Wednesday, 01 July 2009

  • Are Mormons Christians?

    I just graduated from a Christian high school. In that school, I had three friends who were Mormons. They considered themselves Christians, but from everything that I had been taught, Mormons are not Christians but only people who use some of the Bible sometimes. I noticed that these people were a lot nicer then a lot of the other people at my school and also seemed to be more serious in their relationship with Christ.

    I made friends with one of them so I started asking him what he believes in regard to Jesus and God. He told me that He believed that Jesus died on the cross to die for our sins and that God raised Him to life on the third day. He said that He has accepted Jesus as his personal saviour and believes that God raised Him from the dead.

    This boggled me. I wasn't sure if I could say he was a Christian or not because he was a Mormon, but he seemed like he was right on. The only difference to the story of the cross is that he does not believe in the trinity. He believes that God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit are three different beings and are not one.

    Are Mormons Christians?

Related Posts

Comments (289)

  • J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga

    @Thad - No, not at all. Mormonism still can defend itself, despite what you or I or anyone else here says.

    History points out that the trinity doctrine didn't surface and wasn't widely accepted until AD 325 at the Council of Nicea. The creeds that were drawn up flew in the face of everything that the Savior taught about God's nature.

    We believe, with other Christians, in three divine persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and believe that they are three separate persons. The accounts of Jesus' baptism at the hand of John the Baptist, for example, report that when Jesus emerged from the Jordan River, the Spirit of God de-scended like a dove from the sky, while the Father's "voice from heaven" testified to the divine sonship of Jesus (see Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22).

    The Gospels also record several statements from Jesus indicating that he saw himself as separate from God the Father and subordinate to him, for example, Matthew 20:23; 26:39; John 5:19; 8:17-18; 14:28; 17:1-5.

    As far as John 17 goes, it's one of the plainest chapters of scripture regarding the Godhead. Throughout that entire chapter, Jesus pleads with the Father that the Apostles (and any one else who is a disciple of Christ) that they [we] might know God as He did [does]. First, it shows how He is separate from the Father in the sense that He is praying to Him. If Jesus was both the Father and the Son, it would be kind of redundant to pray to yourself as many times as He did throughout His mortal life. In this particular instance, He points out how He and the Father are one. While they are separate persons and beings, they are perfectly united in their goal. If the Savior was the same being as His Father, then when the Savior prayed "that these may be one and I, Father, art in thee", then it would not be a 3-in-1 god but a 15-in-1 god. That verse points out that it would be impossible for them to be the same substance, but they could be one in purpose and unity.
  • Thad

    @J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - The Teaching of the Trinity was accepted by the early Church, including Jesus, but the 'formula' for the Trinity was really only truly  formalised in the Nicaean Creed. The Trinity is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, Evan. Mormons believe NOT in the biblical version of  the Trinity (all three 'persons' are of the one essence/substance); the LDS church believes in three separate 'persons' as in people or individuals. Regarding Jesus being separate from the father or the Spirit, the Bible dpes teach this; the problem is how best to translate the concept of 'person', when defining the Godhead (Trinity). Was God subordinate, while on this earth, to the Father - absolutely.  One of the famous verses, where Jesus refers to the father as 'greater' than He is (John 14:28) But, if you look at the context, you will see how He spoke as a man, whilst still retaining His deity. The verses speaks of the father being 'greater' not 'better' - in the same way that the President of the USA is greater, by virtue of his position or status or responsibility, but he, as a human being (his nature) isn't better.  He subordinated Himself, according to the will of the Father, to die for our sins on the Cross. A 'spirit' couldn't do this...only flesh. Your example ignores the issue of Jesus' incarnation (becoming flesh); He prayed as a man, but still remained God - in the same way that, as a son, you are no less a man...or a father...or a husband.....Context is very important here, to be able to fully understand what is being said.


    God bless,


    Thad
  • J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga

    @Thad - Trinitarian doctrines sought to elevate God's oneness or unity, ultimately in some cases describing Jesus as homoousious (of the same substance) with the Father in order to preclude any claim that Jesus was not fully divine. LDS understanding, formulated by latter-day revelation through Joseph Smith, rejects the idea that Jesus or any other personage loses individuality by attaining Godhood or by standing in divine and eternal relationships with other exalted beings.

    It is a matter of record that the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is a postbiblical development-- it is simply not found in the New Testament. This is a Contradiction..They say the LDS added to the Bible but they themselves added the Doctrine of the Nicene Creed.

