical in essence to God the Father. In other words, he's a better god than they are. This is not monotheism, this is called monarchism or henotheism, depending on whether your focus is on their sovereignty or their worship by humans. Either way, it does not deny the existence of other gods, it just insists that one is better than the others. You also have no grounds for denying the other gods their deity based simply on the fact that they are not identical to God the Father. Nothing at all in the Bible suggests that if a deity is not self-existent, it's not really a deity. That's an arbitrary feature you've decided is necessary for inclusion in the category.

So, you're now facing the fact that you acknowledge the existence of other gods, you just insist the Father is better than them. At least this is a more accurate view of the more pervasive view of the Bible. It overlooks the minority view, however, which holds that YHWH is actually neither self-existent nor the most powerful deity in the world. For instance, according to the earliest known version of Deut 32:8-9, YHWH was given stewardship over the land of Israel by Elyon, a separate deity. According to 2 Kgs 3:27, the Israelite forces, promised victory over Moab by YHWH, were run off by a "great fury" that can only have come from another deity. This was how battles were thought to be decided in the ancient Near East, and in this particular case, YHWH got beaten by the Moabite patron deity. Heck, one version of the Jacob cycle has Jacob beating God in a wrestling match. Of course, another has Jacob losing and crying about it.

Sorry to butt in. :)

People used the word "god" to describe creatures that are immortal. This does not make these creatures God or a God. Immortality is but one attribute of God. There is ONE God, uncreated and unmade, under who ALL things exist, including creatures that He has created as immortal. Angels, being immortal creatures, fallen angels being called demons, but still creatures.

The early Hebrews suffered repeatedly from pagan ideas of God, with beliefs that included accepting pagan gods as real, only inferior to their own God. They saw events as indicative that their God was superior to other gods, such as victory in battle. Eventually they were brought to the true understanding of God, and rejected all other "gods" as non-existent. What I see in the Mormon understanding of this development, is that we should all go back to accepting pagan gods as real, but inferior. It isn't an argument that I find compelling. :)

[_madeleine]

Madeleine,

A few points.

- I gave scriptural reference for every doctrine of belief in the Nicene creed. Your response re: of fourth or fifth century seems to me something learned, and repeated. Not addressing the very thing you request.

You are right, you did provide scriptural reference, and I appreciate that. Mormons have scriptural references which support their positions as well. So where does that leave us? Does the Bible actually contain any of the ECF creeds?

- The response you give several times, paraphrasing, that because the Bible does not explicitly deny something, means, anything goes.....I can only wonder why you bother asking about Bible references at all? Anything goes, unless and until you are denied? The Bible is a tool to determine what you can get away with? I prefer to follow what is revealed. God has revealed Himself as ONE. God has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It does not mean anything goes, Madeleine. It means that those who do their best to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who believe in His divinity and His atonement, and who call themselves Christians are Christians.

- Redefining Christian terms and words, and then claiming there is the same belief, is sophistry, which doesn't fool anyone.

The Christian terms from the Nicene creed? The ones that introduced a healthy dose of Neoplatonism (like hypostasis)? Why is that the measure by which Christians shall be called Christians, and not the Bible itself?

- Baptism is a key doctrine. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.If Mormons are of the same faith as Christians, there would be no need for Mormons to "convert" Christians, or to rebaptize us, yet Mormons do both. A Mormon baptism is just that, a Mormon baptism.

I do not know about being the "same faith" as Christians. I think Mormons are not traditional (creedal) Christians, but we are most certainly Christians.

The Neoplatonism argument is weak, in my opinion. We use language to describe what is believed. The councils at Nicaea did not formulate new doctrines, they described existing doctrines.

I'm not convinced that Mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus. There are major differences in LDS teaching that make both the Father and Son, of the same *thing* as creatures such as ourselves. A dilution of divinity, a lowering of God to something less than what Christians understand as divine. As an example Mormons believe that God becomes, which is contradictory to Christian understanding of what it means to be divine. God IS.

As for the Bible, your OP contains an assumption that all Christians are sola scriptura. Catholics and Orthodox are not sola scriptura, instead we hold that sola scriptura is a heresy. :) Where does that leave us? It leaves us at the point of the Mormon idea of "great apostasy", which I see as a "great conspiracy theory". ;)

[_maklelan]

The question should be then, do any other true, real, or genuine Gods, or gods exist. It is obvious from your statement that for LDS "no other deities matter" that you do not deny you believe in the existence of other true, real or genuine Gods or gods. Christ taught that there is only one true, real or genuine God that exists in the passage I referenced for you.

Where did you quote a passage where Christ addresses this question?

LDS do not follow this very clear teaching of Christ, therefore cannot logically be considered a Christian or follower of Christ.

Christ also taught that you should cut off your hand and gouge out your eye if they are involved in sin. Are you following that very clear teaching of Christ, or are you not a Christian?

Thanks for the tip.

sr

No problem.

[_maklelan]

Sorry to butt in. :)

People used the word "god" to describe creatures that are immortal.

And the Bible was written in large part by those people. There are numerous other attributes, as well.

This does not make these creatures God or a God. Immortality is but one attribute of God. There is ONE God, uncreated and unmade, under who ALL things exist, including creatures that He has created as immortal.

This is not biblical. This is an extra-biblical set of inferences guided by a specific philosophical backdrop.

