Posted on 10/10/2011 7:50:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The news is abuzz with the question of Mormonism, cults, and Christianity.
A cult is often understood as a religious group with strange beliefs out of the cultural mainstream (which many today increasingly consider biblical Christianity). Since "cult" is difficult to define, scholars tend not to use it.
However, the question of what beliefs characterize Christianity is not a new debate, and is one we should not shy away from if words and definitions matter.
Many people are shocked at the idea that some pastors believe Mormons are not Christians-- "judgementalism" is decried and "intolerance" proclaimed. Yet, as that may be new news to some, the view that Mormons are not Christians is historic and very widely held view.
In 2007, LDS spokesman Michael Otterson provided a forthright article in the On Faith section of the Washington Post / Newsweek. He explains,
The question, "Are Mormons Christian?" is a good starting point for this discussion. When some conservative Protestants say Mormons aren't Christian, it is deeply offensive to Latter-day Saints. Yet when Latter-day Saints assert their Christianity, some of those same Christians bitterly resent it. Why? Because both sides are using the same terms to describe different things...
When someone says Mormons aren't Christian... he or she usually means that Mormons don't embrace the traditional interpretation of the Bible that includes the Trinity. "Our Jesus" is somehow different from "their Jesus." Further, they mean that some Mormon teachings are so far outside Christian orthodoxy of past centuries that they constitute almost a new religion.
Otterson is correct here. For evangelicals and others, "Christian" is more than a self-identified label. It is hard for people in tolerant America to hear, "I know you SAY you are a Christian, but you are not." Yet, basic to evangelicalism (and historic Protestantism) is that some people are Christians, some people are not, and not all people who think that they are Christians actually are.
"Christianity" is not based on what you say about yourself or your beliefs. "Christianity" must be connected to how your beliefs agree with the beliefs of biblical Christianity.
With Mormonism becoming a major topic of discussion, about a year ago LifeWay Research decided to ask Protestant pastors their view. According to our random sample, most pastors feel strongly Mormons are not Christians. After several reporters asked if we had some data, I decided to release it. You can download the full report here: Protestant Pastor Views of Mormonism.
The survey polled 1,000 American Protestant pastors asking them to respond to the statement, "I personally consider Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) to be Christians." It's a forthright question some will find offensive, but it will be an increasingly important question.
Three-quarters of Protestant pastors (75%) disagree with the statement, "I personally consider Mormons... to be Christians," including 60 percent who strongly disagree and 15 percent who somewhat disagree. Just 11 percent somewhat agree, 6 percent strongly agree and 9 percent do not know.
In other words, the view that "Mormons are not Christians" is the widely and strongly held view among Protestant pastors. That does not meant they do not respect Mormons as persons, share their values on family, and have much in common. Yet, they simply view Mormonism as a distinct religion outside of basic teachings of Christianity. Many of these pastors may know Mormons consider themselves Christians, but Protestant pastors overwhelmingly do not consider them such.
I know this is an unpleasant question to many, and one that some will use as a hammer on evangelicals, but let me encourage a different view.
The fundamental issue is: how divergent can your views be and still be a part of a faith group (in contrast to forming a new one). Can you believe, for instance, that Muhammad is not the prophet and still call yourself a Muslim? The vast majority of Muslims would say you cannot. For Christians, calling yourself a Christian while not believing that God has always existed as the triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is as inconceivable.
This is not simply a conservative evangelical Christian view. Methodists have said "the LDS Church is not a part of the historic, apostolic tradition of the Christian faith." Even Roman Catholics (hardly conservative Protestants) don't recognize LDS baptism.
As I said before, a cult is difficult to define. But Christianity has been defined a certain way for centuries. There is no reason to be shocked that devout Christians consider those with a different view of Christ as non-Christians. In the current cultural climate it may be uncomfortable, but it is anything but shocking.
The word — CULT does not describe Mormonism.
NON-CHRISTIAN is the more appropriate term for it.
There is no such and never was such a language as Reformed Egyptian -- the only evidence given is scribbles -- and it seems strange that Israelites who had left egypt 400+ years earlier should revert to using the Coptic language in any "reformed" way and the one used is completely unlike the demotic of late Egypt.
The "Book of abraham" given as proof was actually a cut-out of the Egyptian book of the Dead showing the god Anubis.