    Subsequent to the Nicean Council, Constantine ordered the books of Arius to be burned and "a reign of terror" was proclaimed for all those who did not conform to the "new, official 'Christian' line. '" Constantine's edict declares:"Understand by this present statute, Novations, Valentinians, Arcionites, Paulinians...with what a tissue of lies and vanities, withwhat destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning.... Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet... and that these should be handed over immediately to the Catholic Church." In short, Constantine, in collusion with the bishops who supported him, effectively usurped the office of Messiah— an office previously reserved only for Jesus.

    Trinitarian doctrines sought to elevate God's oneness or unity, ultimately in some cases describing Jesus as homoousious (of the same substance) with the Father in order to preclude any claim that Jesus was not fully divine. LDS understanding, formulated by latter-day revelation through Joseph Smith, rejects the idea that Jesus or any other personage loses individuality by attaining Godhood or by standing in divine and eternal relationships with other exalted beings.

    "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:9-11)

    In other words, the words that the Savior told Joseph in the grove in 1820 still hold true: the creeds are an abomination in His sight.
  • Thad

    @J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - 


    Hi Evan!


    You mentioned the Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicaea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicaea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of defining the true God for all of Christianity and eliminating all the confusion, controversy, and contention within Christ’s church. The Council of Nicaea affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ, Evan,  and established an official definition of the Trinity—the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

    Constantine, a converted Christian (although, that’s open to debate), called for a council meeting to be held in Nicaea with the bishops of the Christian church to resolve escalating quarrels and controversy mounting to a bitter degree of disunity among the church leadership concerning theological issues. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine’s rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard-fought, “out of hand” arguing over doctrinal differences. He saw it not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well. Therefore, at the Council of Nicaea, Constantine demanded that the Christians settle their internal disagreements and become Christ-like agents who could bring new life into a troubled, beaten-down empire. Constantine felt “called” to use his authority to help bring about the unity, peace, and love, all for which Christ stands. He and the bishops had reason to worry about the future survival of Christianity within the Roman world empire, let alone the survival of his world empire. The Council of Nicaea, led by Emperor Constantine, was the meeting to settle differences, to become like-minded, all to the glory of Christ.

    The main theological issue and focus had always been about Christ. Since the end of the Apostolic Age and beginning of the Church Age, saints began questioning, debating, fighting, and separating over the question, “Who is the Christ?” Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created / made or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with Father God, or less and lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the One and only True God, or are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the One true God? “True God of True God,” “One Being, Three Persons”, a tri-unity called “Trinity”? Jesus said, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15).

    Once the Nicaea Council meeting was underway Constantine demanded that the 300 bishops make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. Constantine commanded them to create a “creed” doctrine that all of Christianity would follow and obey a doctrine that would be called the “Nicene Creed,” upheld by the Church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position for the church. The Council of Nicaea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church. However, the Council of Nicaea did not invent these doctrines. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible taught, and systematized the doctrines.

    The New Testament taught that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped and trusted, which was/is to say He is co-equally God and man. The New Testament forbids the worship of angels (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 22:8, 9) but commands worship of Jesus. The Apostle Paul tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation just as one calls on Jehovah, Yahweh (Joel 2:32; Romans 10:9-13). “Jesus is God overall” (Romans 9:5), and our God and Saviour (Titus 2:13). Faith in Jesus’ Deity is basic to Paul’s testimony and theology.

    John’s Gospel declares Jesus the be the Divine eternal Logos, agent of creation and source of life and light (John 1:1-5, 9); the "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6); an advocate with heavenly Father (1 John 2:1-2); sovereign (Revelation 1:5); the Rider on a white horse (Revelation 19:11-16); and the totality of the Son of God from the beginning to the end (Revelation 22:13). The author of Hebrews reveals the full deity of Jesus through His perfection as the most high priest, Melchizedek (Hebrews 1; Hebrews 7:1-3), and the full humanity (Hebrews 2). The Divine-human Saviour is the Christian's object of faith, hope, and love.

    The Council of Nicaea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicaea affirmed the Apostles' teaching of who, exactly, Christ is—the One true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit.


    I'll tackle the heresy of Arius next...if you're Ok with that...thanks


    God bless,


     


    Thad



    A great book to read on this is listed here: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=20812
  • Thad

    @J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - 


    Hi Evan!