Angels, being immortal creatures, fallen angels being called demons, but still creatures.

Since when does being a creature preclude something from being a god? No one is saying angels are God the Father, they're just saying they're also gods. That's what the Bible confirms multiple times.

The early Hebrews suffered repeatedly from pagan ideas of God, with beliefs that included accepting pagan gods as real, only inferior to their own God.

So when the author of 1 Corinthians 10 quotes Deut 32:17 and says that pagans are sacrificing not to God the Father, but to devils (called "gods" in Deuteronomy, of course), he's suffering from a misguided pagan idea?

They saw events as indicative that their God was superior to other gods, such as victory in battle. Eventually they were brought to the true understanding of God, and rejected all other "gods" as non-existent.

Where did this happen? I don't see it anywhere in the Bible.

What I see in the Mormon understanding of this development, is that we should all go back to accepting pagan gods as real, but inferior. It isn't an argument that I find compelling. :)

Dogmatism rarely finds anything outside of its own boundaries compelling.

[_maklelan]

Thanks Steelhead, this is a verse that requires more than just a casual examination of the Hebrew. It requires that the reader put the verse into the context of the whole Bible itself.

The magical solution that makes everything the Bible says wrong go away: you just have to look at the picture on the box! This is circular reasoning, Jason, and it's a flagrant fallacy. You can't leverage the whole against the parts. The parts make up the whole.

[_madeleine]

Sorry to butt in. :)

People used the word "god" to describe creatures that are immortal.

And the Bible was written in large part by those people. There are numerous other attributes, as well.

This does not make these creatures God or a God. Immortality is but one attribute of God. There is ONE God, uncreated and unmade, under who ALL things exist, including creatures that He has created as immortal.

This is not biblical. This is an extra-biblical set of inferences guided by a specific philosophical backdrop.

Angels, being immortal creatures, fallen angels being called demons, but still creatures.

Since when does being a creature preclude something from being a god? No one is saying angels are God the Father, they're just saying they're also gods. That's what the Bible confirms multiple times.

The early Hebrews suffered repeatedly from pagan ideas of God, with beliefs that included accepting pagan gods as real, only inferior to their own God.

So when the author of 1 Corinthians 10 quotes Deut 32:17 and says that pagans are sacrificing not to God the Father, but to devils (called "gods" in Deuteronomy, of course), he's suffering from a misguided pagan idea?

They saw events as indicative that their God was superior to other gods, such as victory in battle. Eventually they were brought to the true understanding of God, and rejected all other "gods" as non-existent.

Where did this happen? I don't see it anywhere in the Bible.

What I see in the Mormon understanding of this development, is that we should all go back to accepting pagan gods as real, but inferior. It isn't an argument that I find compelling. :)

Dogmatism rarely finds anything outside of its own boundaries compelling.

Well, Mormons can rarely take Christian arguments seriously, and often reply with assertions that have no meaning. So. Have a good day! :)

[_maklelan]

The absolute attributes of God are those that have respect to His being independent of His relationship to anything else. The so called gods in your list certainly are not self existent.

The notion of self-existence is absolutely foreign to every single author whose work appears in the Bible. It developed after around 125 CE when the apologists started accommodating the gospel to broader Greco-Roman literary and intellectual conventions in order to make it palatable to the leaders and the intelligentsia that would guarantee its facilitation and perpetuation.

The Christian God’s being is self-existent or underived. His is a self-caused existence. His existence is independent of everything else. The self-existence of God is implied in the name "Jehovah," which means "the existing one," and also in the expression "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14), which signifies that it is God’s nature to be.
The eternity of God, which falls in the second class of attributes, also implies His self-existence. If God has existed forever, then His existence is a necessary, underived, self-caused existence. Self-existence is a mystery that is incomprehensible to man; yet a denial of it would involve us in a greater mystery. If there is not in the universe some self-existent person or thing, then the present order of things came into existence out of nothing without cause or Creator. They could not have been the product of mere energy, for energy is the property either of matter or of life. And since science has proved that matter is not eternal, we are left to assume an eternal, and therefore, a self-existent person as an explanation of the present order of things.

You're still arguing that the gods are not God, which, as I have already pointed out, is a meaningless tautology. You have yet to give me a single reason why I should reject the category of "god" that is delineated within the Bible itself.

[_maklelan]

Well, Mormons can rarely take Christian arguments seriously, and often reply with assertions that have no meaning. So. Have a good day! :)

So you're saying that my comment about the author of 1 Cor 10:20 quoting Deut 32:17 and saying sacrifices to idols are really sacrifices to devils is a meaningless assertion? That's a demonstrable face, madeleine. Do you disagree? Does your Bible not have 1 Cor 10:20 in it?

[_madeleine]

Well, Mormons can rarely take Christian arguments seriously, and often reply with assertions that have no meaning. So. Have a good day! :)

So you're saying that my comment about the author of 1 Cor 10:20 quoting Deut 32:17 and saying sacrifices to idols are really sacrifices to devils is a meaningless assertion? That's a demonstrable face, madeleine. Do you disagree? Does your Bible not have 1 Cor 10:20 in it?

Pagan gods are false gods, ie, not gods at all, therefore, devils. If you believe pagan gods are truly gods, then I think the point has been made.