J Smith was the L Ron Hubbard of his day, but his fiction cannot hold know in the light of discoveries made since the late 1800s in Egypt (remember - hieroglyphs had not yet been deciphered during J Smith's time) and the strides made in genetical and linguistic studies
If they want to make up their own religion, fine, but J Smith's fiction is demonstrably false and has been for decades -- Scientology will have to wait until we fly to the stars :)
Bluntly it’s not “even Catholics cannot consider them Christian” — orthodox belief is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. The Mormons don’t believe in that. They are not Christian — neither are other groups outside the Apostolic Church who deny the Trinity.
you have a way of knowing by seeing the Assyrian Church which was already separated -- being in Parthia. Yet this believes pretty much the same as what is in the creed and completely rejects the Mormon 3 gods philosophy
Separate gods -- yet that negates the Old Testament that God is ONE -- sh'ma yisrael, adonai elohanu, adonai ECHAD. There is ONE God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If one holds to these being 3 godS, then one has to reject the OT completely. If Mormons wish to do that, so be it, but they are hence not Christian but their own separate religion.
Catholicism and Protestant sects rely on the man-made Fourth Century Creeds promulgated by the Emperor Constantine.
Constantine introduced a term, homousious, which defined the Son as “consubstantial” (one being) with the Father. Neither term or anything like it is in the New Testament. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
RE: Catholicism and Protestant sects rely on the man-made Fourth Century Creeds promulgated by the Emperor Constantine.
_______________________________
You can always repeat this myth, but this is nothing new. Dan Brown tried to popularize this myth in his book, the Da Vinci Code.
Such an utterly absurd claim is so easily refuted that it makes one wonder at the audacity of someone who could collect millions for putting it in print. The Council of Nicaea met in AD 325. More than two centuries earlier the following words were written by Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch:
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has been blessed in greatness through the fulness of God the Father, ordained before time to be always resulting in permanent glory, unchangeably united and chosen in true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our God, to the church which is in Ephesus of Asia, worthy of felicitation: abundant greetings in Jesus Christ and in blameless joy.” (Ephesians 1)
Jesus Christ, our God? How could Ignatius come to this conclusion when the deity of Christ would not be invented as a political ploy by Constantine for another two centuries? There is only one answer: Brown’s two years of “research” wasn’t nearly as exhaustive as he’d like us to believe. Here are a few more quotes from Ignatius:
My spirit is but an offscouring of the cross, which is a scandal to the unbelieving, but to us it is salvation and life eternal. Where is the wise man? Where is the disputer? Where is the boasting of those who are called understanding? For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to a dispensation of God, from the seed of David, yes, but of the Holy Spirit as well. (Ephesians 18)
The ancient kingdom was utterly destroyed when God appeared in the likeness of man unto newness of everlasting life; (Ephesians 19).
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her that has found mercy in the majest of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that exist, by faith and love toward Jesus Christ our God; even to her that has the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans. (Romans 1).
I glorify Jesus Christ the God gave to you such wisdom, for I know that you are fully established in immovable faith, just as if you have been nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, both in flesh and in spirit, firmly established in love in the blood of Christ, completely persuaded with reference to our Lord that He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but the Son of God according to God’s will and power, truly born from a virgin, having been baptized by John in order to by Him fulfill all righteousness. (Smyrneans 1).
There is one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ephesians 7)
Surely these citations were not difficult to find. They are not hidden away in some gnostic library somewhere. Only a few moments of research would have uncovered them. Perhaps Brown wasn’t looking for information that is contrary to his thesis? But let’s allow another bishop, Melito, bishop of Sardis, this time a mere 150 or so years prior to Nicaea, likewise testify to Brown’s error:
And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on whose account the earth trembled!
He who hung the earth in place is hanged.
He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place.
He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree.
The Sovereign is insulted.
God is murdered.
The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.
This is the One who made the heavens and the earth,
and formed mankind in the beginning,
The One proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets,
The One enfleshed in a virgin,
The One hanged on a tree,
The One buried in the earth,
The One raised from the dead
and who went up into the heights of heaven,
The One sitting at the right hand of the Father,
The One having all authority to judge and save,
Through Whom the Father made the things which exist from the beginning of time.
This One is the Alpha and the Omega;
This One is the beginning and the end;
the beginning indescribable and the end incomprehensible.
This One is the Christ.
This One is the King.
This One is Jesus.
This One is the Leader.
This One is the Lord.
This One is the One who rose from the dead.
This One is the One sitting on the right hand of the Father.
He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.
To him be the glory and the power forever. Amen.
So when you hear someone who actually knows something about early Christianity rambling on about how utterly absurd The Da Vinci Code really is, now you see why. The book is filled with this kind of completely false argumentation.
The fact that you simply re-state that absurd thesis does not make it any less absurd.
Its very core is historically false, and hence, its branches are likewise rotten. It is so very sad to see millions confirmed in their disbelief by this kind of empty rhetoric.
RE: Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
_____________
The Council EXPLAINS the Trinity in order to prevent the faithful from falling for aberrant or heretical beliefs masking as Christianity ( like Mormonism ). In other words, the Councils DID NOT INVENT anything that is not already taught in Scripture, God’s Word. They acted as a GUIDE to believers so that they can differentiate between orthodox and aberrant Theology.
The Father is God
The Son is God (John 1:1-18; 5:18; 8:58; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8-12; 2Peter 1:1)
The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 2Cor 3:17-18. Implied in - Mark 3:29; John 15:26; 1Cor 6:19-20; Heb 9:14)
and the Three are One (Acts 17:29; Rom 1:20; Col 2:9, 1 John 5:7)
So, the Councils DID NOT INVENT anything new. They simply expounded what God’s Word already teaches.
If Mormons want to claim the mantle of Christianity, they are free to make that claim ( after all this is a free country ). Just don’t expect those who adhere to the Nicene Creed to accept their claims.
I hope you realize you are painting yourself into a corner with this view. Because if any part of the Nicene Creed is wrong, then the Mormons are right. If the Nicene Creed is 100% infallible, then they're wrong. It is that simple.
Whereas if you accept the Anabaptist view (most of the Nicene Creed was probably right, but we can't use it as a litmus test for Christianity), it still holds out the possibility that others may be right.
I'm just not willing to put all my stock into that something put together by a committee called together by a civil authority is 100% infallible.
RE: . Because if any part of the Nicene Creed is wrong,
THAT’s A BIG *IF*. The Nicene Cred would be wrong if you can show that it does not adhere to scripture and apostolic tradition.
RE then the Mormons are right.
Not necessarily, there are other heretical theology that we have to consider -— Jehovah’s Witness, Unitarianism, etc.
RE: If the Nicene Creed is 100% infallible, then they’re wrong. It is that simple.
I agree with this. That is, IF I accept the premise. But then even if you could show that the Nicene Creed is wrong ( i.e., opposed to God’s Word ), that does not automatically make Mormonism correct.
RE: I’m just not willing to put all my stock into that something put together by a committee called together by a civil authority is 100% infallible.
Again, you can always test what this committee teaches with what SCRIPTURE and APOSTOLIC TRADITION teaches.
If what this committee ( or in your words, CLUB ), teaches are opposed to what scripture and apostolic tradition teaches, then your suspicions are valid.
Since you have not done that, your suspicions are to be suspected.
The standard attack on Christians by many “new revelation” faiths, of that the nicean creed is required it is not.
The Bible is required. That First Council of Nicea (325) restated what is in the Bible is just that a restatement.
The claim that Nicea changed things is putting the cart before the horse.
Eternal progression is not found in the bible either - or the bom for that matter - you point is irrelvant.
Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
In response to cults and false teachings bot. The Trinity was taught - by name - over 100 years before Nicea and the doctine was derived by the teachings found in the NT. Those councils confirmed the historic teaching of the church - not creating something out of thin air.
Tell us bot - was your heavenly father once a man as was his father, etc.?
I've examined Mormon interpretations of New Testament scriptures where Jesus is continuously referred to as the Son of God, accounts of him praying to God the Father and the account of his baptism where God the Father speaks from the heavens and the Holy Ghost descends upon Jesus in the form of a dove.
Said scriptural interpretations are just as logical as the Trinitarian view in the scriptures you cherry pick, if not more so. Mormons explain away your interpretaion by saying these scriptures speak symbolically, that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose.
Trinitarians explain away the Mormon view either by (1)claiming it is logical that Jesus would pray to himself in a different form (God), (2)refusing to address the issue, (3)making the same "symbolic" view which Mormons use on the Trinitarian friendly scriptures or (4)screaming "cult!"
I choose to accept the middle position, the Anabaptist view, which rejects the notion that a majority of organized religions can selectively exclude sects which do not subscribe to their orthodoxy from the Christian club, reserving this right for Jesus Christ himself.
I've also observed that extreme Protestant sects (notably those of Calvinist school of thought) which are so quick to exclude others from the Christian club who don't subscribe to their Orthodoxy, do not get reciprocal treatment from those thus excluded.
The foaming rants against non-orthodox views were exactly what led to the 30 years war, which devastated Europe, the banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts and the Salem witch trials.
The only minds which they change are those of the droves of people which abandon organized religion altogether. A few of them remain faithful to the important concepts of Christianity as did Roger Williams. But most drift off into some substitute secular religion such as statism or statism with a somewhat Christian bent, like my old sect, the ELCA.
Back to the mormons inserting modalism into the Trinitarian definition. Come on V-man, at least be more accurate. Such a description is a strawman and displays a gross ignorance of what the doctrine actually contains and at worst deliberately deceptive.
(2)refusing to address the issue,
Where? Certainly not here on FR v-man. Refusing to address a doctrinal issue is more common among mormons - such as the necessity of heavenly father being a man before progressing to godhood, and did his 'heavenly father' the same.
(3)making the same "symbolic" view which Mormons use on the Trinitarian friendly scriptures or
LOL, you really don't know the defininitions of the doctrine do you..
(4)screaming "cult!"
As opposed to mormons screaming 'bigots' and 'hate speech'?
I choose to accept the middle position, the Anabaptist view, which rejects the notion that a majority of organized religions can selectively exclude sects which do not subscribe to their orthodoxy from the Christian club, reserving this right for Jesus Christ himself.
You haven't been reading your bom lately have you. Smith himself stated that his 'church' was the only true church and all others were apostate and an abomination. You don't get much more excluding than that v-man.
R: FWIW, I’m not interested in proving the Nicene Creed is wrong, nor am I interested in putting all of my faith into the basket that something put together by a committee in a finite amount of time is 100% infallible.
Since Mormons and those of Orhtodox Christian faith BOTH claim to believe Scripture ( both Old and New Testament ), then we ought to judge each other’s beliefs BY SCRIPTURE.
The Nicene Creed ought to be judged by scripture as well and Christians of all ages have done just that. It is totally COMPATIBLE with what Scripture teaches about the nature of God and Jesus Christ.
As for Mormonism being compatible with New Testament scripture, I have to disagree with you.
Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal, uncreated, always existent God that scripture teaches.
According to Mormon theology, Jesus is the brother of all spirits born in heaven. He is also the spirit brother of Lucifer.
According to the Bible, Jesus is NOT the brother of all spirits born in heaven and he is NOT the spirit brother of Lucifer. Lucifer is an angel created by Jesus (who created all angels). Lucifer rebelled against God. Only those that do the will of the Father are considered spiritual brothers and sisters of Jesus (Mark 3:35). Jesus even told some Jews that their spiritual father was the devil (John 8:44).
According to Mormon theology, Jesus was married and had wives. Thus, in Heaven, Jesus will continue to be married to his wives forever.
According to the Bible, Jesus was not married and did not have wives. Jesus said there is no celestial marriage. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).
According to Mormon theology, Jesus was a polygamist (Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, page 259).
According to the Bible, Jesus was not married and did not have wives.
In Mormon theology, in the “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370”, Joseph Smith taught that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist as 3 gods. The Trinity is three separate gods.
According to the Bible, Jesus is not one of 3 gods in the godhead. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God. Jesus is God. There is only 1 God.
According to Mormon theology, in Doctrines and Covenants 130:22, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also”.
According to Doctrines and Covenants section 93, man was co-eternal with God in the beginning.
In 1844, Joseph Smith began teaching that the Book of Abraham teaches that God is but one link in an infinite ancestral chain of Gods stretching back through eternity.
God is only one of innumerable Gods. The Church believes that humans are the literal offspring of God and one of his celestial wives, and because of this we all have the potential to achieve exaltation to divine status.
Smith taught beginning in 1844 that God had a literal father, and that father had a literal father, and so on. Mormons also teach that we existed in heaven with God (our literal Father) as spirits before we became human.
According to the Bible, Jesus teaches us that God is a spirit. Man was not co-eternal with God. Jesus created man. God did not procreate with celestial wives.
According to Mormon theology, Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a created being.
According to the Bible, Jesus did not have a beginning. Jesus is the Eternal God ( John 1:1-5)
Therefore, Mormonism is NOT SCRIPTURAL. The Nicene Creed on the other hand, IS SCRIPTURAL.
Therefore, Mormons cannot be considered true Christians by those who adhere to the historic Christian faith.
Yes, we can be good friends, we can be political allies, we can be good neighbors to each other, but we cannot be spiritual Christian brothers.
Well said. I still have many LDS friends (no LDS family since I was a convert), and while we are friends, they are not my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Actually Mormonism fits all 3 disciplinary definitions of a cult...
Anthropologically - it is a ‘religion’.
Sociologically - it is a ‘high demand group’ that controls the thought processes and details of members lives (like underwear and what they can and cannot read) and also uses typical brainwashing techniques like long sessions of monotone voices and repetitive statements (General conference is a great example), and demonizes those who leave.
Theologically - Mormon theology separates it from historical and theological Christianity, thus making it a theological cult.
And having been one, and being freed from it, it is definitely a NON Christian cult.
f your heart is set on continuously throwing mud at one of the most conservative voting religious sects in America, then I would not only question whether you are really a conservative, I would also question whether you really are a Christian.
- - - —
Fail. They aren’t the most conservative sect, more lies from LDS HQ.
Fine by me. I agree to disagree with you on the last point only.
Preserve the constitution and the religious freedoms we enjoy as Americans. Vanquish the Islamofascists and their godless libtard allies who pose a real threat to us all.
When that is done or when Christ comes again (whichever is first), we can sort out your 4th issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.