    I do a lot of teaching on the nature of God/the Godhead/Trinity, so I know a fair bit on this subject of Arianism, a heresy promoted and promulgated by the modern-day Arians – the Jehovah’s Witnesses.


    Arianism is named for Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D. One of the earliest and probably the most important item of debate among early Christians was the subject of Christ’s deity. Was Jesus truly God in the flesh or was Jesus a created being? Was Jesus God or just like God? Arius held that Jesus was created by God as the first act of creation, that Jesus was the crowning glory of all creation. Arianism, then, is the view that Jesus was a created being with divine attributes, but was not divine in and of Himself.

    Arianism misunderstands references to Jesus’ being tired (John 4:6) and not knowing the date of His return (Matthew 24:36). Yes, it is difficult to understand how God could be tired and/or not know something, but relegating Jesus to a created being is not the answer. Jesus was fully God, but He was also fully human. Jesus did not become a human being until the incarnation. Therefore, Jesus’ limitations as a human being have no impact on His divine nature or eternality.

    A second major misinterpretation in Arianism is the meaning of “firstborn” (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15-20). Arians understand “firstborn” in these verses to mean that Jesus was “born” or “created” as the first act of creation. This is not the case. Jesus Himself proclaimed His self-existence and eternality (John 8:58; 10:30). John 1:1-2 tells us that Jesus was “in the beginning with God.” In Bible times, the firstborn son of a family was held in great honour (Genesis 49:3; Exodus 11:5; 34:19; Numbers 3:40; Psalm 89:27; Jeremiah 31:9). It is in this sense that Jesus is God’s firstborn. Jesus is the preeminent member of God’s family. Jesus is the anointed one, the “Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).



    After nearly a century of debate at various early church councils, the Christian church officially denounced Arianism as a false doctrine. Since that time, Arianism has never been accepted as a viable doctrine of the Christian faith. Arianism has not died, however. Arianism has continued throughout the centuries in varying forms. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and – as you know, yourself - Mormons of today hold a very Arian-like position on Christ’s nature. Just as the early church did, we must denounce any and all attacks on the deity of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, Evan.
  • Thad

    @J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - Hi Evan!


     I found this sentence of yours very telling - "LDS understanding, formulated by latter-day revelation through Joseph Smith, rejects the idea that Jesus or any other personage loses individuality by attaining Godhood or by standing in divine and eternal relationships with other exalted beings."  It demonstrates that, regarding this subject, the LDS church doesn't rely on the Bible, Church history, the Church fathers, the various Councils,  or even their own Scriptures - but the word of Joseph Smith!!


    It's interesting that Joseph Smith claimed that there are 3 gods!!!  He proclaimed: "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).


    He went on to compound this by saying: "Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all," (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474). "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 5). So, three gods weren't enough...plural gods were the order of the day!!!!! The Bible makes it clear that there is only one God.


    Even his concept of 'god' was totally foreign to the Bible, Evan. He said: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity,  I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).



    Do you go by Joseph Smith, but by biblical teachings...remember, it was Joseph Smith, who said Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old.  (The Young Woman's Journal, vol. 3, p. 263-264. See reprint in Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, p. 4.)


    Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to believe, trust or follow him regarding the Trinity, God, or any other doctrine, Evan?


    God bless,


    Thad 
  • J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga

    @Thad - Now we know your sources! Got to love the Tanners. I like what Hugh Nibley had to say about them and others like them: "We need more Anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes"

    Here is an elaboration of what I said: Mormonism rejects the Trinity as it was dictated in the early Church Councils, and accepts modern-day revelation as a companion to revealed scriptures. The vast majority of non-LDS Christians usually rely solely on the Bible. In doing so, they have set their own standard, and if the Trinity cannot be proven to have biblical precedence then it must therefore be declared heretical.

    Words central to the orthodox understanding of the Trinity like coequal, consubstantial, and circumincession, or the word trinity itself, for that matter are not found in scripture. The term trinity (Latin trinitas) was first used by Tertullian around the beginning of the third century A.D. The Nicene and Chalcedonian Fathers tried to find scriptural terms for their new formulae but were unable to do so.

    Latter-day Saints are non-Trinitarian Henotheists who worship One True God while acknowledging the existence of other Gods. We believe that Jesus Christ is a separate entity from the One True God (The Father), while at the same time, being himself Divine and worthy of the title "God." Likewise, the Holy Ghost is also a separate entity which maintains a position within the Godhead. It should be noted, that while the Trinity is not a biblical term or concept, the Godhead most certainly is.

    Joseph Smith declared, “I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.” (HC, 5:181.) On yet another occasion he publicly stated, “Many persons think a prophet must be a great deal better than anybody else... I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.” (HC, 5:401.) In a letter to Oliver Cowdery, intended for publication, Joseph wrote, “I do not, nor never [sic] have, pretended to be any other than a man ‘subject to passions,’ and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk.” (Latter-day Saints Messenger & Advocate, November 6, 1834.)


    Also, there is no evidence from Joseph Smith's day that he ever said such a thing as Moon Men. The sole source for this claim is one person's journal entry from 1881 that was published in 1892. Joseph died in 1844. Can we trust an alleged reminiscence separated by decades and unattested by anyone else?
  • Thad

    @J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - Hi Evan!


    First of all, my sources aren't the Tanners...just one quote from them. Secondly, the Bible makes it clear in the NT and OT that God is a Trinity...a biblical Trinity, not a 3-god Mormon 'trinity'. This is proven over and over again. Christians haven't set their own standard...God has done that, through His word...the Bible. If Mormonism wants to reject the Bible and set up its own standards - as it has done - then it is at odds with Christianity and, ultimately, God. If, according to your logic, words not found in the Bible are false, then where is the word 'quorum' or the expression 'eternal progression' (in terms of salvation), or 'Mormon', or 'Book of Mormon', any of the names of the Mormon prophets.....or, even, 'Bible' found in the Bible?????


    Regarding Gods, the Bible (e.g. Isaiah) shows that there were no gods before or after God...and God never knew them...unless you happen to be a man, before you become a God, as in Mormonism...and the Bible makes it clear that God is not man and that God never changes, and had always existed  unless you're a Mormon god...


    In terms of Joseph Smith, I've given you the quote and reference...I can provide more, from Mormon sources on this very subject. If you chose not to believe Mormon sources, then. I guess, your mind is closed, and you appear to have issues with even Mormonism,  Evan.


    God bless,


    Thad
  • J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga

    @Thad - Actually, a closer look at the Bible shows that Athanasus was the wrong one. Let's look again at John 1:1-2, shall we?

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."


    Clearly, John is not saying here "God the Father and Christ are the exact same substance, essence, or being." He did say twice that Christ was with God, a clear indicator of a separate nature. So what did John mean? There are several passages that clear this up (much more than support the concept of the 3-in-1 god). One is Phillipians 2:6: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (see also 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, Hebrews 1:3).

    John is speaking of Christ's divinity. He has the same status of God, but is not God the Father, not in essence, substance, being, or anything else that you may claim.
    Just to drive the point further, look at Matthew 19:16-17. Christ cleared this one up once and for all when a man called Him, "Good Master." Jesus rebuked him and said, "there is none good but one, that is, God." If Jesus was the same substance and being as God the Father, why does He appear to deny it here?

    Take a look at John 8:17-18 where He literally declares that He and the Father are two separate witnesses to His divine calling as the Messiah.
    I would go so far to say that the Bible is absolutely silent about the 3-in-1 god. You seem to adhere to the Athanasian Creed. If that creed teaches anything (and if you have read it, you would know that it's full of contradictions and its "and yet's"), it teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is "incomprehensible", which the dictionary defines as "something that which is not understood or known". If that's true, then how can any of us have "life and godliness," which Peter points out can only be received through the knowledge of the Lord (see 2 Peter 1:3)? Verse 8 also stresses the fruits of such knowledge. What about what the Savior prayed for in John 17:3? How can any knowledge come from something that cannot be known? Can anyone know something that is "incomprehensible"? If that is true, then according to the Bible neither you or I can have any hope of eternal life!
  • J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga

    @Thad - The moon men thing is not the kind of thing that ought to make anyone lose an iota of faith or sleep.

    Since Anti’s and LDS Bashers got to you FIRST, you believe their versions of several fabricated misrepresentations, INSTEAD of first person testimony.

    But suppose Joseph did think that people lived on the moon - so what? Many people did in the early 1800s. There had been a newspaper hoax in Joseph's day in which it was claimed that Sir John Herschel had discovered that the moon was inhabited by people. If Joseph or Brigham Young or other Church leaders believed such errant reports, does it make those men false prophets? If President Eyring (the First Counselor in the First Presidency), in the course of routine conversation, describes atoms in terms of the old model with spherical electrons in fixed orbits around a nucleus, has he lost credibility as an Apostle chosen by God? Did any Old Testament prophet show a knowledge of science close to that of President Eyring, or a knowledge that would be acceptable to the hard-hearted Bible critics of today? Did any of them grasp the nature of subatomic particles, of relativity, or - much easier - did they know the value of pi or proper ways to classify birds and mammals? If President Monson as a matter of opinion says that he expects the Green Bay Packers to go to the Superbowl, should we reject him if the Packers fall short? We do not believe that prophets will have divinely guided opinions on every matter 24 hours a day.

    But back to the allege moon story. Even if Joseph was fooled by a false report in the paper, does that make him any less of a prophet than was Joshua, who was fooled by a false report from the Gibeonites in Joshua 9? Was he any less of a prophet than the blind patriarch Isaac, who was fooled by his son Jacob into giving a blessing meant for his brother (Genesis 27:12, 35)? (See also 1 Kings 13 for an example of a prophet being fooled by the lies of others.) Remember, prophets don't speak prophetically in every little thing.
  • Thad

    @J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - But, Joseph Smith was speaking as God's 'Annointed'  prophet...he got it wrong...and the Old and New Testament makes it clear how we should deal with false prophets. Remember, Joseph Smith got quite a few prophecies wrong, Evan. By the way, Joseph Smith didn't get misled by a newspaper report, the newspaper reported on his revelation/prophecy. He was the sources of it...not the paper. No-one got to me, Evan...I have several friends, who are Mormons...I'm not out to humiliate them or bad mouth them. We respect each other, and several of them have spoken to their bishop about me and they, and he, has wanted me to join up and I would have a very good and trusted position in the church. But, as I tell them, answer these few queries of mine and we're good to go....I'm still waiting....and they are honest enough to tell me that they can't answer me. These are men in their 70's with patriarchal blessing, and have held every position in the church at stake and ward level. I have been studying Mormonism for longer than you've been born, and I study and work with...ONLY...LDS sources, when I reach my conclusions.


    God bless,


    Thad
  • Thad

    @J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga -  The first thing to ask about this is when was 'the beginning', Evan? The second thing is, when it says, "the Word (Jesus) was God", how could that be any clearer about the nature of Jesus. Jesus = Elohim. John IS saying that Jesus and the Father are of the same substance, being (not person) and substance. In terms of the Matthew quote, this was Jesus speaking as a Man, in His incarnated state, and pointing the person to God and not to man or mankind (personkind/peoplekind).  In John 8, any Christian would agree with you that the Father and the Son...and the Holy Ghost are three witnesses to the divine calling of Jesus as the Messiah/Saviour/Redeemer. I don't adhere to the Athanasian Creed because it describes the Trinity, I agree with it, because it reflects Christian/biblical/Christ's teachings on the Trinity, Evan. In terms of incomprehensibility = non-existence...if I were to discuss the Laws of Thermodynamics in terms of matter, energy and quantum physics, I suspect you may not be understand it; this is not because you're dumb, but because it is quite complex. To you, it may be incomprehensible, but this doesn't make it nonsense or non-existent. Before people knew about or understood the laws of gravity, this didn't mean that they didn't exist. In other words and thing may not be comprehended...but it may still be apprehended.



    God bless,


    Thad
  • Singersaint@xanga

    I am a Mormon.  Baptism is a beginning that is intrinsic with rebirth--it is all one needs. With that to start, we place our lives into the hands of God the Son. The rest is a matter of working sins out of one's daily life, and tuning into the spirt of the living God, that is in Jesus Christ, Our Lord, who houses Himself within our very hearts. ...Love, Sande
  • anonymous
    Gerald R. McDermott, the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College and author, with Robert Millet, of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, addressed the question of whether Latter-day Saints are Christians in an article "Is Mormonism Christian?" published in First Things magazine (October 2008).


     


    By examining Professor McDermott's critique in light of the Bible, one can see that Mormonism differs from historic Christian orthodoxy to the degree that historic Christian orthodoxy diverges from Biblical truths. 


     


    http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2mH1gj1Vq-BYjczOWYyMDItNDE5NC00YzAxLTgxZDUtZGZhN2IxMzc2MjIz&hl=en


     


    Most points where sectarian Christians have problems with LDS doctrine illustrate the departure of sectarianism from the Bible.

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.

About the Author

Tags

Who recommended?

Minis

Who gave the eProps?

2 eProps from: