Having been born, and raised LDS, and until relatively recently, a believer in it, I can say, without qualification, that Mormonism is Christian. There's no question that it differs, radically, from so-called "mainstream Christianity'', but it accepts, categorically, ALL of the New Testament, and Old Testament. I tbelieves totally that Christ's death and resurrection is what enables everyone to be saved, and, hence Christ is central to Mormonism.

Although I have the greatest respect and admiration for Fr. Neuhaus (I recall picking up a copy of FT's and reading his PUBLIC SQUARE, in 1992, and realizing that I MUST be reading this great magazine!), I think he got it wrong on Mormonism. As Stephen Webb noted, in the April issue of FT's, in response to the letters written in response to his Feb. FT's article, MORMONISM OBSESSED WITH CHRIST, many Christians claim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God (I would agree), but, considering how different the Muslim Jesus is, from Christianity, and that the Christ of Mormonism is more similar to mainstream Christianity, why do we hear so many saying that Mormons worship a "different God?'' Webb is right. And, considering Fr. Neeuhaus's great integrity, I believe that he would agree with Webb's point.

In my area, since the beginning of Romney's recent campaign, there has been a massive TV campaign. To assure us all, that LDS members are just ordinary Americans, and real Christians.

Still, it seems to be true that people are today giving Romney's religion - and his status as a bishop - a free pass. They are agreeing with the ad campaign, that Mormonism is absolutely Christian. And for that matter? They have little hesitation in electing a Mormon bishop, into the presidency.

On the other hand though? In the state of Texas, the news programs have for the last few years, also been dominated by the legal prosecution of conservative Mormon, Warren Jeffs (SP?). Who practiced traditional Mormon polygamy. And who was taken to prison for child-molestation, for seducing/marrying girls as young as 14. Which to be sure, is traditional in Mormon culture.

How far indeed should we - and the government and law - bend, in accomodating specific religious beliefs? Should it allow what would otherwise be considered by others, as child-mollestation or illegal polygamy? Because it is someone's religious belief?

Today to be sure - after having been stopped by the US government - mainstream Mormonism no longer allows such things, officially.

Still? It's history is interesting to examine the history of Mormonism. And these things might be useful to keep in mind, when evaluating Romney's character.

Mormonism lies on the premise that they receive 100% from God. Mormons themselves have recently made holes in this argument by showing that a portion of their scriptures purportedly from God were in fact man-made, i.e. policy.

When I was recruited into Mormonism in Southern Africa, I was told and it was taught that all proclamations of those called of God in Mormonism were in fact, God's word. Over 20 thousand miles away in Utah, before during Romney's presidential campaigns, Mormonism makes an apology for its racist doctrine and claims racism was not doctrine to start. They say it was policy and yet you find The Book of Mormon peppered with racist verses from God!

To disavow these racist doctrinal statements is in fact to dismantle the 100% premise on which the church lies and therefore the Mormon Church cannot be true. In no way can Mormonism make apologies for a racist God, or can they?

There are many marks by which one may distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. Surely one of the most important criterion is correctly answering the central question of: who is Jesus? (The 2nd Person of the Trinity - God Incarnate is a good place to begin one's answer) By ANYONE's account - Mormonism's answer is insufficient and at best, it can be considered heretical. That is, if words have any meaning.

I was one of the many Mormon subscribets to First Things who admired Fr. Neuhaus but found his views of Mormonism based on an uncharacteristic unwillingness to actually study the subject closely, especially with a real Mormon, rather than rely on his non-Mormon friends, like the Ostlings and their book Mormon America, which had its own agenda of obfuscating the vibrant reality of Mormonism. If you took their book seriously, you could notbsee why any person of intelligence would jpin or stay with Mormonism. It thus was totally lacking in insight into Mormon views of their own beliefs, which fuel the growth of that faith around the world.

Fr. Neuhaus was explicitly wrong about Mormonism and the Apostles Creed. Without the baggage of the mystery that is the three in one concept of God of the Nicene Creed, an original version of the Apostles Creed can be fully subscribed to by Mormons, which Fr. Neuhaus might havebrealized if he compared it to the Mormon Articles of Faith at lds.org.

Mormon bishops are ubiquitous, as unpaid parttimenamateurs leading congregations of 300 to 500 people for five year shifts. Mormon high priests are even more plentiful, with 40 to 50 in every congregation. For Mormons, ecclesiastical leadership is all about unpaid service to neighbors, not a career or a path to power. Romney was just as much a high priest when he governed Massachusetts, without ill effects. The same is true for Harry Reid and the other Mormons serving in Congress, or Larry Echohawk, the BYU law professor who leads the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Heeck, Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of Agriculture for eight years, while one of the Mormon Twelve Apostles, and simular stints by Mormon High Priests at EPA, HUD, HHS, Interior, Education, Treasury, UN Ambassador, and Commandant if the Coast Guard have not created a theocracy.

Such concerns show ignorance of the fundamental belief in freedom, especially religious freedom, in Mormon theology. That is a theme of the Book of Mormon, where the conflicts are not about different races, since all the players are cousins descended from a common ancestor.

Mormons were surveyed in American Grace and 100% believe that good people of all denominations can go to heaven, without being baptized as Mormons. Mormons have the highest goodwill toward other churches among Americans, even while esteem for Mormons is just a sukoshi above Muslims. Mormons are especially well suited to serve the nation, and many of us do, as I did with 20 years in the Air Force.

As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of LAtter-day Saints, there are 3 points that I would like to address:
1. "...a High Priest of the highest echelon (the “order of Melchizedek”)" - Most adult male members of the Church hold the Melchizedek Priesthood; this includes the 19-year-old missionaries that the Church sends out to serve & teach the restored gospel. All start out as Elders in this Priesthood; then, either due to a specific leadership calling, or simply for living faithfully to a relatively older age, men are usually ordained as High Priests in this Priesthood, without any significant inherent change in responsibilities to the Church or their family. Every calling/responsibiity in the Church done via lay ministry (totally unpaid volunteerism), one year someone could be a Bishop and the next year a children's Sunday School teacher. I've had many Bishops who were a lawyer, dentist, high-school teacher, goat farmer, computer programmer, cheese-maker, etc. Romney's previous callings in the Church are not unusually "high" in the context of Mormon church leadership; he is just a regular, average, everyday member who happens to be running for President professionally.
2. The LDS Church hasn't practiced polygamy for over 120 years; anyone who does practice polygamy is either not a member of the Church, or would be excommunicated from it. It's ridiculous to make pokes at Mormonism for practicing polygamy when it is part of the Bible we all believe in, when it has been over a century since it was practiced among Mormons, and since there are parts of the world today where it still exists without prejudice. While I do not endorse it's practice today, I am tired of the hypocritical response much of the world has had to its place in Mormon history, when extra-marital relations and non-committed sexual encounters are so often championed & celebrated; at least polygamy involved a commitment to spouses and family.
3. People who say how racist the Book of Mormon is have not read it in its entirety. While there are a group of people with dark skin called the Lamanites who are cursed for a time for rebellion against God, there is are a number of times in the Book of Mormon where they exceed in righteousness and faithfulness to their lighter-skinned Nephite counterparts, who when they were wicked were much more wicked than the Lamanites ever were. The following verse from the Book of Mormon summarizes the Church's doctrinal stance on race & religion: "... and he [Christ] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heather; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Nephi 26:33).

We have a shared morality with Mormonism, in so far as the 10 commandments direct our behavior. Per the article and a note above, there are extreme differences in how Jesus is understood, and one's understanding of both the old and new testaments would necessarily be colored by one's religious position.

I won't vote against Romney for his religious persuasion, a thought that never occurred to me - although it has to some of my evangelical acquaintances. I did not perceive a religious litmus test for office holders in this country and did not apply one to him.

I must however be persuaded that he does share my morality, pro-life or anti-abortion, on marriage, and other important moral questions. His statements when attempting to gain office, and his actions in his elected past do not always lend themselves favorably to those considerations, which is a problem. He has not always been pro-life and it is a stumbling block for me. My vote is his to gain at this point, if he garners the Republican nomination.

However the Mormon position on life notes exceptions permitting abortion, such as rape, incest and life of the mother, so the position of that religion with regard to life is at least questionable. Why would the baby be to blame for rape or incest? Why would the double effect require an abortion prior to handling the mother's illness or disease?

He may be much better on this than the current president (and who could fail to be better than a man who voted for infanticide as an Illinois state legislator?) but is merely better good enough?

I don't know right now, and that is a problem I have to deal with. It is not a Mormon problem per se, it is a problem with a Mormon which colors Mormonism.

Questions regarding definitions have limited value since the answer depends on the definer. I have not problem respecting that Mormons believe that according to their definition of "Christian," they are Christian.

But most Christians, at least historically, use the Nicene Creed (not the Apostle's) as containing the criteria for what is "Christian" and even most Mormons would agree that Mormonism is does not meet the criteria of the Nicene Creed.

The bottom line is this: Mormons consider themselves Christians and there is nothing that will convince them, as Mormons, otherwise. Traditional Christians do not consider Mormons Christians and there is nothing that will convince them, as traditional Christians, otherwise.

Andrew says:

"While there are a group of people with dark skin called the Lamanites who are cursed for a time for rebellion against God, there is are a number of times in the Book of Mormon where they exceed in righteousness and faithfulness to their lighter-skinned Nephite counterparts, who when they were wicked were much more wicked than the Lamanites ever were."

Interesting. What's even more interesting is that none of those folks ever existed--just like those ancient American civilizations of which no archaeological trace exists.

This entire issue is rather like discussing the moral qualities of Munchkins versus Hobbits.

Bret and other (ex?) Mormons:

I have dealt at least superficially, with Mormons all my life. And have generally found them to be if anything, above average in their intellectual and moral bearing. What interests me though is this: how does it influence their lives, and psychology, to be from a religion that differs somewhat from - and is often rejected by - the rest of the country?

I'm interested in my Jewish friends for the same reason. Among Jews, my thesis is, this experience - of being religious aliens in their "own" country - seems to have made cynics, or academics, out of many of them. The alien perspective imposes a sort of "other" view, that is helpful in gaining a kind of objectivity though.

Though among Mormons? I don't see usually as much cynicism as the reaction. What I see is a kind of ... slightly preturbed, physical but also metaphorical, moral stare. Into the past, and into the future.

That stare is not an unattractive thing. In fact, it is impressive in its way.

Do you see that moment? That stare? And what do you think of it?

(And as a secondary question: what does it do, in a person like Romney?). specifically?

@ Raymond Takashi Swenson

"Mormons were surveyed in American Grace and 100% believe that good people of all denominations can go to heaven, without being baptized as Mormons."

Mormons who say this are either ignorant of their own doctrine or are duplicitous in their replies. I personally think quoting this stat is deceptive as well. The LDS Church most certainly believes baptism by the proper authority (only found in the Mormon Church) is a requirement for going to heaven or the Celestial kingdom. I suspect those responding this way are purposely omitting certain caveats such as "baptized while living", neglecting to address the idea of why LDS do baptisms for the dead.

LDS certainly believe that all of God's children will have to essentially 1) accepted the key precepts of Mormonism, 2) be baptized Mormon in this life or aceept the proxy baptism performed for them by Mormons on earth 3) complete other required ordinances while living or accept the proxy rites performed by proper the authority (currently only in the LDS Church). In all honesty they need to for all intents and purposes become LDS in this life or the next.

I am disappointed in LDS who dishonestly claim otherwise.

True LDS doctrine and practice does allow for people who die outside of Mormonism to go to Mormon heaven—but only after they become Mormonized by proxy.

Fr. Carl pointed out the heart of the issue. I have LDS family and friends and love them, but Mormonism cannot be Christian if words and stated beliefs have any real meaning. The problem is not simply Mormon beliefs regarding the Trinity. The problem is a much more extensive LDS theology that encompasses a vast polytheism that is antithetical to the most foundational Christian belief. Mormons advocate some great moral teaching and are in my experience, generally wonderful people to have as your neighbours....but they are not Christian. One cannot be a polytheist or reject the Incarnation and be a Christian.

I disagree with the notion that the general population is more comfortable with an LDS "priest" (the scare quotes are in deference to Andrew, who clearly knows more than I about the nature of this particular priesthood) as a candidate than it would be with a protestant minister or catholic priest. Romney has held non-governmental jobs and elected office throughout his adult life, and he does not purport to govern (just as JFK did not purport to govern) on a my-religion-tells-me-to-do-it-this-way basis. I suspect that over the years, there have been many other LDS politician-priests just like him, especially in Utah and Idaho. If a protestant minister or catholic priest running for office could say the same--I don't know of any running and I doubt they could make such a claim--I think the general population would have the same confort level. Or at least it would be close.

Just to clarify:


1. "Every calling/responsibiity in the Church done via lay ministry (totally unpaid volunteerism"

While most callings in the Church are unpaid (everything below stake president), many of the higher level leadership does receive stipends or living allowances. Specifically Mission presidents and General Authorities (Seventies, Apostles, 1st Presidency and President) are paid for their service and receive benefits (health insurance etc.) The idea that no LDS leader is paid is myth that has been allowed to be repeated for decades.

See Pres. Hinckley's October 1985 Conference talk called Questions and Answers for a clear statement that General Authorities are paid.

2. "The LDS Church hasn't practiced polygamy for over 120 years..."

I might be splitting hairs here a little but the practice of polygamy has actually only been prosecuted in the Church for about 100 years. Following the 1st Manifesto LDS leadership continued to take plural wives and approve plural marriages in secret. Only after the 1904 Second Manifesto and Smoot hearings did the Church really begin to end the practice completely. From my reading it appears that the practice filly ended by 1910 rather than 1890— as is falsely taught.

3. "People who say how racist the Book of Mormon is have not read it in its entirety."

I've read the BoM numerous times and I disagree. Clearly the book teaches that the Lamanites were cursed with dark skin because of their wickedness. No matter how you slice it the idea that dark skin is the mark of a curse from God is racist. Forget what happened to the Lamanites later....forget any other verses that claim that God loves all his children. Until LDS admit they taught and still teach the idea that dark skin is the mark of a curse from God — and until they clearly and officially reject it, they are racist IMO.

If Mormons accept the New Testament, then they accept this description of God:

"the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change"

@Andrew
Hi Andrew,
1 All start out as Elders in the highest priesthood... Then the term "Elder" doesn't fit with the plain definition of elder. Jesus was 30 before He began His "ministry", and I'm pretty sure it is Jesus, exclusively that holds the title: King & high priest of the order of Melchizedek.
2 With the rate of divorce & remarriage in "Christian America" I would argue we are a polygamous nation. Multiple wives, in series(child support, alimony) or parallel, is still multiple wives. If we want a good example of the problems this practice produces, consider the conflict over the birthright between Ishmael and Issac, that still rages. Better yet consider how Davids "sons" fought over the kingdom. One of the best stories on this is the account of Herod's polygamy in Josephus.
How does the Mormon church stand on the 10 commandments? Does the commandment not to make any graven image of anything God has created in heaven above include golden angels atop churches?
I think it is safe to argue that traditions and doctrines of men are still at work making the commands of God of none effect, as our Lord spoke.

While Evangelical pastors will say members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) are not Christian, they know that Mormons' theology is based on New Testament Christianity:

http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com

The pastors are concerned with losing adherents to the LDS Church and the fiction that the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is not Christian is an attempt to retain them.

The pastors base much of their theology on Fourth Century (man-made) Creeds, which are not to be found in the New Testament. Mitt Romney would not be the first President to not subscribe to their Creeds. 11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (including several presidents) were non-Trinitarian Christians. Those who now insist on their narrow Trinitarian and salvation-only- by-grace definition of Christianity for candidates for public office are doing our Republic an injustice.

The Catholic Church has the offical Catechism which details her beliefs for all to see. It is the Bible interpreted for the faithful so that one can live a Christ-like life. The Code of Canon Law details the rules within the church that pertain to its structure and members, whether lay or religious. All these documents are widely available for all to see. You can read them with or without prejudice.
Where can one read an official full understanding of Mormonism? Where is the full picture of what is believed? Why is it left up to individual members to decide the total picture of who they are as Mormons? (I have had many conversations with missionaries) I realize there are authority figures in the LDS structure but why all the secrecy and confusion? If a church is true it will allow full disclosure of its beliefs and each person can REASON through the teachings.
Am I afraid of a Mormon president....NO but I quote Fr Neuhaus "In my limited experience with, for instance, people associated with the publication Sunstone, these are devout Mormons who are seized by the correct intuition that truth that must be protected within the circle of true believers, that cannot intelligently engage critical examination by outsiders, is in some fundamental sense doubtfully true." Why all the secrecy? Furthermore where are the witnesses to the happenings of Joseph Smith? There are literally billions of witnesses to the Catholic Church's history. Read the Catechism of the Catholic church and prove me wrong!!!

@ Theophile- "Elder" has been divorced from physical age, long before Mormonism. "Elder" referrers in the Christian context, as one who is an elder, i.e., knowledgeable and orthodox, in the Faith. I'm considerably older than my teen-looking parish priest and yet he is an "elder" (Presbyter) of the Catholic Church.

@Paul Brown- While there is certainly evidence of plenty of unjust anti-Mormon bigotry, the core reason why evangelical pastors reject Mormonism as Christian is for the reasons I stated in my first comment. One simply cannot be polytheistic and Christian. One simply cannot deny that Christ is God made flesh. Never mind the plethora of other irreconcilable beliefs.

As to other non-Christian presidents, I agree. Romney will hardly be the first, if he is elected.

I am convinced that the structure of our republic founded on constitutional law clears the way for any citizen to be president, Christian or non-Christian. And I have known atheists who would be better suited to be president than many Christians I come across.

But when, as a Christian, I am asked who Christ is, I cannot depart from the narrow way clearly defined, but open to exploration, since the death of the Apostles. But keep in mind how a disciple came to Jesus and complained that a man was performing miracles in his name but he didn't know Jesus, and Jesus responded, "He who is with us is not against us." I take this to mean that the Church must be Church, but we are not to in any way accuse those who walk what is clearly a Christian path in Christ’s name but are not Church.

I would agree with several comments above that Mormons are generally wonderful people. In the culture wars, if I may use such a phrase, they are on the "right" side most of the time. Unlike most Mormons, however, Romney was on the wrong side for much of his life, so he deserves conservative skepticism. I could care less what religion he is, and I certainly don't consider him an Orthodox Christian.

As for this:

"Mormons were surveyed in American Grace and 100% believe that good people of all denominations can go to heaven, without being baptized as Mormons."

This alone would clearly make them non-Christians, because as Paul teaches extensively throughout the New Testament, good won't get you into heaven. Jesus and the other writers confirm this again and again. It is the Gospel alone, and our faith in Christ's substitutionary death that saves.

Christians share a certain creed, code, and cult. There may be certain latitude in how these things are lived out and interpreted, but eventually you reach a tipping point. The Nicene Creed was that point in the early Church and it remains so for Mormons. If they cannot profess it, as virtually all Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics do, then they cannot claim the name Christian.

I lived in the inter-mountain region. Mormons certainly set themselves apart and proselytized everyone within reach. At times they discriminated against non-Mormons as "gentiles." An interesting comment often made to young 12 year old deacons is that they had "more priesthood in their little finger then the Pope." One distressing tendency was to befriend possible converts, but then drop them if they showed no signs of becoming Mormon.

If Mormonism is to become Christian these theological issues cannot be papered over. They must be confronted directly. It would necessitate an reappraisal of Mormon history, their prophet, and their canon of scripture.

On the points of how Mitt Romney's religion, and his position in it, impacts his prospects of election, and how he is viewed generally in view of being a Mormon, I do not think the theological differences between Mormonism and historical Christianity are the important factors (as interesting as that discussion may be). Rather, there are a few templates within which most interested voters are looking at Romney:

(1) Competent political and business operator - I think this is the basic view that his campaign and his republican primary supporters take, although it is articulated in a variety of ways. My view is that he is winning the primary contest on the strength of his ability to project this view of himself.

(2) Blank slate, empty suit, political opportunist - I think this is the basic view of most in the republican primary process who oppose his nomination. Some of the comments to this article have echoed this view: concern about someone who was pro-abortion and gay marriage as governor of Blue Massachusetts, then has reinvented himself as a pro-life social conservative for the Republican nomination to be president of light red America, and then has a campaign strategist saying that once that nomination is in hand he can reset his positions 'like an etch-a-sketch.' Full disclosure, count me in this camp.

(3) Fat cat son of privilege. This appears to be the basic view that the left, partisan democrats, and the Obama and Gingrich campaigns are projecting.

An interesting aspect of all three of these views is that they are consistent with each other and possibly all true, although I find the fat cat part of it overwrought.

Another interesting part is that being Mormon has only a marginal role in any of these views of Romney in the political contest, and there has been very little journalistic exploration, even of a circumspect nature, into what being Mormon means for him. It clearly is not seen as a disqualification among a majority of the republican primary electorate. My view is that this has less to do with Mormonism than it has to do with Romney: very few voters think that him being Mormon has any bearing on what he would do as president.

A more explicit contrast can be made between the public and journalistic treatment of Romney's faith and practice of it, and Santorum's faith and his practice of it. The recent Washington Post 'investigative report' on Santorum's deepening pro-life conviction over time and association with Opus Dei illustrates something about the Senator: his faith is clearly a part of how and why he does things, for better or worse, and this is an important part of why he is both supported and opposed. Perhaps he and his faith are a better case study for the reaction to a candidate's religious faith and practice.

Paul Brown writes:
"The pastors base much of their theology on Fourth Century (man-made) Creeds, which are not to be found in the New Testament. "

The creeds were written by the only Church Jesus founded and BEFORE the New Testament Canon was agreed upon. The letters to Timothy together with Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, which was written contemporaneously with the principal Nicene Creed by an attendee at that Council prove the importance of the creeds as teaching by the successors of the Apostles. Timothy was told by Paul to pass on the deposit of Faith to trusted teachers just as his power had been conferred by the laying on of hands by Paul (2 Timothy 1:5-6, 13-4; 2:1-2).

Irenaeus, writing long before the Fourth Century Council which adopted the Nicene Creed as official teachin of the Church Catholic, strressed the need for Christians to rely on the teaching of those teachers who were the clear successors of the apostles and in particular to the successor bishops of Rome. Likewise, Eusebius was very careful to lay out the "succession pedigrees" of the principal dioceses of the time, and particularly that of the Roman See. At the same time, Eusebius noted that even after the First Nicene Council, the Church was still not agreed upon the contents of the New Testament.

Think of that, the pedigrees of the bishops were more important to lay out to ensure orthodoxy than to nail the canon of the New Testament (which wasn't resolveed for another 50+ years AFTER Eusebius wrote his History. Why? Because if all one has is the text of the New Testament, anyone can make up their own gospel! So, give me the Creed that the Universal Church can agree upon and I will know what a Christian should believe, consistently with the Teaching of Christ's One and Only Church.

By contrast, the whole Mormon thing with Jesus going to the New World and the Church apostasizing for 1700 years, et cetera, has NO New Testament support. Nor does the teaching of the Only Church Christ founded support the claims made in the highly questionable "scriptures" of Mormonism. So,this whole attack on Christ's Holy Catholic Church on supposed "New Testament grounds" is the pot calling the eggshell black.

My vote, with all due respect, is against the notion that Mormons are properly characterized as Christians. But without the Magisterium, beliefs inevitably multiply, some into truly strange forms, and their delusion is, insofar as "the things of Caeser," benign, in my experience. As others have noted, they tend to be upstanding citizens. (If I can be forgiven for the sin of "reverse discrimination," I'd hire a Mormon over pretty much anyone else if all I knew was her religion, and most people, if they are honest, will admit they'd do the same.)

And Romney, for all his faults, compares very favorably with most presidents, e.g., Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, and Nixon (all of whom ordered strategic bombing that killed—fried or incinerated—thousands of innocent women and children), Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama (who strike me as having proven themselves to be pagan sex worshippers).

Donald Todd, Gil: well put; I share your position, except insofar as Donald implies he might not vote for the Republican candidate. (Politics—including voting—is the "art of the possible," and Obama and his libertine-pagan ilk must be ousted! Too many innocents have been lost already.)

Paige: I am a Hobbit.

†

I cannot accept the claim that Mormons are Christians. And being a Protestant of the cranky Presbyterian sort, I cannot say Catholics are either, the Pope being the anti-Christ and what not. Well, let me rather say that my willingness to consider a Catholic a Christian is seeing what they do with a proper exegesis of of the book of Romans. If they see that the proper interpretation is the Lutheran one but reject the Gospel thus understood then I can't speak for their souls.

But there is definitely a difference between the difference between me and Catholicism and the difference between me and Mormonism. With the Catholic, i see the Trinity and the Incarnation going together hand and hand and I agree that the doctrine of the Trinity belongs to the earliest presentations of the Gospel even if not explicitly formulated as such. I also see that the aim of special revelation in history and Scripture is supernatural redemption from the Guilt and corruption of sin. I see in the Catholic faith all of the presuppositions of my faith formulated and defended. I don't accept all the same writings as canon that Catholics accept, but I do accept them as authentic accounts that were useful to the early church. I see the New Testament in continuity with the Old Testament as progressive revelation. And I see a lot of real progress being made between Catholics and Protestants.

But the heresies of the Mormon Church are of the classical sort that the church dealt with in its first 6 centuries. Further, on the Mormon account the evil that men do is in principle possible without a resurrecting grace or an objective redemption. The Mormon narrative has no sense of the inadequacy of human effort to bring about or preserve righteousness. The ultimate authority of the Mormon faith is that of distributed sources, rather than the one dynamic Word of God. I am aware anecdotally that Mormon philosophers are perfectly compatible with contemporary materialism in philosophy, but that average Mormons filter their faith through more traditional theistic intuitions and as a result still have a problem with the problem of evil in spite of their theology.

Mormons do, however, hold to a common human nature, and believe in its perfectibility. It is certainly clear that Mormons can be virtue ethicists.

@ John Hartung

You mean Calvinists consider themselves Christians? I didn't know that. Who'd a-thunk?

As for Luther's reading of Romans, it's completely correct if, in fact, one reads Romans sort of allegorically, with no interest in what Paul is 'literally' saying. Is that good enough?

Just 2 comments. Mormons must believe that there was an apostasy in the first centuries . This means that they must believe that Jesus was wrong when he said that the "gates of hell" would not prevail against the church he left. Now if Jesus was right then you should be Catholic. If he was wrong you shouldn't follow him at all.

Secondly, the most eminent non -Mormon scholar of Mormonism Jan Ships has argued for years that Mormonism is to Christianity what Christianity was to Judaism. If so ( and many Mormons think she is right) then Mormons aren't Christians.

Full disclosure. I was a Mormon with no real commitment and will be wonderfully baptised in the Catholic Church in just over 2 weeks

Patricksarsfield engages in irony too rich to pass on.
When he claims that the Romanist church is “the only Church Jesus founded” he makes the identical claim that the Mormons make. When he further cites Scripture he apparently doesn’t realize that Mormons can cite their own Scripture.


Of further interest is the distortion, “Irenaeus… [sic]strressed the need for Christians to rely on the teaching of those teachers who were the clear successors of the apostles…” What a wonderfully self-serving statement that is. To the topic at hand, the Mormons would simply reply that all those “successors” were part of the great apostasy. What true patristic scholars say, strays even farther from Patrick’s mark. For example, Michael A.G. Haykin in his recent study found that “Central to Origen’s engagement with Graeco-Roman culture was the Bible.” He later notes that, “For Basil, Scripture alone represented the true rule or law of lilfe.” J N D Kelly notes that the Scriptures were the basis truth in the early church.


Of course, once Patrick has made such serious errors he ends up with a faulty conclusion: “Think of that, the pedigrees of the bishops were more important to lay out to ensure orthodoxy than to nail the canon of the New Testament.” Not according to true patristic scholars.

And lastly, how amusing it is for him to claim that claim that Mormons have no NT support for their doctrines when Rome has absolutely none for theirs! The irony is simply, too, too rich. (Patrick likes to cite Paul’s teachings to Timothy. Perhaps he can explain why, after Paul tells Timothy that a bishop “must be the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2) he so ardently supports a church that denies that biblical admonition.)

If we are to ask the right questions about Mormons and Mormonism it will not due to smear them with falsehoods, misrepresentations and wishful thinking as Patricksarsfield has done. A proper examination must be based on the truth and not propaganda.

Peace.

thoughtful essay. much of Mormon teaching was first put forth in the first two centruries after Christ. These teachings were eventually rejected by the orthodox church (small o & c). Origen and others shared beliefs similiar to the Mormons.

Just out of curiosity:

Are all Mormons part of a single organization, or are there different independent, or semi-independent, Mormon groups (on the order of, for example, Beachy vs Old Order Amish)?

Also, how is the ecclesiastical authority defined and exercised among the Mormons?

All of my adult life I have lived in the American West, commonly referred to as "Mormon Country". These are wonderful citizens of our nation and nice people, in my experience.

Mormonism, I maintain, is an American entreprenureal religion and Mitt Romney is the perfect (I use the word theologically) example and exemplar of his faith. Just following the various " advertising campaigns " of LDS, Inc. (my term for the Church Headquarters in SLC, UT) over the past decades indicate how continuing revalation works in the CJCLDS. Remember the famous "god changed his mind about black men becoming priests? Statehood and polygamy? But more recently: remember the commercials for a free Book of Mormon? Have you actually tried to read that book and make any understanding of the Mormon faith from that book? I'm a retired college professor and clergyman and I cannot make sense of it. I know Mormon teaching from The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants, not the Book of Mormon. More contemporary is the "Mormons are Christians" which I recall noticing about the time of the Salt Lake City Olympics with the Southern Baptist and others announcing their evangelistic outreach of the area. Did you notice how the stone signs on every meeting building getting a change in the size of the Name of Jesus Christ? Even more contemporary is the " I'm Mormon " TV and billboard campaign. Someday an analysis of the role of LDS, Inc. in the election campaign of Mitt Romney. There will be more than a few doctoral dissertations and investigative journalism pieces on that relationship, on whether it existed or not.

I'm in complete agreement with the posts of many of those orthodox Christians above, especially Fr.J. In my frequent conversations with the young evangelists I meet regulary, I begin and end my discussions with " Who is Jesus? " How did He become the Savior of this planet? Who is His full brother? The answers to these and many more questions make it quite clear to this parish priest that my fellow Americans of the LDS persuasion are many good things, but Christian is not one of them.

John Hartnung writes:

"And being a Protestant of the cranky Presbyterian sort, I cannot say Catholics are either, the Pope being the anti-Christ and what not. "

So, where is John Hartnung mentioned in the New Testament?

For that matter, neither Luther, nor Henry Tudor nor John Calvin are mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. Nor is there a description of a fifteen centuries off Reformation to end the Church Christ founded. [Nor can it be said that the Church described in the New Testament is some "invisible church" of the sort concocted by protestants to overcome the simple truth THAT THEIR CHURCHES WERE NOT INVENTED UNTIL THE 16TH CENTURY OR LATER]. So, their attacks on the Catholic Church, whose founding is described in the New Testament, as not being biblical in their views is the merest makeweight.

@MarkVA: The Mormon church is hierarchical, headed by a president/prophet who is assisted by two counselors. These three together constitute the "First Presidency." There is also a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who choose and ordain the president/prophet. There are also the Seventies (analogous to the 70 disciples spoken of in the Gospels); but this is a less structured group, and numerically may consist of only 30-40 men. There are also excommunicated breakaway groups, some of them practicing polygamy.

Constantine dismisses my citations to fathers of the Church Irenaeus and Eusebius on the grounds that "What true patristic scholars say, strays even farther from Patrick’s mark...."

So, instead of addressing what I show the fathers of the Church to have said, Constantine ignores that testimony but endows 20th Century authors ("true patristic scholars" like Michael Haykin) with an authority that he would deny to Christ's Church and to such clear apostolic successors as Irenaeus and Eusebius. What is the biblically based authority of Michael Haykin to speak authoritatively on Christian Doctrine? Word Search says that Michael Haykin is found nowhere in the Bible.

Then there is this observation: "To the topic at hand, the Mormons would simply reply that all those “successors” were part of the great apostasy." And the short response to that is that there is no biblical basis for claiming that there was a great apostasy; that is just more fiction concocted by Joseph Smith when he wrote his books in the 1830s.

As to the citation in Timothy to a bishop's having only one wife, that was the rule at the time Paul wrote, but the Catholic Church has subsequently decided that bishops should not be married as a matter of church governance. That is not just a "Romanist" thing. The Eastern Orthodox (who are also in apostolic succession) likewise require clerical celibacy of their bishops.

@MarkVA: In the schema I gave above, I forgot to mention the Presiding Bishopric, consisting of three high priests, and there are also bishops taken from the ranks of high priests, presidents of wards, etc.

It's odd to me how some of the Mormon commenters take issue with the Nicene Creed, and then in the next breath cite the New Testament as authority. By accepting the New Testament, these commenters are implicitly accepting the authority of the Bishops who compiled/canonized it. And, as patrickarsfield pointed out, the New Testament was canonized AFTER the Nicene Creed was adopted. Those Bishops who gave us the New Testament were adherents of the Creed.

I am dumbfounded that anyone thinksnthey cannot find out what Latter-day Saints believe, since all the books, lesson manuals, hymn books, and magazines that Mormons use to teach each other and their children are found at lds.org. This also includes video records of the sermons given at the semi-annual worldwide General Conference that is broadcast each April and October from Salt Lake City via satellite and the internet to 150 nations in 96 languages. You can catch it live on byutv on
DISHNETWORK and the internet on March 31 and April 1. You should listen to those sermons and see if Mormon beliefs are really that divergent from your own.

In 1832, Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon had a joint vision in the presence of a dozen other people. It is recorded at Section 76 of the book called the Doctrine and Covenents. In that vision, keying to Paul's vision of the resurrection of mankind varying as the stars, moon and sun vary in brightness in I Corinthians 15. The highest glory, of the sun, was referred to as celestial, and is reserved for those baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ in its Latter-day incarnation, and live faithfully. The second level of heaven is called the glory of the moon or terrestrial heaven. This will be inhabited by the good people of all religions, who listened to the Holy Ghost as it spoke to their conscience. They will have visits from Jesus Christ, resurrection with the just, and endless happiness. It will meet all the expectations for heaven of most denominations, all without Mormon baptism.

Finally, Section 76 teaches that those who commit felony level sins will suffer in "hell" which Mormons believe will consist of them being forced to confront the real suffering they caused in mortal life, and the realization that they are utterly unworthy to stand in the presence of Christ. After having paid for their own sins, they will be resurrected in the lowest grade of heaven, the telestial, the glory of the stars.

Mormon theology literally believes Catholics and Protestants and Jews who try to live righteously will be in a heaven that is everything they currently expect. The authors of American Grace found that large majorities of Catholics and Protestants also believe that people outside their own faiths can be saved, even though it conflicts with the restrictive scope of salvation taught by their leaders.

I am again amazed that if your understanding of Mormon beliefs differs from mine, a 62 year old high priest with decades of experience in teaching callings, it is because you think I am lying, rather than your own ignorance. Most of you who pontificate about about Mormonism have not even read the Book of Mormon. This is obvious for the gentleman who claims he can't find any doctrine in it. He should go back to 2 Nephi Chapter 2 and ponder its message about the freedom of choice that Christ grants us through his atonement. Look at Mosiah Chapter three and consider its message about the need for the "natural man" to repent and submit to God as a child and rely on the merits of Christ. He should consider Alma Chapter 7 as it discusses the completeness of how Christ not only comprehends our sins but also all our suffering and pain. He should consider the meaning of faith as explained in Alma Chapter 32. He should consider the variation on the sermon on the mount that is given by the resurrected Christ in 3 Nephi and the way it clarifies the purpose of the teachings in Matthew 5-7. He should read Moroni Chapter 8 and its argument that "little children are alive in Christ" and have no need of baptism before they reach an age when they can distinguish good from evil.

The Book of Mormon is emphatic that Jehovah condescended to be born as the son of the virgin Mary, that he suffered hunger and thirst, pain and temptation, and beyond that through his nature as God has comprehended the experience of every person ever born ir to be born on the earth, and has offered to suffer on the behalf of all mankind to rescue from the suffering which justice would demand. He died on the cross and was resurrected, commencing 40 days of advanced teaching for the apostles before ascending to heaven, from which he will return in glory. No human can approach God the Father without placing himself entirely in the hands of Christ, to be employed as Christ wishes in his love and wisdom, and cleansed from sin through the blood of Christ.

If this does not accord with your understanding of Mormonism, you need to study harder, reading and listening to learn rather than to gloat in your superiority. Please excuse Mormons for shouting what we believe, but people seem obtuse in refusing to forsake their ignorance.

Oh, and uf you want a more scholarly discussion of Mormon beliefs in contrast with your own, check out maxwellinstitute.byu.edu for dozens of scholarly books and years of research articles online for free, and fairlds.org for apologetic essays on questions frequently raised by critics.

Finally, if you can't tell the difference between real Mormons, members if the 14 million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the several splinter groups which rebelled a century ago and rejected the leadership, authority and doctrines if the Church, you need to look a bit closer. Those groups are anti-Mormons. They are no more Mormons than Presbyterians are Eastern Orthodox.

I'm grateful to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To my Christian friends in other churches:
* I believe that there is a God.
* I believe that this God has a Son.
* I believe that through this Son, God created this world -- and our first ancestors.
* I believe that because of what two other people did, I will die.
* I believe that a virgin gave birth to this Son of God into a mortal body.
* I believe that there is something, called "sin," that can keep me from God.
* I believe that because God's Son died for me, my sins won't keep me from God.
* I believe that this Son of God came back to life three days after he died.
* I believe that because this Son of God came back to life, I will also. So will you.

After accepting all this, I am way past worrying about the reasonableness of golden plates, angelic apparitions, or that Israelites were among the many immigrants to America through the millennia.

Why aren't you?

Is it entirely true however, that Mormonism has absolutely put polygamy, bigamy, behind? A recent book by James Bamford locates a new NSA compound, right next to a huge polygamous community in Utah:

JAMES BAMFORD:

“The spring air in the small, sand-dusted town has a soft haze to it, and clumps of green-gray sagebrush rustle in the breeze. Bluffdale sits in a bowl-shaped valley in the shadow of Utah’s Wasatch Range to the east and the Oquirrh Mountains to the west. It’s the heart of Mormon country, where religious pioneers first arrived more than 160 years ago. They came to escape the rest of the world, to understand the mysterious words sent down from their god as revealed on buried golden plates, and to practice what has become known as 'the principle,' marriage to multiple wives.

“Today Bluffdale is home to one of the nation’s largest sects of polygamists, the Apostolic United Brethren, with upwards of 9,000 members. The brethren’s complex includes a chapel, a school, a sports field, and an archive. Membership has doubled since 1978—and the number of plural marriages has tripled—so the sect has recently been looking for ways to purchase more land and expand throughout the town."

The complete piece is at: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/21/exposed_inside_the_nsas_largest_and

Interestingly? Most Catholics today, when regarding the "Obamacare" or HHS bill for example, assert that their right to express their religion, their opposition to contraception, is abolute. But, interestingly? The US Supreme Court noted many significant limitation, on such expressions of freedom of religion. When particular religious beliefs contradict the religious beliefs of others; or when the beliefs of one religion, contradict the laws of the land. And, interestingly? The major case in point was in the SCOTUS decision, in 1878; against the Mormon religion, and their polygamy.

It was in 1878, in Reynolds v. US. In which "the court unanimously rejected a Mormon's challenge to a federal law banning bigamy, saying religious practifces judged to be criminal had no contitutional protection" (Smithsonian Magazine, Jan 2012, p. 74).

Conservative Catholics and others today, seem to feel that their religious freedoms are absolute, and that no "compromise" of their beliefs, like their current stand against contraception, can be tolerated. But surprisingly enough, there is a longstanding ethical and legal tradition, that notes many situations where religious beliefs cannot be fully honored, due to various considerations. And specifically, it was the Supreme Court decision directed at Mormons, ending their adherance to bigamy and polygamy, that became the landmark decision, establishing this.

Mormons therefore, more than anyone perhaps, are used to seeing what some regard as key religious beliefs, legislated against, and effectively banished. It is for this reason perhaps, that some Mormons like Romney, become some of the more cynical and a-religious folks; ready to change fundamental opinions at the drop of a hat. Indeed, Romney today, is being regarded as wholly driven by pragmatic convenience, rather than firm adherence to doctrine. Changing his policies frequently; to the extent that his convictions are now be parodied, as being witten on a readily-erasable "Etch-a-Sketch." Or a palimpsest, as they used to call them.

Not all Mormons are like this of course. Most retain a strong sense of ethics. And there are still strong pockets of even, stubborn polygamists (no longer directly associated with the LDS?) But? Many Mormons are used to seeing very, very strong religious and other convictions very strongly opposed. And have seen their strongest religious convictions come ... and go.

And some, out of this experience, turn into very, very cynical opportunists and wheeler-dealers.

Like Mitt Romney?

The First Quorum of the Seventy are about 70 men from throughout the LDS Church who have lifelong callings to serve and continue until retired to emeritus status after age 70. The second Quorum of Seventy are called to full time but temporary service for about five year terms, serving in the same capacity with members of the First Quorum. Each major area of the Church has an Area Presidency of a president and two counselors taken from these two quorums who reside in their areas. Thus the million Mormons in Mexico are in one Area. In addition, each region of the Church outside the US has a Quorum of Seventy filled by local men called in a part time capacity, like bishops and stake presidents, who oversee regions in their countries, constituted in three man presidencies.

"faith in Christ's substitutionary death"

One hopes you merely meant "atoning" not "substitutionary" since belief in the substitutionary theory of atonement, while licit, is not mandatory.

I liked this article overall, but I thought that towards the end the author started to demonstrate that he has a few misunderstandings of some of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

First, he implies that Romney should be disqualified from the US presidency because his previous service as a Mormon bishop would conflict with the principle of the Separation of Church and state. He says it would be akin to a Catholic bishop running for office. The truth is that Mormon Bishops and Catholic Bishops are very different. Being a Mormon bishop is a part-time, non-paid, temporary position (about 5 years). A Mormon can only be a bishop if a higher-up church leader asks him to take the assignment.

Second, the author makes it sound like Mormons like to go around telling everyone else that they're not Christian, which is far from the truth. Throughout my lifetime of Church membership, my experience has been that we use the word 'Christian' to mean anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. We commonly refer to other sects as Christian. We recognize that other people have faith in Jesus Christ just like we do. This seems to be a common misunderstanding that we get a lot that probably stems from other people overstretching our belief that our church is the only one with the proper authority to baptize. But the fact remains that we DO in fact recognize the Christianity of other sects, which is one reason why it's so hard for us to understand why other Christian sects don't reciprocate.

Third, the author doesn't seem to understand the priesthood in the Mormon Church. A 'High Priest of the highest echelon' of his religion. Echelons?! This is obviously inflammatory language to make Mormon leadership structure sound cultish. There are, in fact, only two divisions in the Priesthood-the Aaronic and the Melchizedec. The Aaronic Priesthood is for boys age 12-18 and it gives them authority to to begin providing simple service to their church. The Melchizedec Priesthood is given to men when their 18 to authorize them to be adult leaders in the Church. It's not much different from church service that is organized in other churches (especially the Catholics) and isn't a 'sui generis order'. The office of 'High Priest' is actually one of the lower offices in the Melchizedec Priesthood which all elderly men in the Church hold.

But, I liked how he showed how in the Church we are mostly tolerant of other people's beliefs. I liked the part where he said, "But fortunately Mormons, in spite of their desire to convert the world, are not noted for extreme intolerance or for an inability to work with other persuasions for the common good."

Bret, the problem with Mormonism's claim to Christianity ISN'T the authenticity of Old or New Testaments, it's deviation lies in it's views of Christ! Christianity believes in the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Co-equal, co-eternal, three in one. This is Mormonism's fatal flaw

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was A God" (Mormon Translation) not God PERIOD!

In it's claim that God chose Joseph Smith to RE_ESTABLISH the Church of Jesus Christ, Mormonism proves itself not to be part of Christianity, but an alternative world view like Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion.

@Constantine

I think it is a mistake to try to pit scripture against sacred tradition. Tradition defines and interprets scripture and scripture informs and nourishes tradition. Almost all heretics appeal to scripture to justify their respective heresies. Most heretics also need to reject important elements of sacred tradition as well. The Arians believed that their position was entirely supported by scripture, they had plenty of proof-texts on hand. I’m sure our Mormon friends here also believe that their unique beliefs are entirely compatible with the Bible and in fact are the most reasonable interpretation of the Bible.

You refer to JND Kelly. Have you read his Early Christian Doctrines, in particular section II on Tradition and Scripture? You realize that he was an Anglican, and traditionally Anglicans have believed in the apostolic succession of bishops and the importance of both scripture and tradition (and reason). What about the great scholar of Christian history Jaroslav Pelikan? He converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. Or Robert Louis Wilken, a convert to Catholicism? Converts to Orthodoxy or Catholicism often cite the Church Fathers as being a major influence on their conversion to apostolic Christianity. Are you implying the people like Origen or Basil did not believe in the visible catholic church or the importance of the apostolic succession of bishops to the preservation of Christian truth?

Since everyone functions within some presuppositional confession, there is hardly an objective place to stand in confirming/affirming truth. So I find transparency and vulnerability useful tools with which to explore topics in debate. Patricks comments about the pedigree of the bishops ("trusted teachers") prior to the cannon pertains. Otherwise, the cannon (notwithstanding the HS play...deposit of faith) is more vulnerable to ranging interpretation in the essentials. In other words, a life of integrity validates what flows from it ..and continues to.

So, a bone of contention for me along this line is the historic errata revealed in the work of the late Jerald Tanner and his great great granddaughter to Brigham Young wife, Sandra. In his copious research into the doctrinal history of Mormonism he found that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham, for instance, from the original Egyptian papyrus in the 1830's to be a fraud. This came to light because scholars can now read this ancient script.

This puts the Mormon "cannon" in question, not to mention the "bishop."

The issue of transparency is more pervasive and is revealed in Tanner's 584 page book, "Mormonism-Shadow or Reality."

A life of transparency and its attendant vulnerability renders one "bullet proof" in the spiritual realms... in which the true battle rages.

On the issue of Mormons worshiping the same God as traditional Christians

There is a pretty fundamental difference in the way the LDS and traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims view God. For the latter, God is the unique, transcendent, immaterial source of all other being. The physical universe and spiritual beings like angels and ourselves exist only because God wills it. We are creatures, created beings, through and through. We are not by nature divine or literal children of God in the sense of being by nature of the same essence as God.

Mormons have traditionally believed that God is embodied, that matter and intelligence is coeternal with God, and that our spirits are literal offspring of God. We belong to the same class of being as God, God is just further advanced than we presently are. And in older Mormonism, God (the Father) was not typically viewed as being absolutely unique – He had his God before him and progressed into his Godhood as we too can do, that there is an endless generation of Gods (I recognize that this is not a doctrine that is currently emphasized and perhaps not believed by many modern Mormons).

So although the LDS do believe that Christ is our Savior and that he died for our sins, on the nature of God they are further from traditional Christians than are Muslims. Muslims believe with Christians in one transcendent God, the creator (not organizer) of all else that exists, a God who is not in his essence a human being. The LDS do not share this belief. On the critical issue of the nature of God and the nature of humanity we will have to agree to disagree.

Good article, though there are some "tweakings" to make it more factual about the LDS priesthood. Interestingly, I read a little ebook in the kindle store by a guy who is LDS. It took a very similar line of approach that I had not heard from LDS members before. It was much more straight forward than is the normal approach and talked about how the author viewed other churches. I think the author was Jed Mixon.

To those who say that the Doctrines of Mormonism are clear, I still have very basic questions (I'm sure for questions 1, 2, & 4: a Moslem or Jew would answer yes)
1)Is God without origin and ALL other things are created by and contigient upon Him, both those we know of and any we do not know of, including time and space themselves and any other dimension(s), of this and any other universe?
2)Is God perfect; that is greater than which nothing could be?
3)Are Christ the Son & the Holy Spirit fully equal to the Father?
4)Can any other person ever attain equality with Him?

By comparing First Century Christianity with Catholics, Protestants and Mormorns, one can easily find that all of these regligions have deviated from the doctrines of first century followers of Yeshua. I use our Lord's Jewish name since the name Jesus didn't come into use until about 700 years AD. It was in 325 AD, when Roman Emperor Constantine used religion to control his empire, when things began to change. Since then, what is being practiced by 99% of Christians today is, for the most part, a Constantinian Christianity. For the vast majority of "Christians" today to call Mormonism unorthox is like the kettle calling the pot black. If we believe the biblical scriptures, ony a "few" will be chosen. It would be wise for all of us to remember that only eight souls survived the worldwide flood in Noah's day.

For those of you who don't think that Mormons are Christians, I'm curious to know whether you think that these groups are Christian: Quakers, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists.

Replying to T.A. Green, I suppose if you only believe what the critics say, you will find it impossible to adhere to any religion at all. But the merits of Mormon belief are different from the issue of their classification as Christian. For some reason, it becomes important for some Christians to adopt tendentious definitions that are intentionally constructed to exclude the Mormons. An extreme example of that would be the comment in this thread that explains that ONLY the Catholic Church is "Christian," based on the Peter-rock-gates of Hell reference in Matthew. While Catholics are certainly entitled to their interpretation, it goes too far to use it to exclude all the rest of Christianity as "Christian." So, too, do efforts to parse creeds go too far. Mormons substantially accept the creeds in question and, if they add to them as well, they would not be the first or only Christian denomination to do so.

Someone foolishly said that "Mormons" still practice polygamy - just look at this Warren Jeffs fellow or others like him. Sorry, but they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who are commonly known as Mormons. Some many "Christians" have been working very hard over decades to paint members of my faith as deluded, cultist, and worshipers of anything or any one other than God the Eternal Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, who in unity form the Godhead mentioned in the scriptures. All of those efforts have been illegitimate, and have failed, as witness the many millions of Mormons all over the world who are moral, clear thinking, well educated and willing among themselves to discuss doctrinal matters critically, while taking the Bible's references to prophets and apostles (Amos 3:7; Eph. 4:11-14) at its word.

Answers for Tom B: Answers to Qs 1, 2 and 4 are yes. Regarding Q1, read the (LDS) Book of Abraham and authoritative teaching about it.

Regarding Q3, see the answer to Q1. Mormons accept the truth of everything, let me repeat that: everything, written in the Bible about the Godhead, which consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit).

Hope this helps.

Raymond, I have read the Book of Mormon and your other works. That is why I do not believe that Mormonism is Christianity. As for gloating over superiority...I lived in the inter-mountain region at one time. I well remember how Mormons viewed us "gentiles."

Dale, can you profess the Nicene Creed?

mapman, the answer would be "no." Some Quakers might qualify though.

Wow, I have to come to the conclusion that we aren't dealing with just ignorant folks, but seriously proud ignorant people when talking about Mormons. How you view what Mormons view things isn't the question, but how Mormons view them. You may disagree that the way they view things is logical, but to say its not the way they view things is disingenuous and frankly un-Christian.

Do the Mormons believe in the traditional idea of Trinity? No. Do they believe in the Trinity? A form of it, yes. God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are considered One God, just not one substance. Those who say that Mormons don't believe Jesus was God is simply false, and anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon would know this. Yes, theres a little "tweeking" in that understanding since Mormons don't believe in the one substance Godhead, but all three are still God. "In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God," has the same essential meaning to Mormons (i.e. the eternal Divine nature of Jesus Christ) as any other Christians. Its a separate, but equal, concept and you can argue against that; but to claim Mormons don't believe Jesus is God is a lie. Perhaps a nuanced lie using the traditional teachings of the Trinity, but a lie nonetheless.

How do Mormon's view other Christians? Bluntly, they are a lost and fallen Christianity, but Christianity without question. There is no doubt, no matter what and despite the differences, that Catholics and Protestants are Christians in every sense of the definition. That anyone would ascribe the question, "Are any non-Mormons Christian?" to Mormons is offensive in the extreme. If any Mormon was to pose that question to another Mormon, I assure you that 9 out of 10 times there would be a smack down (I leave the possibility open only because people will be people). That other Christians won't even give Mormons the dignity to call them heretic Christians is disgraceful and undignified, nay extremist. Go ahead and call Mormons delusional Christians, and that is fine enough. We are Christians because we believe Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the World! To then say Mormons aren't Christians is to deny to Mormons the very Person they worship. Its patently offensive and not to see how that is, again shows lack of grace and common courtesy. Mormons aren't traditional, historical, orthodox, Trinitarian Nicaean Christians and there is no Mormon that would ever claim that. But they know who they worship and its not the Hindu gods or Muslim Allah.

There is far more that is wrong with this article and comments, but these are the most important points.

LDSRevelations stated - "I've read the BoM numerous times and I disagree. Clearly the book teaches that the Lamanites were cursed with dark skin because of their wickedness. No matter how you slice it the idea that dark skin is the mark of a curse from God is racist. Forget what happened to the Lamanites later...."

While I believe that you have read the BoM numerous times, it is clear that you do not understand it. Let us examine the scriptural references you claim to understand as being racist.

2 Nephi 5:21 "And he [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

This verses speaks of both a cursing and a skin of blackness so, on its face seems racist, however, what was the skin of blackness intended to do? It was so that "they might not be enticing" to the lighter skinned inhabitants, the Nephites. The intent was that followers of God would not mix with unbelievers--something the Old Testament clearly teaches (see Genesis 21:21, Dueteronomy 7:3, and numerous other verses).

Alma 3:8 - "And this was done [the skin of blackness] that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction."

Also in Alma 3:4, we read of a group of light-skinned inhabitants called Amlicites that "marked themselves with red in their foreheads." Further along in the same chapter verses 13-19 read as follows:

"13 . . . they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.
14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.
16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.
17 And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed.
18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.
19 Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation."

Note - The light-skinned Amlicites brought upon themselves the same "curse" that the dark-skinned inhabitants held yet, interestingly, their skin remained light. Hence, the curse was not the dark skin, but the fact that they were separated or distinguishable from the people of God.

Further - Alma 23:18 speaks of a group of people that had dark skin that were converted to the gospel and lived among the lighter-skinned Nephites. It reads thus:

"And they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them."

Yet, interestingly, it doesn't say that their dark skins were changed to light skins. Evidence again that the curse had to do with their being separated or distinguished from the people of God.

The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that not all dark-skinned people are "cursed"--or separated. 2 Nephi 26:33 - "and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Jettboy that was a very insightful comment. A friend and I have been reading through the comments and were shocked about the lack of knowledge by very intelligent individuals.

I would add that LDS members believe that God revealed His gospel from the beginning with Adam and that His eternal truths have been revealed to man from time to time but are often rejected. This is what we believe happened after Christ died. Peter prophesies that this would happen after his death. "For I know this, that after my departing shall agrievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Acts 20:21

A good counter point was already stated that Christ said to Peter..."And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."Matt 16:18 Verse 17 states "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven," which we interpret to Christ referring to revelation when He says the church will be founded upon this rock.

So here you have two verses that could be used to support either argument revolving around the same man. If you take it to mean that the church would never fall then the Catholic church is the only church that can be God's as far as I see it. I personally think that the LDS view is more expansive and would explain the original break from the Jews by Christianity. They had simply gone into apostasy and lost the authority to officiate in the ordinances and Christ came first to atone for man and secondly to restore His truths and church.

I do have issue with the Nicene creed as I believe it was put together by uninspired men. A review of the history will show the politics heavily involved in its creation. We believe that the church had already fallen into widespread apostasy by this point. As for the New Testament I believe it to be sacred writings of inspired men. The church does state we believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly. This leaves room for the high probability of errors in translation if not the rampant tampering of the bible. This is illustrated by words like Unicorn found in the bible.

Lastly I really don't care if other consider me Christian or not in regards to theology. I only care if I am seen as Christian in my actions and most importantly by Christ.

"Throughout my lifetime of Church membership, my experience has been that we use the word 'Christian' to mean anyone who believes in Jesus Christ"

Including Moslems?

They will tell you they believe in Jesus, too, only differently.

It is not enough to believe in Jesus. You must believe Him to be certain things to qualify as a Christian.

Very interesting article - facts are a bit skewed - but interesting nonetheless.

I was raised a Catholic and now I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) so I have been taught both religions. I am active in my LDS faith.

I find that both religions make compelling cases for their truth and no amount of sparring on commentaries will change anyone's mind.

Are Mormons Christians? Not Nicene Creed Christians but Biblical Christians.

So if you ask if we are Christians, we'll say yes. if you ask if we think you are Christian we'll also say yes. Define Christianity as either Nicene or Biblical and then you'll get a better answer.

Man, some of you need to read a little more closely before taking issue with some of the things in the article.

For example, the stat cited "Mormons were surveyed in American Grace and 100% believe that good people of all denominations can go to heaven, without being baptized as Mormons" does not mean what some of you are saying it means. "Can" "will". Saying "good people can go to heaven" does not mean it is their works that will get them there. It also does not mean that "bad" people won't go. It is by grace we are saved. God will be the judge. From a logical stand point, those of you who took issue with this have no ground to stand on. You must separate assumptions and read only exactly what the stat was...not more.

Correction: Mitt Romney is NOT the first Mormon candidate for president!! Joseph Smith ran for president.

A little research into the 1844 United States Presidential Election will show that Mitt Romney is NOT the first Mormon to run for the office of President of the United States.

Joseph Smith, Junior, mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ran as an independent. He proposed the redemption of slaves by selling public lands and decreasing the size and salary of the United States Congress; the closure of prisons; the annexation of Texas, Oregon, and parts of Canada; the securing of international rights on high seas; free trade; and the re-establishment of a national bank. The campaign ended when he was assassinated while falsely imprisoned on June 27, 1844.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/02/joseph-smith-campaign-for-president-of-the-united-states?lang=eng&media=audio

The article today is thought provoking and opens up many avenues for dialogue regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Here are a few items which I am interested in addressing.

“after his ascension into heaven and preaching to the ten lost tribes of Israel”

I recall no passage in the Book of Mormon which says any such thing as preaching to the ‘ten lost tribes of Isreal’. Where did Webb or even Kainz learn this?

"But Webb concludes that we should not be concerned about the hardly believable stories about Jesus coming to America after his ascension into heaven and preaching to the ten lost tribes of Israel."

'Hardly believable' why? I know Jesus visited the Americas by the very same reason I know Jesus was born in Bethlehem and preached in ancient Israel. That is by the power fo the Holy Ghost. I know it has become somewhat fashionable to purport lots of archeology to support the Bible but in all due seriousness, what good is all that if the underlying issue is coming unto Christ? Isn't that what the Bible is about? If not then I have severely misread it. And how does one come unto Christ but by the power of the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, am I to believe less that King David ruled Jerusalem due to the [complete] lack of archeological evidence to support it? What about the great flood? Moses guiding tens of thousands of Hebrews across the wilderness and to the land of promise? More poignantly, what about the resurrection of Christ? Even without man’s science to “confirm” these truths, I believe fully in all these accounts taught to man by the Holy Bible. Likewise, I know Jesus Christ visited ancient America, that His divine Sonship was proclaimed by the Father, and that He Himself proclaimed His divine role in the eternities by saying, "I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." (3 Nephi 11:14).

Backtracking a sentence in the front page post we read: "In the February 2012 issue of this magazine, Steven H. Webb published “Mormonism Obsessed with Christ.” He recounts how in reading the Book of Mormon for the first time he was astounded that Mormon scripture is to a great extent all about Christ". Despite that same paragraph ending with, "It is enough to realize, he says, that these stories show a great interest, almost an obsession, with Jesus on the part of Mormons, and great affection—possibly more affection than most Christians," 'astounded' has a negative connotation to it. Why? Is it anti-Christian to be obsessed with Jesus? And 'obsessed' is not the word I'd use to describe Mormonism regarding Christ. "Dedicated" to Christ is accurate. "Focused" on Christ is also accurate. Being "Christ-centered" is another accurate depiction of Mormon christology. 'Obsessed',? Again, why? If Margaret Barker's work holds any validity, and I strongly recommend her works, then Jesus was the YHWY of the Old Testament and thus Jesus was taught from the Old Testament to throughout the new. "God the Father", according to Barker, would be Elohim or El Elyon (God Most High) and this aspect of her studies are in precise accordance with LDS theology. Though Mormonism and its beliefs definitely makes room to interchange the titles of these two deities, by and large Mormons view Jesus as YHWY or Jehovah and the Father as Elohim. What the Book of Mormon is make clear who the deity (the second person of the Godhead if you will) is. And, yes, proportionately speaking, the Book of Mormon does testify of Christ more than any other book. We are blessed to have it.

““If Christian doctrine is summarized in, for instance, the Apostles’ Creed as understood by historic Christianity, official LDS teaching adds to the creed, deviates from it, or starkly opposes it almost article by article.””

That would be correct. Mormonism rejects the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, and all other creeds which were made without revelation; nor do they even claim to have been the product of revelation from above. Mormonism summarizes Christian doctrine as coming unto Christ. It’s that simple. I am also curious as to why any Christian, especially as a fine a one as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus was, would even care to define Christianity by the creeds and not by the scriptures? It is my experience that Christians have become so beholden to the creeds that they treat them as if they were biblical doctrine. Yet they are not. To exemplify my point, why would and Christian define his religion by, let’s say, the “Holy Trinity”? We find that phraseology not in the Bible but in the extra biblical creeds offered by the early Christian Church. So why define Christianity by a Christian by something that’s not found in the Bible? More interestingly, when one reads the Nicene Creed and imagine doing so by removing the term “homoousia” or “same substance”, the reader is left with a description of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit much in line with the Mormon view of the Godhead. The LDS do believe that these three divine persons are three separate beings, not three persons in one being as “same substance” is introduced into the creed to substantiate this latter belief. Yet, again, “same substance”, like “Holy Trinity” in not to be found anywhere in the Bible to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son yet I find ample passages in the Bible which are best understood as the Father and the Son as separate being yet united in one divine and eternal purpose.

“But fortunately Mormons, in spite of their desire to convert the world, are not noted for extreme intolerance or for an inability to work with other persuasions for the common good.”

Very true. Here’s part of their official doctrine: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (Article of Faith #11)

“but, in view of the alleged apostasy in early Christianity after the death of the Apostles, a more appropriate question would be: “Are any non-Mormons Christian?””

That’s actually a very silly question to ask. Of course Mormons view all Christians as Christian. Yes, the LDS believe that theirs is Christ’s restored church on earth through the calling of the modern-day prophet, Joseph Smith but by no means does this negate a legitimate claim by non-Mormons to be Christians. Yes, Mormons believe that all of God’s children must come unto Christ and to do so through proper authority and to do so through covenant but Mormons do not care to declare other churches as “not Christian”.

“In contrast, one can imagine what would happen if a Catholic or Lutheran or Episcopalian bishop or priest sought the presidency. An impossibility! Fears of theocracy and relentless invocation of the First Amendment would nip such an attempt in the bud.”

One must realize that the position of “bishop” in “a Catholic or Lutheran or Episcopalian” denomination would not only be considered a spiritual calling but a profession. In the LDS faith it’s a spiritual calling and volunteer work. Since the LDS have unpaid clergy, one’s callings, even that of bishop, is voluntarily accepted and its services voluntarily rendered. For those who will not vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, I’ve consistently said, ‘then don’t” for I have no desire to talk to them or to convince them otherwise. Likewise, I suppose, if others are not voted for because of their faith then that’s the voter’s choice not to, however shortsighted that decision would be.

As for the Book of Mormon being "unbelievable", supposedly due to a lack of archeological/historical evidence, there have been many developments in the archeological and historical findings of the New World during the past several decades. Collectively, they support more and more of Book of Mormon claims. The latest development I have come across is by Brian Stubbs who is a highly respected linguist and his work in to Near Eastern linguistic influence in 30 Native American languages of the Uto-Aztecan family (just as Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian are of the Latin family). Stubbs goes way beyond any causual silimarities bewteen let's say Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan languages. He shows a high level of lexiconal use of Hebrew in these languages (far more than what is required from linguists to declare a linguistic/family relationship between different languages) as well as varioations following distinct patterns. You can read a good introduction to his works at the following link:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=2&id=228

There is also You Tube videos of Brian Stubbs giving a presentation of his findings at a FAIRLDS conference. Great stuff.

While these latest findings and others excite me, I would like to reiterate a point made in my previous post. I know the Book of Mormon is true from the power of the Holy Ghost and anyone else can as well. I do not believe any more in the Book of Mormon with these historical findings than I did before learning about them. t orely on man's science for spiritual truth is akin to rendering that which is God's unto Ceasar and that is not quite how it works.

As a bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I visited people in hospitals, nursing homes, jails, homes and even in their cars and met with many in my office offering counsel, encouragemet, financial assistance and the knowledge that someone cared. Not once did anyone, regardless of church affiliation, including those with no church affiliation, say,"Hey, wait a minute, what's your postion on the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, infant baptism, polytheism, original sin, and, by the way, how many wives do you have?" They only cared that someone was Christian enough to offer the help taught by the Savior. Now, my wife (just one) and I have a new assignment. We coordinate a church-sponsored Addiction Recovery Program. Participants find comfort in knowing that Christ's Atonement includes them. They don't care which churches fit within a box constructed by those who insist on labeling people Christian or non-Christian based on their own definition. For the last 10 years I have taught part time at Marquette University, a Catholic Jesuit university. I greatly admire the Jesuit philosophy of reaching out to the community. I have attended many masses and Protestant services and have always come away with something worthwhile. Does that mean I will switch religions? No. And I doubt that I will see Baptists attending many Catholic masses and Catholics flocking to Unitarian services. But it does mean that all faith-based systems have much to offer as long as they focus on people and not philosophy. That was Christ's way of defining a follower.

I see that a few of the commenters here believe they can prove their status as Christians by impugning the character of 14 million people in general, and of Mitt Romney in particular. Apparently the teaching of the Savior to love both our neighbors and our enemies is not part of their definition of Christianity. There is no evidence that Christ or the apostles ever tested anyone on their knowledge of the "one substance" Trinity. Instead their concern was in how their hearers would praise God through their daily walk.

If Christ has a resurrected physical body, and Christ and the father are of a single "substance", then doesn't God have a physical body?

Howard:

Thank you for your kind replies.

Wisdom_in_Moderation:

Please don't be shocked. There are today approximately thirty eight thousand (38,000) groups that call themselves Christian, and that number is growing each year by a few hundred. Somewhere in that number, is the Church of the LDS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

I think it is realistic to expect, given this huge and growing number of Christian denominations, that detailed knowledge of the inner working of this or that group will be small to non-existent among us, the "general population".

Unless, one finds a particular group interesting for some reason, and studies it. For example, as a Catholic, I find certain aspects of the Amish faith interesting, due to their emphasis on humility and lay practice of a quasi monastic way of life. It is very doubtful, however, that I'll have the time or the inclination to study the other 37, 999 Christian groups in any detail - thus, don't be shocked.

Mark VA, the shock isn't that they don't know. Its that when they are told, they don't listen. Take Mary, for instance. After all I said and wrote, among other comments, she still comes off implying how Mormons believe in Jesus Christ is no different than Muslims who don't even believe Jesus was Christ. The stark difference can't be that hard to notice. Its willful ignorance.

I agree with Raymond's comments above (3-24-12, 10:27PM). The concept of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. Why can't those who deny that Mormonism is Christian, be more precise? That is, since Mormonism affirms that Christ died and was resurrected, and this enables each of us to be saved, it seems wholly illogical to therefore assert that Mormonism is not Christian. But since Mormonism does not accept the Trinity, wouldn't a more accurate description of Mormonism, vis a vis its relationship with Christianity be that it's a nontrinitatrian type of Christianity? After all, Judaism, for example, does not accept the existence of the Christian God, but no one would therefore argue that they're atheists. No, one would say that they're nonchristian theists.

Interesting argument that Mormons make about the creeds. No orthodox Christian (i.e. Christians who don't believe the Church all of a sudden disappeared after the death of the apostles) sees the Apostles or Nicene Creed as having Biblical authority. We don't confuse one with the other. The value of the creeds as statement of what Christians believe is in the history of the early church, and the struggles of the Church to understand exactly what the Gospels said. The issue is whether heresy or orthodoxy wins, and each one was defined against the other. Thus the creeds accurately reflect what Catholics and Protestants of every stripe believe the Gospels tell us.

And one observation comes to mind relative to the Bible. The cannon of scripture wasn't finalized until probably three hundred years after Christ. Why would a Mormon trust the New Testament that orthodox Christians embrace? Seems to me they shouldn't and according to their faith they can't.

Wisdom, Gary, Jettboy, words mean things. Beliefs have consequences. There is a rather broad definition of Christianity and Mormonism just doesn't make the cut. That doesn't mean that Mormons aren't nice people or do good things. It means that when it comes to what they believe they do not fall within the parameters of Christianity. This is not ignorance of what Mormons believe, but a consequence of those very beliefs. Mormons rebaptize converts for very similar reasons. You believe we are part of apostasy. We need to be honest about these things and what they mean. Even if that makes you uncomfortable and calls Mormonism to reassess its rejection of orthodox Christianity.

Speaking to Harvard Law Students on March 20, 2012, in prepared remarks (called Mormonism 101) Jeffrey R. Holland, a modern day Apostle and General Authority for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, lays out very clearly and succintly some of the differences between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian faiths.


What are the differences between the LDS Church and other Christian faiths?

“We are not considered ‘Christian’ by some, I suppose, because we are not Fourth Century Christians, we are not Athanasian Christians, we are not creedal Christians of the brand that arose hundreds of years after Christ. No, when we speak of ‘restored Christianity’ we speak of the Church as it was, not as it became when great councils were called to debate and anguish over what it is they really believed. So if one means, Greek-influenced, council-convening, philosophy-flavored Christianity of post-apostolic times, then we’re not that kind of Christian. …

“We teach that:

God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are separate and distinct beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone. As such we stand with the historical position that ‘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].’ We take literally at His word that Christ ‘came down from heaven, not to do [His] own will, but the will of him that sent [him]’ (John 6:38). … However, having made the point of Their separate and distinct physical nature, we declare unequivocally that They were indeed and are ‘one’ in every other conceivable way—in mind and deed, in will and wish and hope, in faith and purpose and intent and love. They are most assuredly much more alike than They are different in all the ways that I have just said, but They are separate and distinct beings, as all fathers and sons are. In this matter we differ from traditional creedal Christianity, but we do feel we agree with the New Testament.

“We also differ from fourth and fifth century Christianity by declaring that the scriptural canon is not closed, that the heavens are open with revelatory experience, and that God meant what He said when he promised Moses, ‘my works are without end, and … my words … never cease’ (Moses 1:4). We believe that God loves all His children and that He would never leave them for long without the instrumentality of prophets and apostles, authorized agents of His guidance and direction. The Book of Mormon and other canonized scripture, as well as the role of living oracles, witnesses to the fact that God continues to speak.”

“We are unique in the modern Christian world regarding … divine priesthood authority. … The holy priesthood which has been restored to the earth by those who held it anciently signals the return of divine authorization. It is different from all other man-made powers and authorities on the face of the earth. Without it there could be a church in name only, and it would be a church lacking in authority to administer in the things of God. This restoration of priesthood authority eases centuries of questions and anguish among those who knew certain ordinances and sacraments were essential, but lived with the doubt as to who had the right to administer them.”




http://www.lds.org/study/prophets-speak-today/unto-all-the-world/mormonism-101?lang=eng

The article asks the question of "are non-Mormons Christian".

I am a devout, practicing member (38 years and counting) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the 'Mormons') so please allow me to answer the article's main question:

- if someone believes in Jesus Christ and if they are trying their best to follow him, then, YES, a non-Mormon would indeed be a Christian.

And I'll even take it a step further based on those 2 simple creteria (1 - faith in Jesus Christ and 2 - obedience to Jesus Christ): a Mormon may be a Mormon but that doesn't necessarily make him a Christian. If they are making no real attempt to follow the Master then they aren't really Christians, either.

Now, I would like to comment on one other issue: that is that one of the posters above (Joe M. @ 7:34AM on 22 March) implied that the Warren Jeffs followers in Texas are "conservative Mormons".

NOOOOOOOOO!, nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know when the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [FLDS]) broke away from the LDS church (the 'Mormons') but the FLDS church are not now, and have never been, "Mormons". Please do not confuse that. Thanks!

The Nicene creed was not just pulled out of thin air in the fourth century, nor was it some kind of radical change in Christian belief. There is a history behind it going back to the 2nd and 3rd century Church Fathers. The fundamental ideas behind the creed were already there although it took the councils to standardize the terminology and expression of those beliefs: the belief in one God, the belief in Jesus' full divinity, the distinction of persons in God but without separation, the Father always having his Word and Wisdom with him, etc.

In any case, its not like the Nicene creed forced orthodox Christians to start believing in an immaterial and non-human god. That was already a part of Christian belief since at least the early 2nd century. Nicaea was about the divinity of Jesus, not the transcendent immaterial nature of God, which was a given for both sides. So the fundamental divide between Mormons and catholic Christians on God has its roots not in the 4th century but in the 1st and 2nd.

And Catholic and Orthodox Christians do believe that the ecumenical councils were guided by the Holy Spirit in their formulation of Christian doctrine. We are well aware of the actual history of the councils. We believe that God works with flawed human beings and messy historical situations to bring about His Kingdom on earth. Isn't that what LDS apologist argue about some of the unsavory history associated with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Mormon leaders, that they were imperfect and flawed men but the Lord still used them to restore and build up the church in these latter days? The work of God cannot be frustrated? Catholics use a similar line of reasoning except they extend it to the original church that Jesus established, you know the whole "gates of hell" thing.

I hear you, Jettboy.

On my side, one still comes across the "Whore of Babylon", and "Pope is the anti-Christ", sentiments. Oh well, life goes on anyway.

Do they believe in Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, born of a virgin, Mary... yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach this as doctrine.

Do they believe that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, suffered and died to atone for all mankind, and was resurrected and lives... yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach this as doctrine.

Do they believe that it is only through the grace of Jesus Christ that they can return to heaven... yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach this as doctrine.

Do they believe in God the Father, and in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost... yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach as doctrine that they are the trinity of our Godhead.

if anyone wants to know more...

www.lds.org and/or www.mormon.org

If they really want to know more...

Christ is of the same essence as the Father in terms of his divinity - Christ is fully divine not some sort angel or demigod. Christ is also fully man so he has a human body and soul. He is fully God and fully man. His incarnation unites the human to the divine.

I've seen very few Mormons who really understand what orthodox Christianity believes about God and Jesus. But that's certainly excusable, many Christians don't either. And I feel I have a fair understanding of LDS doctrine myself since I was born and raised in the LDS faith, served an honorable mission in the Dominican Republic, graduated from BYU, married in the Manti temple, and am fairly well read with regards to your typical LDS books. I even still have a complete set of Hugh Nibleys works. My wife and children remain faithful Latter Day Saints. I myself will be received into the Catholic Church this Easter Vigil, thanks to God's grace.

Someone may have already pointed out the two errors in Mr. Kainz article.

1) Mitt Romney is not the first LDS Candidate for US President. His father actively campaigned for the Republican nonimation in 1968. And also Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter-Day Saint movement, actively campaigned as an independent for the US Presidency in 1844.

2) While Mitt Romney is an ordained High Priest and Bishop in the LDS Church, he is not serving actively in such an ecclesiastical role at the present time, having been honorably released for his role as such. All of his time is so currently so heavily invested into the campaign that he has no time to give any meaningful service other than to be an example of good Mormon values.

After reading through these comments I am still surprised that the core issue that determines whether Mormons are Christians has not been addressed. Particularly surprised that not one Mormon commenting here has addressed it. The central problem is not that Mormonism has a different understanding of the Holy Trinity. The central problem is that Mormons believe that their are many "gods" of many planets and that worthy Mormon men can become gods of their own planet. I know to non-Mormons here that sounds rather bizarre which may explain why no Mormon commenting here has touched on this aspect of LDS theology. That, to put it bluntly, puts Mormonism very clearly outside of the Christian faith. There is simply no way to reconcile the Christian faith with polytheism.

Mike D'Virgilio, because Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon, among other revelations, that testify of the religious and spiritual truth of the Bible. What more needs to be the proof than the testimony of God and what Mormons believe are His prophets? Even then, Mormons do have some avenues of discussion that haven't been explored to its fullest. For instance, if it wasn't for its predilection toward literalism, Mormonism should be more comfortable with Higher Criticism of Biblical texts. In theory, Mormons are not Biblical inerrancy, with one of its Articles of Faith that the Bible is the Word of God so long as its translated correctly. Its an ambiguous meaning and not much pursued in practice, but indicates a less than perfect trust in Bible text.

A startling discovery: if non-Mormons believe that Mormons' beliefs about Christ are wrong, then Mormons believe that non-Mormons' beliefs about Christ are wrong.

niceguy, the 4th century Christians were the heirs of the 1st century Christians. There is continuity. The Mormon church is influenced primarily by 19th century America not the 1st century Christian Church. There was no general apostasy, so there was no need for a restoration. Christians believe in only one God and there is no other. Mormons cannot say that.

Dan, you use our language but don't mean the same things. You believe in many gods, not one God in three Persons as we mean in the Holy Trinity.

I was a mormon for the first 60+ years of my life and I have 3 advanced degrees in philosophy/theology. So I know a thing or 2 about this. I will be a Catholic in 2 weeks. The journey to truth has been glorious.
Just a couple of points to add to what I said earlier. All of the NT passages about wolves, false teachers etc. none of them say that these "teachers" will completely overwhelm the church Christ left. This is what Christ said will not happen. So the passages do not conflict. What Mormons must believe is that the church was completely destroyed. Secondly, Mormons must believe that person they call "the prophet" the one with all the leadership authority has gotten it disastrously wrong, not in private but in public statements such as conference talks ( e.g. polygamy, african americans ). Grant this and neither scripture nor tradition nor current teaching can be nothing more than sufficient. It can never be eternally true. Read Joseph Smith's 1844 "King Follett" sermon teaches a concept of God that a person simply cannot have absolute trust in. He is to quote an "exalted man". Finally Mormons are taught not to question and develop their faith intellectually, This astounding.

Phillip;

"I myself will be received into the Catholic Church this Easter Vigil, thanks to God's grace. "

You seem to have done very good things in your life. You're more than welcome to join the LDS and to conitnbue in the faith. Good luck to you and your decision to join the Catholic Church. There are many good things about it as I'm sure you well know having served in the Dominican Republic. If you genuinely think and feel that joining the Catholic Church is what God wants to you do, then I sincerely hope you find peace in following your conscience.

BM;

"The central problem is not that Mormonism has a different understanding of the Holy Trinity. The central problem is that Mormons believe that their are many "gods" of many planets and that worthy Mormon men can become gods of their own planet."

This is no problem at all since there is no official LDS doctrine which teaches that anyone will become 'gods of their own planet'. That's pure 100% speculation and has no part in official Mormon faith or worship.

As for there being many "gods", that's solidly biblical. "5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are dall things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8). This Paulian reference to "gods many" cannot refer to idols or false gods as the reference includes "in heaven" and these two verse sum up very nicely LDS theology. The LDS do believe there are "gods many" yet their worship is exclusively coming unto the Father through the Son. That it is *only* by coming unto the Son which one can come unto the Father. This is guided and sanctified by the Holy Spirit thus in LDS theology the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one eternal God". ("and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God..." - Alma 11:44).

At one point Jesus made Himself God and was about to be stoned for blashphemy. His answer is pertinent to the theology of "many gods". We read: 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10). Jesus' reply to the Jews about to stone Him for saying He was God was that they two are "gods" and that this is written in the Law. The Law refered to is found in Psalm 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Why are men "gods"? Because they are children of El Elyon or 'the most High'.

When in the past I have shared these doctrines with others who have expressed concern that the LDS believe in man becoming like Godhave replied that Psalms is speaking about man being judges and thus called "gods". This is very true but doing so and ignoring John 10 one ignores and thus fails to sustain Christ's own application of Psalms 82:6. In the context of John 10, it is very clear that the doctrine He taught was that men are gods beyond the point of being judges. For when Jesus compared Himself to God it was not that of a mere judge but that of the author of man's eternal salvation.

As children of the Most High God, we have the inherent potential to be like God. Here I want to stress that "like" does not mean "equal to". It is solidly clear in official LDS doctrine that no being will ever be equal to God the Creator. He is and always will be the surpeme ruler of all that is according to LDS faith and worship. Jesus said, " 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Mathew 5). Obviously man is not perfect nor ever will be in this life thus I suspect Jesus had in mind a eternal progression towards the Father. How, then is a man unperfect to be perfect "as [their] Father (El Elyon)"? The answer, I think, is found in part in Christ's intercessory prayer where He prayed, "11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." (John 17). Jesus prayed that man may be one with the Father *as* He and the Father are one. Paul later taught in Romans 8:17 "17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Being a "joint heir" means that you stand with another to receive an equal portion of something. Since God is infinite then to be a "joint heir" with Christ, the inheritance is equally infinite. This is all accomplished through Christ - 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an cheir of God through Christ." (Galatians 4).

It is by and through Christ, the only one who lived perfectly, as the Father, on earth, interceeded on our behalf to be one with the Father *as* He is one with the Father.

For a much deeper look into man becoming like God I invite you to read at least a couple of essays prepared by Keith Edward Norman. He shows Christianity's own rich history in mans deification Norman focuses on Athanasius who was the primary arguer against Arius in the Council of Nicea which ended up formulating the Nicene Creed. In his paper, "The Sources of Athanasius' Doctrine of Deification", Norman shows scriptures early Christians used to teach that man may become like God through Christ. In his essay, "The Place of Deification in the Doctrinal System of Athanasius", Norman argues that not only did Athanasius believe in man becoming like God through Christ but such a belief was central to all his theology.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=5&chapterID=39

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=5&chapterID=40

Enjoy the readings. Take care and God bless.

Phillip,

I teach at Utah State University. contact me. Elder Holland doesn't understand the Catholic Church at all . If he believes that Catholics do not believe that the Holy Spirit guides our church every day he is just astoundingly wrong. He says what Mormons believe about God but that actually makes no sense. The universe started with no matter. So if God created the universe then He can't be physical. If He did not then this is not a faith anyone should have. Mormon's just don't agree with the New Testament, not even close. As for prophets. Since a living "prophet" can say that what a previous prophet said in official forums is not true then a future leader can say that the Nicene Creed is true or that some group of people should not have been baptized or that polygamy should be legalized so mormons can practice it.

To Professor Sherlock: I am astonished that you could claim that "Mormons are taught not to question and develop their faith intellectually." I recall that you were involved in a number of efforts to promote Mormon intellectual exploration. Surely you recall any number of statements by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and their successors, as well as leaders within the last fifty years, who called on Mormons to study God's word and obtain their own revelatory confirmation of everything taught over the pulpit. Some seventy years ago some LDS Church editor inserted into a publication the statement "When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." You know very well that the Prophet at the time, George Albert Smith, denounced that statement as offensive and not a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You know very well that the Church invests tremendous resources into the three Brigham Young University campuses, as well as the Institutes of Religion at many other universities across the nation, to promote the parallel development and unification of both spiritual and intellectual growth in each member of the Church. You know that for a century the apostles of the LDS Church have included university professors with PhDs in a variety of disciplines at schools like Yale and Harvard, some whom were university presidents. You know that actual historical experience shows that the level of commitment and faithfulness of Mormons rises as they obtain more education. You know that the Neal Maxwell Institute at BYU exists to advance scholarship in the study of Mormon religious beliefs, and it has published dozens of books consisting of academic study of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses (in the Pearl of Great Price). You know that the LDS Church has promoted preservation and publication and scholarly study about its founder, Joseph Smith, with photocopies and transcripts of his personal journals and intimate correspondence posted online.

The LDS Church not only encourages the Latter-day Saints to gain education, its leaders model doing so, and invite all members to follow in engaging both heart and mind in their effort to understand and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the very structure and operation of the Church invites all members to acquire a personal understanding of their religion, to understand what they believe and why, because their is no career clergy, and the general membership is engaged to teach our religion to each other and to the rest of the world, as missionaries engaging the myriad world cultures, and as leaders and teachers in congregations, where they are called on every week to articulate to others what they believe and why they believe it.

While there are highly accomplished scholars of religion in most traditional Christian denominations, and in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I believe the intellectual engagement of an average Mormon compares favorably with the intellectual engagement of an average member of any other Christian church. I believe that is the conclusion of academic studies such as those published in the recent books American Grace and Almost Christian.

Those interested in assessing the compatibility of Mormonism with scholarly endeavor are invited to examine maxwellinstitute.byu.edu, and mormonscholarstestify.org. fairlds.org is another place to encounter Mormons applying their academic and intellectual training to questions of religious significance. There is an entire Mormon blogosphere engaged with this enterprise. One of them, with links to many others, is timesandseasons.org.

Let me offer a Mormon take on the words of Christ to Peter. After Peter affirmed his conviction that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, Christ commended him for having received revelation from God the Father, and then promised that he would give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them." A few days later, Peter, James and John were on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus, Moses and Elijah. Mormons believe that it was specifically on that occasion that Peter and his fellow apostles received keys of authority by ordination from Christ and these two prophets. Mormons believe that Elijah's authority to bind on earth and heaven specifically applies to the authority to make covenants and perform ordinances on earth that are binding and effectual in heaven, for both the living and the dead.

One of the themes in Peter's first general epistle is thebteaching that, in the time between Christ's death and his resurrection, he visited "spirits in prison" and liberated them. Mormons believe that Christ set in motion a process for taking the gospel of salvation to all the billions of people who had lived and died and awaited resurrection at Christ's Second Coming. This concept was referred to as the harrowing of hell. Peter at his own death took with him keys of authority which enable him to direct thus work. The original Church of Christ and its original membership continues to exist on the other side of death, where Peter unlocks the gates of hell and brings salvation to the spirits of the dead who had no opportunity to hear the gospel in their lives on earth. Christ's church has not died, even though its original members did. The Restoration of authority to earth through the visitation of Peter, Moses and Elijah to Joseph Smith was a reestablishment on the earth of the Church of Christ that has continued to operate and save in the realms beyond death. Peter's keys have opened hell, and continue to do so. And note that in this view, every person who ever lived has the opportunity to respond to his loving Creator and accept salvation at His hand. This concept may offend those who love to contemplate billions of people suffering in hell for eternity, but for people whose recently deceased ancestors were not Christian, it is a view that confirms a God of infinite compassion, earned through the sacrifice of his own blood.

Darren, the concept of deification in Christianity holds that we become like God by grace not by nature. In Isaiah God says, "I am the first the last the only God. There are no other Gods but me." The Jewish faith in the shema is intensely monotheistic. So is Christianity with the correct understanding of the Trinity. Who was it that promised equality with God back in the garden? You do illustrate clearly the differences between Christianity and Mormonism.

Raymond, the keys given to St. Peter were passed on to his successors. St. Linus was next in line. There was no apostasy, such an idea is an insult to the thousands of Catholic martyrs who died for Christ in the first centuries of the Church.

Richard Sherlock;

"I was a mormon for the first 60+ years of my life and I have 3 advanced degrees in philosophy/theology. "

Franky, that strikes me as pompous and self delusionary grandeur.

"What Mormons must believe is that the church was completely destroyed."

This is a highly incorrect statement. The only thing mormons must believe is that the authority to govern Christ's church was lost, not that it was 'completely destroyed'. Peter received the keys to govern the Church, who received it after him and how?

"Secondly, Mormons must believe that person they call "the prophet" the one with all the leadership authority has gotten it disastrously wrong, not in private but in public statements such as conference talks ( e.g. polygamy, african americans )."

There's nothing wrong about how polygamy was received and ultimtely terminated. As for blacks and the priesthood, I have concluded that there is no enough information as to why they were given it under Joseph Smth and then prohibited from Brigham Young until 1978 when the revelation came that all worthy males are to receive it.

"Read Joseph Smith's 1844 "King Follett" sermon teaches a concept of God that a person simply cannot have absolute trust in. He is to quote an "exalted man". "

What we have today known as "King Folett Report" is a produce of third party recording, passed off to other people who edited it and it was first published after Joseph Smth's death and thus he never had the opportunity to review it. In other words, it is a highly unreliable source of documentation. We know Joseph Smith did say something regarding God and the nature of God but it is unclear as tothe specifics and nuances of what he said.

"Finally Mormons are taught not to question and develop their faith intellectually, This astounding."

Raymond Takashi Swenson gave an absolutely superb reply to you on this. Please take time to read it. All I will say is that you need not read any further than this thread to see for yourself that Mormons very much develope their tesimonies intellectually. education and knowledge have always been strongly supported in LDS theology and teachings.

Article quote: "Evidently, the more we know about Mormonism, the more we can see that we have been asking the wrong question. From the Mormon point of view, the question to be asked is not, “Are Mormons Christian?” but, in view of the alleged apostasy in early Christianity after the death of the Apostles, a more appropriate question would be: “Are any non-Mormons Christian?”"

Wow, if I'm not mistaken, I am the ONLY commentor on here to answer the article's main question, namely, do Mormons beleive that non-Mormons can be considered Christians.

See my answer to that question above, posted 3.24.2012 @ 2:08pm. It is simple, complete and true.

Does the phrase "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" mean anything to any of you???

"After all I said and wrote, among other comments, she still comes off implying how Mormons believe in Jesus Christ is no different than Muslims who don't even believe Jesus was Christ. The stark difference can't be that hard to notice. Its willful ignorance. "

Notice the complete failure to grapple with my counter-example: If you claim that belief in Jesus Christ makes you a Christian, I have to produce only one person who believes in Jesus Christ without being a Christian to refute your rule.

Does Jettboy refine his rule to something that would exclude Muslims and include Mormons, or claim that Muslims are Christian? No, he does not. He makes up something -- namely that Mormons are no different from Muslims -- attributes it to me, and calls it "willful ignorance." This is blatant dishonesty.

Fr. J;

"Darren, the concept of deification in Christianity holds that we become like God by grace not by nature. "

That's precisely one point in which Keith Edward Normal examines. What you said has become what most people believe to be regarding the early Christian teachings of deification. The early Christians point to Genesis which says that man was created in the image of God thus inherit God's divinity, or rather, at least a portion of it. Man fell by sin, has always been fallen by sin but it is through Christ redemtion is realized and man's full divine potential may be reached. Eventualy this was all condemned by the Christian Church but no doubt such teachings were solidly held by early Christians such as Athanasius.

"In Isaiah God says, "I am the first the last the only God. There are no other Gods but me." "

This is exactly what Mormons teach and believe. There will be no being superior to or equal to God the Father and His Son but if you are trying totake this text (which is worded diferently than from what I am used to reading) to say that literally there are no other gods but God than you too fail to support Christ's own words declaring even upon those who accused Him of blashpemy as "gods" themselves. Therefore, according to Christ's reasoning, how was it they accused Him of blasphemy for saying He was God when their own doctrines declare them "gods" (as children of the most High (Elyon)". As for your assertion that there literally are no "Gods" but God then why would Jesus say such a thing? You are correct that it is by grace which man reaches his full eternal potential and mormons agree with that theology.

"The Jewish faith in the shema is intensely monotheistic. So is Christianity with the correct understanding of the Trinity."

I'll amend a small but significant protion of that statement: Jews interpret the Shema in strict monotheistic understanding but Christians do not, nor have they ever. As I previouly posted on 3/23 I referred to the works of margaret Barker. In her book "The Great Angel: Isreal's Second God", she outlines how "Deuteronomists" got hold of the Hebrew sctriptual texts and altered it to ake their theology more monotheistic. They conflated the names of God Elohim and YHWH to mean only one being or divine person. This, as she points out, is the very reason many in Isreal accused Jesus of blashpemy. Because at that point in time many among the Jews were taught a strict monotheism and thus eft no room for anyone to declare Himself the "Son of God" or "one" with God or the great "I AM". However, many others followed Jesus because they recognized that He was restoring that which should be: that there was Elohim who is known as God the Father in the New testament and YHWH who is "LORD" or Jesus in the New Testament. I emphatically agree with Barker's conclusions. Though trinitarian herself, I think this alteration fits nicely within Mormon theology. Especially that of the "Great Apostasy".

"So is Christianity with the correct understanding of the Trinity."

Having the Holy Trinity as part of one's theology automatically makes it a non strict monotheistic theology. In strict monotheistic settings, there is no room to declare a polytheistic view of God. And declaring three divine perosns of one being inherently makes the declaration of God polytheistic. The Holy Trinity was an attempt to declare Christianity as monotheistic while dealing with the fact that there are three divine beings testified about in the the Christian scriptures. Where did "Holy Trinity" and "homoousia" or "same substance" come from? They are not from any part of the Bible which I am familiar with but you can trace their roots to Hellenistic philosphy. What's interesting is that by the fourth century, there is somewhat widespread talk of a "trinity" but less and less so as one goes back in time from that point until you get to the Bible itself where neither term are mentioned at all. It's fascinating to me that Christians definie their faith on philisophical terms as opposed to biblical terms.

You are very correct in that Mormonism does go against the orthodoxy, and tradition of much of Christianity however being saying "You do illustrate clearly the differences between Christianity and Mormonism", is a silly way to structure that fact. mormonism is solidly Christian. In fact, as mentioned on this thread's front page, Mormons are "obssessed" with Jesus. I find it quit odd that a Christian would imply Mormons are not christian and base that implication on fourht century philosophy as oppsoed to its own doctrines found in the scriptures. It is correct to say that while Mormons are not traditional Christians they are indeed Christians both according to their theology and their works.

"Raymond, the keys given to St. Peter were passed on to his successors. St. Linus was next in line."

That's hardly concrete. There are those who say that Pope Clement I was Peter's successor. The fact that there is no record, nor indication as to how either of these men received the authroity from Peterto govern the Christian Church as a whole aids the LDS view of the apostasy. The LDS view is that by calling Joseph Smith God "restituted" all things.

Dan Maloy;

"Wow, if I'm not mistaken, I am the ONLY commentor on here to answer the article's main question, namely, do Mormons beleive that non-Mormons can be considered Christians.

See my answer to that question above, posted 3.24.2012 @ 2:08pm. It is simple, complete and true."

See my 3/23 @7:24 pm post. :>)

Darren, you seem to be confusing gnosticism with Christianity. Early Christians did not teach that we inherit a portion of the divinity. Gnosticism, which has much in common with Mormonism, was condemned by the Church. It wasn't Christianity.

Jesus was using a Rabbinic form of argument. He did not mean that we are "gods." The shema which he recited as a Jew states that there is only one God. The only person in the Bible who taught that we are "gods" in the sense you mean it was the serpent in the garden of Eden.

I am sure the folks at FARMS like some of what Barker said. But that is not how the Jews saw it. If you read Robert Louis Wilken (The Christians as the Romans saw them and The Spirit of Early Christian Thought) you will not see indications that Jews were less then monotheistic. The OT is replete with God's wrath when the Jewish people followed idols or false "gods." The Christians saw other "gods" as demons. I am afraid there is no room in Judaism or Christianity for polytheism. No matter how you slice it. Credo in UNUM Deum. There are no indications of a great apostasy in the early Church. In fact Mormonism is apostasy from Christianity.

The Holy Trinity is not opposed to monotheism. While someone may disagree with how we view the nature of God it does not mean that we worship more then one God. Like so many you don't understand what the dogma of the Holy Trinity actually is. The Church was very clear and our creed, again, begins Credo in UNUM Deum. We do not believe in sola scriptura and neither do you, so let's dispense with that. The Catholic Church canonized the Bible. Where does the Bible talk about pseudo Masonic ceremonies in temples? Where does it mention Moroni or Lamanites?

All of this points to my words being very precise, Mormonism is different from Christianity. I base this on scripture and tradition dating to the 1st century. You say we are apostates based on 19th century American philosophy that comes from a man named Smith who claimed to find some gold tablets. I think I will stick with Catholicism. Btw, Clement was the 3rd successor of St. Peter. We have a list of Popes and the Fathers attest to this. You have only the word of Smith, a convicted fraud who lied about the number of wives he had. There was no need to restore what was never lost.

Mormonism is not Christianity. It is a new religion based on Christianity. It's gods are not our God. It's Jesus is not our Jesus. Mormons are nice people, but they are not Christians.

For those interested in the official Catholic position, especially on baptism:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

If you believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, you're Christian. Maybe you want to say Mormons aren't traditional Christians or orthodox Christians or historical Christians (all fair), but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church, even if it's not your brand.

But the debate over this eventually feels like people arguing over who should be allowed membership into the country club.

John, it is far more then that. It is a matter of truth. It is important. Beliefs have consequences. Relativism and false irenicism does not serve the truth. It isn't a matter of "brand." The question is are they Christians objectively? The answer is "no."

FR. J;

"Darren, you seem to be confusing gnosticism with Christianity. Early Christians did not teach that we inherit a portion of the divinity. Gnosticism, which has much in common with Mormonism, was condemned by the Church. It wasn't Christianity. "

Sir, read the essays by Keith Edward Norman I previously linked. He shows that Athanasius believed that we humans inherited a part of God's divinity and that the doctrine of being created in God's image was widely upheld to support that belief. These early Christians also used the doctrine of being a "joint-heir" with Christ in the eternities as becoming like God in nature. Gnoscticism, which Norman also addresses, believed in some of this but not all of it. All this, of course, was eventually condemned by the Early Christian Church. It was condemned by the Latin Church around the 5th century and by the Eastern Christian Church around the 7th century though the latter still retains traces of that origin more so than the Western Church.

"Jesus was using a Rabbinic form of argument. He did not mean that we are "gods." The shema which he recited as a Jew states that there is only one God. The only person in the Bible who taught that we are "gods" in the sense you mean it was the serpent in the garden of Eden."

Again, you, as I said of others I have encountered, fail to support the context of which Jesus was calling the Jews ready to stone Him for blasphemy as "gods". It is because the Massoretic text by which the King James and Vulgate versions of the Bible rely on, were deliberately misconstrued to teach a strict monotheism so when Jesus said, "I and my Father are one", the Jews, "took up stones again to stone him." In a strict monotheistic theology of Judaism there was no room for any divine being to exist other than one (mono) being which is God [the Father]. After Jesus said He was one with the Father and the Jews sought ot stone Him, He said, "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" In this context it is blatantly clear that Jesus was teaching that He and the Father are one [God] ("hen" which can also mean one in unity, not just numerically). After declaring His oness with the Father Jews sought to stone Him. Jesus then called them "gods" according to their own doctrine and so they had no reason to stone Him for saying He was one with God (the Father).

Being "gods", I think, is the very reason Jesus suplicated the Father that all should be one in Him *as* He and the Father are one. There is no other creation outside of humanity which Jesus offered such salvation to for none other are created with the same divine inheritance. Being children of the "most High" makes us "gods". But it is *only* through Jesus Christ which any of us can reach our full divine and eternal potential.

"The only person in the Bible who taught that we are "gods" in the sense you mean it was the serpent in the garden of Eden."

As you can see, that is not true. Not only is there John 10 but there's 1 Corinthians 8:5, "5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)". This talks about 'gods in heaven'. Yes, there is one God. We are to all come unto God in Christ and be united in Him. He is the one being to glorify and to worship. Even worshipping the Son glorifies the Father for they are one.

"you will not see indications that Jews were less then monotheistic. "

Early on in their history, they were. In the Qumran caves we found non-Massoretic texts of the Old Testament. Margaret Barker points out a significant change in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. In the Massoretic text which you and I are familiar with we read, "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance." She points out that the Septuagint reads, "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God." The texts found in the Qumran caves 'angels of God' is changed to "sons of God" and then there's verse 9 which reads that YHWH ("LORD" in English) received His portion of Jacob (Isreal). Here it is clear that the "LORD" received an alotment from 'the most High' (Elyon). Elyon and LORd, are, therefore, spoken about as two different persons. In the Hebrew texts of the Qumran caves "LORD" is the son of 'the most High'. This has clearly been lost in Judaisms' strict monotheistic outlook but retained by Christians for Jesus is "LORD", not the "most High" which is applied to the Father in Christian scripture. In other words, the Father and the Son were clearly taught in the Old Testament yet obviously lost in Judaic theology.

http://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf

"I am afraid there is no room in Judaism or Christianity for polytheism."

Not true, whether trinitarian or Mormon they both teach God in pluristic terms. You absolutely cannot say that teaching three divine persons is not polytheistic. You can say it is henotheistic but it is not monotheistic teaching. Judaism, as well as Islam, are strictly monotheistic, not Christianity.

"In fact Mormonism is apostasy from Christianity"

Mormonism apostates from *traditional* Christianity is true for it restores what Christianity ought to be.

"The Holy Trinity is not opposed to monotheism. While someone may disagree with how we view the nature of God it does not mean that we worship more then one God."

I agree actually but you do teach that there is more than one divine person in God, correct? That makes the Holy Trinity not "strictly monotheistic". In fact, not only does the Holy Trinity teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are divine but each respectively are "God". The fact that you teach there are three "God"s removes you from from a strictly monotheistic theology. I do understand tat the concept of the Holy Trinity does teach that there are not three separate "God"s but one God in [immaterial] substance but as I said, it does so under the condition that the one (mono) being "God" is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Because of that, it is not strictly monotheistic.

Mormonism also teaches about one Eternal God in three divine persons. It just makes clear that the three persons are three separate and distinct beings (not just persons) but united in one (mono) purpose as One Eternal God. Mormonism rejects the teaching that the Father and the Son are one being in substance which teaching is not biblical but philosophical. Whether from Trinitarian Christianity or Mormon Christianity, God is taught in pluristic terms and therefore neither are "strictly monotheistic".

"Where does the Bible talk about pseudo Masonic ceremonies in temples?"

LOL, where does the Book of Mormon? As for the Bible prophecying of the Book of Mormon, the book is the foretold "familiar spirit" srung forth out ofthe earth to testify with the Bible that Jesus of the Christ, the Son of the living God. And you may want to talk to fellow Catholics about "sola scriptura". I do believe Catholics view the Bible as the only source for revealed doctrine and that all the traditions and teaches of the Catholic Church are based upon the Holy Bible.

And, yes, the Catholic Church did cannonize the Bible and the entire world is in debt for the Catholic Church for doing so.

"Mormonism is different from Christianity. "

No argument there. But I do point out that it is different from *traditional* Christianity, not biblical Christianity.

"You have only the word of Smith, a convicted fraud who lied about the number of wives he had. "

Convicted fraud? Really? What was he convicted of? Gold digging I presume?

It is true that the practice of polygamy was denied publicly while actually happening. Smith and others were deeply concerned as to the backlash from revelaing it publicly. But that said I really don't think you want to go down the road of immoral church leaders, do you? I sure don't. That could get ugly.

Thanks for the heads up on Clement but I do think there are those who say he was the second Pope, not Linus but I do appreciate the correction which may have been needed.

"Mormonism is not Christianity. It is a new religion based on Christianity."

Huh? It's not Christianity but based on Christianity?

"It's Jesus is not our Jesus."

The Son of the Father is Mormonism's Jesus. I thought that was Catholicism's Jesus too. Was I mistaken all this time?

"Mormons are nice people, but they are not Christians. "

The niceness Mormons have become to be known by is a nature result of striving to live as Jesus taught man should live and to make Jesus the center of their worshp and personal ives.

I am very sorry for sounding pompous. I should not have done that. Raymond deserves a response. The idea that the Mormon universities foster critical thinking about Mormonism is laughable. They do not. I know this first hand. no question about it. Let me give you an example. I know many highly intelligent Mormon students who said essentially "I oppose gay marriage" Then Why? "Because the church says so" That is not reasoning or critical thought. That kind of answer will be washed away in debated. It has now roots. The Mormons you say went and got advanced degrees none of them really studied philosophy or theology. The could not give you with any precision why the early Church came to understand the trinity they way they did and still do. They could not tell you why they don't accept it except that their church says so. That is not a melding of faith and reason it is keeping them apart. The institute system is actually worse. They discourage, actively discourage, critical thought. Finally, your explanation of Christ's change to Peter makes a mockery of the text. The text says nothing about a "church" in the next world being what he is talking about. Nor in the case of the transfiguration does it say anything remotely like what you say. To get what you say, you have to say that that the earliest manuscripts we have are hopelessly corrupt. There is not one shred of evidence about this. I'm sorry about this but the siren call of truth eventually will be heard even by people like me.

Objectively the answer is "yes".

Richard Sherlock;

If I may

"Let me give you an example. I know many highly intelligent Mormon students who said essentially "I oppose gay marriage" Then Why? "Because the church says so" That is not reasoning or critical thought."

First off, I do not know any Mormons who opose gay marriage because 'the Churhc says so'. In fact the LDS members are 100% free to vote as citizens in favor of gay marriage if that is what their conscience dictates. Doing so will not affect their standing in the Church whatsoever. Second, the LDS Church gave a much deeper reason to oppose gay marriage than a mere "because we said so". During the Prop 8 debates which I'm sure you know the LDS Church was heavily involved iwth to pass it, the LDS Church held open forums on the topic and answered many questions and concerns regarding the issue. You can go to the LDS Church official news site and find videos arguing in favor of Prop 8.

"The Mormons you say went and got advanced degrees none of them really studied philosophy or theology."

Which is propbably why they can think rationally. ;>) (I'm only kidding. I like philosophy a lot).

On a more serious note, philosophy and theology are not the only academics necessary to debate and to think rationally. I know very few who studied philosophy or theology extensively yet I frequently encounter LDS folks with brilliant insights into all sorts of issues.

"The could not give you with any precision why the early Church came to understand the trinity they way they did and still do. They could not tell you why they don't accept it except that their church says so."

Most can't tell you that in detail is true. I myself was unfamiliar with much of that detail until just a few years ago when I began to look into the history behind the Council of Nicea. It's complex yet I'm very confident to sa that the Nicene Creed is full of philosophy and short of doctrine. It's a creed which distanted Christianity from its doctrinal roots and move it further more towards an abstract philosophical one. I am also very confident in saying that "Holy Trinity" and "same substance" are not biblical but philosophical and strikingly identical to Hellenistic thinking and without "same substance" the whole concept of the Holy Trinity pretty much falls apart and what is left are concepts very similar to that of the Mormon concept of the Godhead.

"The institute system is actually worse. They discourage, actively discourage, critical thought."

I had a polar opposite experience attending institute.

"The text says nothing about a "church" in the next world being what he is talking about."

Neither do Mormons teach that these spirits join a curch in the afterlife. As far as my understanding goes, the LDS believe that joining a church is an earthly event, not of the afterlife though baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and as far as I can tell is really the only Christian church which knows how all of God's created children may receive it. Literally, all of them. It's a knowledge of the great love the Father has for all His children.

I've seen a lot of anti-Mormon literature. Such publications are replete with scriptural references from the Bible where they think they can gain some doctrinal advantage over the Mormons from the standpoint of that Biblical authority.

Yet when it come to this very central issue of defining Christianity -- in order to determine who's a Christian and who's not -- there is hardly an appeal by the anti-Mormons to scriptural authority -- only to "tradition", the tradition codified in the creeds a few centuries after Christ's mortal ministry.

It is the Mormons who seem able to cite the Bible when it come to scriptural support of the nature of God and Christ.

"Mormons are taught not to question and develop their faith intellectually, This astounding. "

Perhaps the most astounding admission on this whole comment board is that the individual who made that statement has decided to throw his fortunes in with the Catholic church. Certainly there are individuals among all faiths who delve into religious scholarship, but as a group, Catholics are usually near the bottom of religious knowledge. In many parts of the world Catholicism is heavily infused with superstitions (to ward off evil, for example). The Catholicism of Mexico is quite different than the Catholicism of the US east coast in the lives of the people. I have attended Catholic services on a number of occasions (in various parts of the globe) and have found no inducement toward religious scholarship for the average person.

Darren, the Church rightly condemns the idea that we are divine. I do not accept the argument that St. Athanasius taught this. I do not think the scripture is being misconstrued to say there is only one God. I think that it is Mormons who misconstrue scripture in order to make it fit what Joseph Smith claimed. God repeatedly punished Israel for not being monotheistic. There is simply no way that you can claim that Jews and Christians were not monotheistic. It is one of the major differences between us and the pagans as well as us and Mormons. I am not God nor will I ever be, nor will you. Paul referred to other "gods" in the sense that they are idols and false, demons. He says "so-called gods" in the context of idolatry, for example money can be a "god" to some people. Once again we see it is Mormons who misconstrue scripture. I would also remind you that Qumran texts are not scripture and have no authority.

Again I note that you do not comprehend the Trinity. The creed begins "I believe in ONE God." If you go back and read what the Fathers taught they were very clear that this was not polytheism. Even the pagans understood that. Mormons however are clearly polytheistic. If you would like a simple and clear text on the Trinity I suggest Frank Sheed's Beginning Catholicism, it has a chapter on it. Do your homework.

You are incorrect about our beliefs about the Bible. We also believe in Tradition. Both are part of the deposit of faith. Neither mentions any Book of Mormon. It does mention those who come and teach a different Jesus though. We are to reject it.

Smith sent some men on mission and then took their wives as his. He lied about polygamy. My rule of thumb is that if someone claims they are founding a new religion and they benefit with money, power, or sex then they are false. Jesus got the cross for his trouble, so he did not benefit. Certainly we have had some very bad clergy and even Popes. But they were not the founders of our religion. Jesus is our founder and no scandal is attached to him. Smith claimed special status as the founder or "re-founder" and comes up woefully short. I think the same of Muhammad. And actually Mormonism is more like Islam then Christianity. It is a religion that has some roots in Christianity, but has become something different...something else.

There are nice Buddhists and some of them revere Jesus as an avatar, but that doesn't make them Christians. I know this is not what you want to hear, but the decision has been made far above my level. It is not up to me or you. The Catholic Church does not consider Mormonism to be Christian. That will not change until Mormonism changes and becomes Christian. Nothing we say here is going to make any difference as to the status of the Mormon church or to change my understanding of the crucial differences between us. I believe in ONE God... this is our faith, this is the faith of the Church, we are proud to profess it in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Fr. J;

From your link to the Catholic Church's official position on baptism:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

"There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony"

I'd tweek that slightly using more qalifiers but essentially that's good enough.

But here's where I truly hope that your link is NOT officially part of the Holy Roman Catholic Church:

"This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. "

Except for God [the Father] being an 'exalted man' and that God and all His creations, including Jesus, are of the same substance have *some* validity to it, as for the Heavenly Mother, God from another planet who died, etc. there is NO OFFICIAL DOCTRINE WHATSOEVER in the LDS theology which says any such things. This is all speculation and ths have no part in official LDS worship or faith. the LDS believe that God was in the beginning, precisely as declared in Genesis. We do learn from the Book of Abraham that God organized spirit which is referredto as "intelligence". These intelligences, which are you and I, were created and among them one was created "like unto God". That would be Jesus. The LDS are not ex-nililists and nether does the Bible teach as much. Ex-nihilo, in my mind, is yet another example of how philosophy became doctrine over time. The LDS do not believe that God created everything out of nothing. Spirit is eternal. It has always existed and always will exist. There is nothing unbilbical about this but as before, it does go against the traditional orthodoxy of Christianity but Christian it is.

As for God being an exalted man, that much is true. That's what the LDS believe though the exact manner of His exaltation has never been revealed and thus plays no part in LDS worship or faith. The LDS believe firmlythat God the father is the one and only God above all that is and that nothing will ever change that. The LDs believe that the Father has exalted the Son for the Son has carried out His will in all things that the Father would have Him do. There is not once centilla of unchristian doctrine of which I have just shared.

For further insights on worshipping an anthromorphic God, there is strong reason to conclude that this is exactly what the ancient Hebrews saw as God, I strongly recommend a dpresentation given by Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier called "In Defense of Anthropomorphism" which he details how Mormon doctrines line up quite harmoniously with the Old Testament teachings regarding the physical nature of God.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/reflections-mormonism-judaeo-christian-parallels/9-defense-anthropomorphism

And you'll be impressed with Cherbonnier's credentials (as well as Richard Sherlock):

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/pdfs/EDMOND-LaB.pdf


When I can I'll provide another source to look into.

Now, why would the Holy Roman Catholic Church include doctrinal speculation to refuse to recognize the baptisms of the LDS Church? Also, I'm baffled as to wh they say the LDS does not baptize in the name of the "Holy Trinity"? Namely, why is not the title of "Holy Trinity" pronounced in the Catholic baptism. I'd really like an answer to that.

And why are there 3 anyhow? Christ referred to himself as the Son of God. If he wanted to promote pure monothesim, he would have said he was God come down to earth. The same could apply to the Holy Ghost in that He said that He would send the Holy Ghost.

In Will Durant's epic series, The Story of Civilization, in volume III, Caesar and Christ, he describes the Nicean Council thusly, "Athanasius, the eloquent and pugnacious archdeacon whom Alexander had brouight with him as a theological sword, made it clear that if Christ and the Holy Spirit were not of one substance with the Father, polythesim would triumph. He conceded the difficulty of picturing three distinct persons in one God, but argued that reason must bow to the mystery of the Trinity. . . ."

I understand that Will Durant was Catholic but that he later left that religion. Correct me if I am wrong.

Fr. J;

" I do not think the scripture is being misconstrued to say there is only one God. "

The meaning of "one" has been isconstrued but as for the Old Testament, if they were not misconstrued then you'll have to explain why Jews today are strictly monotheistic which Christians beilieve in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Modern-day Judaic orthodoxy holds no room for any such thing in their theology yet Jess and Christians bot come from the same root. If it wasn't the sctriputres misconstrued, then what was it which lead Christians to form around Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy while Jews continued to follow the Law. Why did many Jess wantto stone Jesus for blashphemy and later crucified?

"God repeatedly punished Israel for not being monotheistic."

YHWH or "LORD" was the true God of Isreal. When they left YHWH, they were punished. Clearly though, I have demonstrated that there are Old Testament writings which teach YHWH as the Son of Elohim who is El Elyon (God most High). Christians applied this title to the Father and "Lord" to the Son" clearly connecting to this Old Testament teaching yet many among the Jews found such a belief blasphemous before God.

As I showed from Deuteronomy, YHWH was to inherit Isreal as His people and accordng tothe Shema, they are to worship only Him. In 3 Nephi 11, after Jesus ascended from heaven He said, "14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole dearth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." Jesus declared Himself the 'God of Isreal' as well as of 'the whole earth'. So Mormon theology fits perfectly well with the Shema as the "LORD" being the one God for Isreal to worship. The reason they were to worship Him was that He as always been the only (mono) way to the Father who was referred to as Elohim with the title of "Elyon" (most High). Since this was taught inthe Old Testament (and do not forget Isaiah peophecying of a virgin to conceive and bare a son named Emanuel meaning "God with us") how di the Jews wantot stone Jesus for saying He was the Son of God? Viewing Jesus' accusers them as at that point in time as having become strictly monotheistic, perhpas due to the traditions passed on to them from what Barker calls the Deuteronomists, makes perfect sense. Other Jews, even Jesus' apostles, recognized Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy and of the Law. So, like Peter, followed Him with haste. Two very polarizing results from a group of people who read the same scripture. If scripture were not misconstrued then what happened?

"There is simply no way that you can claim that Jews and Christians were not monotheistic."

I am sayingthat you cannot apply the category of "strictly monotheistic" to Christianity at par with the Jews. The Jews reject not only the Holy Trinity but Jesus as the Messiah or Son of God as an impossibility because of their strict monotheistic theology. In this regard, modern-day Judaism and Christianity are on the opposite ends of the theological spectrum. In this regard, Catholocism has far more in common with LDS theology than it does with modern-day Judaism.

Yes, Christians are monotheistic in that they proclaim to worship one being and one being only. But they teach that one being as three divine persons each divine person is God. This has absolutely no room in Judaism or the world's other strictly monotheistic religion, Islam. In Mormonism, howeve,r the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God as members of One Eternal God. The LDS worship the Father through the Son and guided and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. That is the only (mono) path to salvation). In the end, according to the LDS worship, the Father receives all glory. John superbly sums up Mormon theology: " 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17). Mormons view the Father as the eternal supreme ruler and benvolent Father uof us all and that all things from Him are through the Son and all things to Him are through the Son.

" I am not God nor will I ever be, nor will you. "

Mormons agree completely.

"Paul referred to other "gods" in the sense that they are idols and false, demons."

Read Paul again, sir. I'll capitalize the following for emphasis. I Corinthians 8:5, "5 For though there be that are called gods, WHETHER IN HEAVEN or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)". Yes, 'gods man' from the earth can refer to idols no doubt but what idol god would you cite as being 'in heaven'? Thsi scripture is referencing 'gods many' in spite of the fact that Christians worship only one God. That would be the Father through the Son.

"I would also remind you that Qumran texts are not scripture and have no authority. "

You're reinforcing sola scriptura by saying that. Despite the fact that the scrolls of the Qumran caves not being in the Bible (it's hard to since they were apparently hidden, you know, in a cave), they are the oldest known scriptural text we have today (the Septuagint was the oldest privious to their discoveries). Even though I cited one difference in those scrolls with that of today's Massoretic texts, they are overwhelmingly recise in their translation with today's writings which are biblical. Andthe fact that we have different sources accepted as scritpure today (Massoretic and LXX) theres no reason to reject these scrolls as not reflective to theology in Old Testament times. But my main point in citing them via Margaret Barker was to show a clear teaching that YHWH was seen as the Son of the most High and that it is Christianity which preserved this teaching via its own doctrines.

""I believe in ONE God.""

Yes, you said that in the Latin form. But Mormons teach the same thing. "...but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil." (Alma 11:44). But the Nicene Creed, as I have said, was an attempt to explain how the Christian scriptures teach of three divine persons yet there is only "one God". The Concil concluded that they may best do this by including "homoousia" or "same substance". Even in your link regarding the Catholic Church's rejection of Mormon baptism, they citethe lack of Mormon theology declaring the Father and the Son as being one substantly. I remind you that "homoousia" is not found anywhere in the Bible. It therefore cannot be declared as doctrine according otthe revealed word, especially from those who believethat the Bible is the only source to learn of God's revealed word. "Homoousia" is thus philosophical so why base doctrine of philosophy? It should be the other way around.

"If you go back and read what the Fathers taught they were very clear that this was not polytheism"

I';ve read Justin Martyr in a Dialogue with Typho saying, "Justin: 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 [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world—above whom there is no other God—has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with." ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm ) That doesn't sound "strictly monotheistic" to me. Yuo can also clearly see subordination in Martyr's words regarding the Son to the Father and subordination is a big no-no to trinitarians.

"Mormons however are clearly polytheistic. "

Yes, in the sense of God being separate beings united together in purpose but the LDs worship one (mono) Father through His Only (mono) Begotten Son. In worship it is uite monotheistic. But, again, it is both traditional Christians and Mormons who speak of God in pluralistic terms. And "plural" is the opposite of "mono".

"Neither mentions any Book of Mormon."

Here: "11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:" (Isaiah 29:11).

Compare that to: "and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’.." (Joseph Smit History 1:65.

There's also a voice from the dust, the stick of Judah and Ephraim.

"Smith sent some men on mission and then took their wives as his. "

And these men knew of it and did not oppose it. None.

"My rule of thumb is that if someone claims they are founding a new religion and they benefit with money, power, or sex then they are false."

Fine.

1) Joseph Smith was not only martyred (by "true Christians") but was martyred a fiscally broken man. Well, as fiscally broke as one can get.

2) Joseph Smith was a humble man and those who knew him would regularly attest to that. If you think exacommunicating members is a sign of abuse of power then, well, let's just remind yo that you're Catholic. Arius was not only excommunicated but also expelled. I say that if that's what the Church decided then fine. But, he was never questioned or doubted as to his Christianity.

3) There is no record anywhere that Joseph Smith had any sexual relations with anyone except with Emma Smth. Not babies but by her, no journal entry, no diary, no word from any family member of any of Joseph Smith's wives, nothing. There is one who said her daughter was Joseph Smith's daughter but it is unclear if that was referringto paternity of figuatively. There's been extensive DNA testing and from all tests which can be concluded have shown that none of the children said to have descended from Joseph Smith did not descend from him but from other men.

"Jesus is our founder and no scandal is attached to him."

That's what Mormons teach regadring their faith. And in some ways the only true church can be the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church.

"And actually Mormonism is more like Islam then Christianity. "

Here, let me repost 3 Nephi 11:14, " 14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

What doctrine does Islam have which comes anywhere near declaring Jesus as the 'God of Israel' and the 'God of the whole earth'?

"There are nice Buddhists and some of them revere Jesus as an avatar, but that doesn't make them Christians. "

Good thing Mormons revere Jesus as the Only Begotten Son of God and the center of all their worship and the only way which man may be eternally saved.

/PHEW!!!

"The Catholic Church does not consider Mormonism to be Christian. That will not change until Mormonism changes and becomes Christian."

Say hello to a heretic: ""They're always there where the need is," said the Most Rev. John C. Wester, bishop of the Salt Lake Catholic Diocese, in a prerecorded statement about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Welfare Services. "They're motivated by the gospel of Christ."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700196757/Catholic-Community-Services-honors-community-leaders-volunteer-organizations-for-generosity.html

'I believe in ONE God"

So do Mormons.

Kruiser;

Wow, it's been about 15 years since I read "Ceasar and Christ". I don't even remember that part of the book but then again I never finished it. I had too much going on at the time to get to through it all.

I found this on him.

"Upon graduation he was urged by his teachers to become a Jesuit priest, but he discovered a love of philosophy and science which set him on a different path and ended his relationship with the Catholic Church."

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=2356

Richard Sherlock apologizes for "sounding pompous'', then proceeds to continue, well, sounding pompous. The Mormon Church is no different from many other Churches, in limiting the openness that it has concerning itself. Would we really expect BYU to have a department devoted to destroying, intellectually, the foundations of Mormonism? Would we really expect Notre Dame, to have a department devoted to destroying the intellectual foundations of Catholicism?

Any religion, is an amalgam of faith and reason, and while there should be no contradiction between the two, they often come into conflict. It's not the job of the religion is question to exacerbate that conflict.


Mormonism, even though I've found the philosophical arguments used to suppor it unpersuasive, can be intelligently defended. Dan Peterson, of BYU, among many others, has done highly respectable work, intellectually in this area. He, and others of the Neal A. Maxwell institute, have done just as respectable work, philosophically, and theologically, as, say, the Pontifical Institute in Rome has done using Thomism to support the doctrines of Catholicism.


You have found, as is obviously your right, the claims of Mormonism unconvincing. So have I, but I respect the LDS Church. Based on your comments here, you don't seem to. Could it possibly be that you dislike Mormonism for reasons unrelated to the intellect?

Darren;

Yes sir, that passage is near the back of Caesar and Christ, page 660.

If you want true Christian thelogy, just look at what Jesus called himself - the Son of God. He also called himself the Son of _____. Anyone care to want to walk into that one?

In the beginning was the game Christianity splendid in its pope and circumstances and pleasing to those who ruled the game and all those who took it upon themselves to seek forgiveness of others.
Yet, lo after many seasons cometh forth protesters crying out for a new game and thus took it upon themselves to fashion yet a second game which they also called Christianity.
He that protesteth too much shall surely die, vowed the rule makers of the first order of the game called Christianity. Ours must be the only game. Our rules must prevail.
Not so, cried the protesters. We see boredom in your game you call Christianity. It reeks of incense and indulgences. Its robes and high hats vex the eye. We offer a new game. Our rules are just and fair and are contained in a Bible. See our Bible and we offer it to all. And those who read it thus and so rather than so and thus shall surely be put to death. Or perhaps put to the stocks.
Wars and rumors of wars abounded but in due time the new and the old games of Christianity flourished, growing side by side and when not side by side, nation by nation and when not nation to nation, continent to continent until many players of both games prospered.
But in the latter days appeareth a new worrisome problem. Yet another game called Christianity was proclaimed, first by two, then by four and then by four score and then by thousands.
What of this, cried the rule makers of the first Christianity game. What of this indeed shouted the rule makers of the second Christianity game. We have our game. They have yet another game. He that starteth a third game of Christianity must surely die. And they did. Rule makers of the second game of Christianity did enter into battle and forced the makers of the third game of Christianity to flee the country.
Your leader hath died, they proclaimed. You have no country. Your Christianity game has been torn asunder. You must bow to our game plan. Nay, shouted the rule makers of the third game of Christianity. We will make of ourselves a new country. And thus they did.
This perplexed rule makers of the first game of Christianity and rule makers of the second game of Christianity. We understand profits and Sears, yet we ponder your revelators. Your wives you have too many. Your books you have too many. Your God appeareth yet we prohibit such appearances. You must not call your game Christianity after our games.
You ere, preached the rule makers of the third game of Christianity. Your games lack completeness. Your rules lead straight to Jail yet you offer no Get Out of Jail Card. We understand for God has told us so. Blasphemy came the cries. We order you to change the name of your game. It cannot be named Christianity for we have named our games Christianity and, see, your game is unlike our games. Thus your game must be given a new name because it meeteth not our expectations. Our people must refer to your ways as More Manism because it is after the manner of Man, not God. And thus it became More Manism to those who cherished the old games as the only Christianity games to cherish.
But the rule makers of the third game of Christianity heeded not the words.
And neither did God.

Darren, the hierarchy of the Mormon church could certainly have repudiated any doctrine contrary to the Holy Trinity. They apparently don't agree with you about jettisoning those teachings. The Book of Abraham in fact is polytheistic. But the document I posted is indeed the official position of the Catholic Church. What we say does not make any difference. The Catholic Church does not view the Mormon church as being Christian.

The Jews who wished to stone Jesus wanted to do so because of his claim to divinity. That shows that Jews, including Jesus, believed that God is one and there is no other. I realize that you rely heavily on Barker. However, there is no difference in God between Elohim or Yahweh or Adonai for that matter. There is only one God and no other. This clearly was known about Jews and Christians, again I suggest you read The Christians as the Romans Saw Them.

The dogma of the Trinity is not polytheistic, as the Fathers attest. It is an understanding of the nature of the one God revealed by Jesus Christ. I suggest the article by Esolen today: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/ At the time of Justin the complete understanding of the nature of the Trinity was still to come. See Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Notice what St. Paul says in context. He is referring to those gods as idols and demons. Satan thinks he is a god. You can worship anything as god, including the Sun in the heavens, but that doesn't make it the real one God. The Dead Sea scrolls are interesting, but they are not scripture. Neither is the Book of Mormon, so quoting it won't do you much good with us. You give vague quotes and read into them what you want to see. The sticks are the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, not books or Mormons. This is why we reject sola scriptura. Muslims have a penchant for finding their prophet mentioned in the Bible.

You admit that Mormons are polytheists. Good. That is one of the crucial reasons you are not Christians. Really that is case closed on the debate.

If you believe a man is the prophet and he takes your wife do you object? This says a lot about the mentality that was current among Mormons at the time. Smith ran his town as a dictatorship. He did not die as a martyr. He went down shooting. I don't blame him for that, but that is not normally how a martyr dies. As for being humble...he falsely claimed to be a prophet. Claiming he took all those wives and never had sexual relations with them is simply incredible. He practiced it in secret and it is not completely known how many wives he really had and whose children were his and some died in infancy. Smith himself admitted his attraction to women.

Mormons do nice things. So do Catholics, we have our Mother Teresa's. So do Hindu's. Nice things don't make one a Christian. You believe in one god of this world and several other related gods, also other gods out there including the father of this god. You admit to being a polytheist, so you don't believe in one God. I do think this concludes the argument. You will not convince me and I can only hope that I have spurred you to think outside the box a bit.

Gary Rummler;

That, sir., was some very creative writing.

:>)

@Gary Rummler... You just made the slog through all these comments very worth it!!

@ Fr J "Smith himself admitted his attraction to women."

Is admitting an attraction for alter boys is preferable to one of your persuasion? We can sling stones all afternoon if you wish, and all we shall be is bruised. How you can continue to to malign anothers faith, when you should in fact be more like brothers, all the while using extra biblical creeds, for the basis of your attack, and then most gallingly, you attack a fellow Christian for his own extra biblical traditions is nearly beyond belief.

Is this not very easily settled by looking to the story of the baptism of Christ in Matthew 3:16-17.

16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

If they are of one substance how could this be?

"Darren, the hierarchy of the Mormon church could certainly have repudiated any doctrine contrary to the Holy Trinity. "

Thy have repudiated the Holy Trinity itself, the doctrines are good, the philosophy mischaracterizes the nature of the Godhead. The father being God, the Sone being God, and the Holy Ghost being God, are true dctrines. It is true that tru worship involves all three persons of this Godhead. That is doctrine directly from the reealed word of God which Mormons and Catholics all agree upon. What Mormonism rejects are the creeds of man which entireties have lead Christianity away from its doctrines and into philosophy : " 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all ccorrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith History 1). It is not churches which the LDS believe God called abominable but their creeds. First and foremost, Joseph Smith saeeing the Father and the Son, learned first hand the corruption that the Father and the Son were persons yet substantly the same being. This goes directly to the primary enstrangement of the nature ofthe Godhead. Estrangement from its doctrinal core which I think are best understood in the view that the Father and the Son are two separate being united together in purpose.

"They apparently don't agree with you about jettisoning those teachings."

I don't agree that is what I said.

"The Book of Abraham in fact is polytheistic. "

Strictly speaking, yes, in worship, no. "15 And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands; 16 And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father’s house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of;" (Abraham 1). Among all the false gods being worship, who saved Abraham? That would be Jehovah which is the English name for YHWH or the true God of Isreal and the one to be worshipped according to the Shema.

Also in the Book of Abraham chapter 3 we read: " 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all....22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the bnoble and great ones; 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;". From this chapter we learn that God is the greateasdt of all that is and that there were among all the intelligences or "spirits" one like God. These two beings would be respectively the Father, who is the greatest for He is Elyon or "the most High", and the second being would be Jesus who is YHWH, the true God of Isreal, who carried out the will of the Father in all things and who has always been the only way to the Father.

In worship, the LDS fath is simple: worship the Father through the Son. there is no other way or path in LDS worship. Unlike most polytheistic religions which I am familiar with, there is no competition of worship or any picing or chosing. It's the Father and the Son and it is all done by the power of the Holy Ghost.

"What we say does not make any difference."

They went thoruogh some great lengths to explain their ways if it doesn't make a difference, wouldn't you say?

So, why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church pronounce the name/title "Holy Trinity" for baptism?

"The Jews who wished to stone Jesus wanted to do so because of his claim to divinity. "

Exactly. That He was divine like the Father. That's wha the Jews understood, and correctly so, from Jesus' words and so they soughtto stone him. Under their strict monotheism, which is false worship, there was no room for Jesus to declare His divinity or unique sonship with the Father. That's "strict monotheism", to reject al beings, including Jesus, as deing a deity. For *only* "God" [above] is deity.

"That shows that Jews, including Jesus, believed that God is one and there is no other. "

This shows two very different concepts of "God is one". The Jews rejected Jesus for to them there was no theological room ot accept Him. For Christians, He was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The Jews were"strictly monotheistic", not Christians. Christians hae always been monotheistic in their worship (the Father through the Son) but have always spoken of God in pluristic terms. The Jews used to but somewhere along the way lost that pluralistic view in favor of a strictly monotheistic one. Your worhip is not the same monotheistic worship as the Jews today, that's for sure.

"However, there is no difference in God between Elohim or Yahweh or Adonai for that matter. "

Correct, accordng tothe text which we have today. mormonism does allow its theology to interchange Elohim, Jehovah, YHWH, Adonai, and "Lord" between the Father and the Son. Even the Book of Mormon refers to Jesus as the "Eternal Father" oin more than one passage. But these are tites and reflect the oness f unity bewteen the Father and the Son. In it otality, however, thereis a solid, and firm connection between Elohim being the Father or "God" in the New Testament and "Lord" being the Jesus of the New Testament and that Christians saw Jesus as YHWH. In some instances, the divine titles palced on these didivne persons have never interchaged. After all we are sons of God; not "sons of Lord" as Barker and others have pointed out.

"At the time of Justin the complete understanding of the nature of the Trinity was still to come. "

Exactly, Justin Martyrs' understanding was different than the understanding of today. Even Turtullian, who I believe is the first to usethe term "trinity" (which is a perfectly acceptable term to describe the Godhead while "Holy Trinity" has a direct historical and philosophical meaning behind it) and substance, he wasreferringto the corporeality of the Father, Son ,and Holy Spirit. This corporeality was a stark contrast to future Christian Fathers such as Origen who held that there is no corporeality ofthe Father and the Son. The farther back in history one looks into, the less one sees "trinity" and that term is NEVER used in the Bible. Neither is "same substance", "immaterial", or describing God "without parts or passion". These are philisophical terminologies which have become so othodox in traditional Christianity that they are treated as if they were doctrines revealed to man by God Himself.

"See Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
"

Thank you for that.

"He is referring to those gods as idols and demons. Satan thinks he is a god. "

But neither demons, nor Satan are in heaven, correct?

"The Dead Sea scrolls are interesting, but they are not scripture. "

Again, they cannot be scripture since they apparently were not available to be studied when the Bible was cannonized. But the Dead Sea Scrolls are a highly accurate reflectioninto ancient theology. As I previously pointed out, that except invery few (but siginifacant) parts, they translate almost word for word the Bible we have today. That in and of itself shows how accurate and reliable they are.

The Book of mormon is most deifitely the true word of God. I know so because the Spirit has shown me so. I know the bible is the word of God because the Spirit has shown me so as well. You too can know how true the Book of Mormon is by the exact same power manifested directly to your soul.

"The sticks are the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, not books or Mormons."

Wood was used to write inscriptuions in anciet Babylon and thus the culture reference to "stick" in the Bible. Judah is the bible for we cannot have the Bible were it not for the Jews. Ephriam is the book of Mormon through Lehi's lineage.

"You admit that Mormons are polytheists. Good. That is one of the crucial reasons you are not Christians. Really that is case closed on the debate."

Slow down there. I have explicitly said that Mormons are not polytheistic in worship. They worship the Father through the Son. How is that not being a Christian?

"If you believe a man is the prophet and he takes your wife do you object? "

I'd have to conceed to it and so whoul my wife. If that is what God tells me then who am I to deny it?

"This says a lot about the mentality that was current among Mormons at the time. Smith ran his town as a dictatorship."

LOL. There is no foundation for that whatsoever. I gueess Arius was treated with the highest levels of democracy, eh?

"He did not die as a martyr. He went down shooting. I don't blame him for that, but that is not normally how a martyr dies."

I don't blame him for that either but when the odds are about a few dozen to three, that's a slaughter. Here's a good short explaination of wha happened.

http://www.mormonfortress.com/gun2.html

"As for being humble...he falsely claimed to be a prophet."

Tha'ts your oinion, sir. If he were afalse prophet, then your assertion that he was no martyr would be correct. But I know he was a true prophet of God.

"Claiming he took all those wives and never had sexual relations with them is simply incredible."

If he did, then what evidence can you provide that he did? Don't you think your really starting to bare false witness against you neighbor by calling someone an adulterer and have no evidence to prove your claim?

"v"

I think it's pretty certain as to how many wives he had and as for babies dying in infancy the only ones I know of was after he and Emma had adobted twin babies a mob broke down their door during the winter and the cold whether took the life of on of those infants. the fact that you don't know means you need ot be careful as to wha witness you're offering regarding Joseph Smith's morality, no?

"Smith himself admitted his attraction to women."

Well, that settles it. Joseph Smith was not gay. Phew, I was worried. ;>)

RE: nice things;

Yes, nice things are done by many peoples, including Catholic, Mormons, and Hindus. I will repeat thougthat the reason that mormons do nice things is a natural result in Mormons striving to be like Jesus who is the only true God to worship for He is the only way to the one true God His Father. Jesus Himself referred to God as His God and so Mormons believe His words literally. That is not unChristian and most definitely not unbiblical.

Take care and God bless.

Big Ben, the claim was made that Smith never had sexual relations with those women. This is simply unbelievable. But the proper analogy would be asking about Jesus not a priest. Do you think that Jesus was attracted to young men? That is the question given the circumstances. In fact Mormonism teaches that God the Father did have sexual relations physically with Mary does it not? As for extra-biblical...Mormonism adds several books that are not found in any ancient scripture.

Darren, I realize that FARMS is working hard, but Rome has spoken and the case is closed.

The creeds that lead away from Christianity are the Mormon ones. You are the ones who introduce novel doctrines and scriptures. They are based on the testimony of Smith who we reject. He was not a prophet. I tend toward the Fawn Brodie point of view about him. He created a new religion, but it isn't Christianity.

The Book of Abraham, actually part of the Egyptian book of the dead, is indeed polytheistic and showed that Smith did not know how to read Egyptian. It had nothing to do with Abraham. It proves the point. If you are a polytheist then you are not a Christian. It is that simple.

You worship 3 gods albeit simply, except for your temple ceremonies which are based on a Masonic model. Christians only worship one God and there are no others.

When we baptize we do so using the Trinitarian formula as found in the gospel of Matthew. Jesus is God incarnate, but there is only one God. The Trinity explains the nature of that one God. You really need to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, it is clear that you do not. Your concept of god and gods is utterly alien to us. It is not what the Jews would recognize as monotheism. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. We can pray to Jesus and the Holy Spirit directly, Mormons do not. The philosophical terms that you reject are part of the culture and language of Biblical times. Mormon concepts are couched in 19th century terminology and philosophy. The BOM runs the gamut of 19th century Protestant theological controversies. That does not seem to bother you. While Tertullian was the first to use the term Trinity, the doctrine preceded it. If you read Newman you will come to understand how we view the development of dogma, not new revelation, but the deposit of faith that was set upon the death of St. John.

The Sun is in the heavens, is it god? Some thought so and worshiped it. St. Paul was rejecting polytheism as all Christians did and do. The Dead Sea scrolls do not mention Jesus nor are they Christian. They are Jewish documents from a Jewish sect. They have no doctrinal value.

I have read the Book of Mormon and God witnessed to me that it was not true. However, he revealed to me that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ. I hope you can come to know that truth too.

If you read the context the two sticks were the two kingdoms. People had paper, clay, and parchment back then. Basically Mormons read into it what they want to see, that is eisegesis not exegesis.

We believe that no one can take your wife. If you are married then that is a sacred bond and anyone, I mean anyone, who would tell you to give her to him is a false prophet and founder. If I surrounded myself with several dozen wives and claimed that I had no sexual relations with them no one would buy it and rightly so.

Arians did not treat Catholics very well either. Back then politics was harsh. It still is, just ask Mitt.

Mormons are nice in the natural sense. Their actions become supernatural only after a valid baptism. They are not "unchristian", but they are not Christian either. I am sorry, but there is absolutely no way that you can convince me that Mormonism is Christian. Nor will you change the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter either. So I don't think this is really going to go anywhere. Perhaps you should take some time to study up on what we believe and prepare for Holy Week. Come to the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday. May the one God bless you.

Fr. J;

"I tend toward the Fawn Brodie point of view about him. "

Talk about case closed. Fawn Brodie is precisely who I had in mind when I mentioned that most of those alledged children who came from Joseph Smith's oolygamous marriages have been shown by DNA not to have come from joseph Smith are the oners alledged by Brodie. The only ones not conclusive are the ones which test results cannot make a determination one way or another. Brodie's work is shoddy and highyl biased towards Smith and Mormonism in general so if you like her work, that's your decision but it's anything but scholarly.

"They are based on the testimony of Smith who we reject."

They are confirmed true in ones heart by the power ofthe Holy ghost. That is the essence of the truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Nothing more and nothing less. You cannot condemn Smith for olygamy, power, and sex, while at the same time uphold Abraham as God's true servant and prophet. Same goes for Moses. But like the prophets of old, modern-day prophets, Joseph Smith's truthfulness can be made manifested in one's heart and soul by the power of God. It is by this very power by which I know Joseph Smith wasa true prophet and tha the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is God's ture church restored to the earth in our modern times.

"The Book of Abraham, actually part of the Egyptian book of the dead"

That's been a common criticism but what more and more research into the writings ofthe Book of Abraham shown its authenticity. This includes the discovery of a city by the name of Ur which is located near Egypt and thus influenced by the Egyptians, the name of Abraham being been found in Egyptian writings, the four sons of Horus indeed represented the four corners ofthe earth, etc. But, again, it is not by scholarship which one knows that this book came from a true prophet of God. It is by the power of the Holy Ghost by which one comes to know that.

"If you are a polytheist then you are not a Christian."

The only reason I agree to polytheism describimg LDS theology is because it literally means a belief in more than one God. Since the LDS believes that the Father and the Son are two separate beings than their thoelogy is polytheistic. The problem is the application of polytheism. It connotates a choice of whom to worship and/or how. In Mormon theology such is not the case. They worship the Father through the Son and that's it. There's absolutely nothing unChristian or unbiblical about that. So "henotheistic" is a better term to use and perhaps I should use that instead of plytheism which you seem caught up with despite the fact that you speak of the one being God as three divine persons.

"You worship 3 gods albeit simply, except for your temple ceremonies which are based on a Masonic model.'

Sir, you worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, no? We worship the Father, that';s it. That's as mono as you can get. We worship the Son for He is our Savior to the Father an, compleyely one withthe Father, and by doing so we render praise and glory to the Father. We do not worship the holy Ghost but He is absolutely necessayry to be brought to the Father and to be sanctified. Although not worshipped, the Holy Ghost is the third member fothe Godhead and makes one part of the One Eternal God which the LDS worship. The LDS do not include saints in their prayers, and revere Mary though do not believe in praying to her. It is to God the Father directly through the Son by which LDS worship is realized.

"When we baptize we do so using the Trinitarian formula as found in the gospel of Matthew."

yet you do not invoke the name / title "Holy Trinity". My point in asking ithis is because you do not do so because it is not bibliacl. The "formula' you cite is a formula the LDS uses.It is 4th century philosphy by which you use to denounce LDS baptisms as not Christian. Despite the fact that many early Christians, including the Fathers, made no thought of a "trinitarian formula", and the Catholic Church knows this, the Catolhic Church makes claim today that the LDS baptisms are not Christian because they do not believe in the "Holy Trinity" which neither pmany pre-nicean Christians believed in. Certainly not acknowldged. If thisi s the catohlic Church's decision, that's fine by me but it's rather quaint that they do not recognize LDS baptisms while at the same time recognize pre-nicean baptisms.

"except for your temple ceremonies which are based on a Masonic model"

Where did the Masons get their temple model from? From ancient Judaic temple rituals, no? These rituals were lost and not fully restored until under Joseph Smith. The Masons, like all other religions, do have truth in them. But the LDS temple rituals are no more masianic tha the LDS political structure Catholic, despite using the "Catholic model" in many instances.

"Your concept of god and gods is utterly alien to us."

But in complete harmony with biblical teachings.

"It is not what the Jews would recognize as monotheism.'

Considering that they outright dreject Jesus as the son of God, then that would make sense.

"The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. "

Mormons agree.

"We can pray to Jesus and the Holy Spirit directly, Mormons do not. "

And what part of the bible teaches to pray to the Holy Spirit directly? "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name." Certainly you don't get that from the "Jesus model" of praying.

"If you read Newman you will come to understand how we view the development of dogma, not new revelation, but the deposit of faith that was set upon the death of St. John.
"

By all means, summarize it for me.

"The Dead Sea scrolls do not mention Jesus nor are they Christian."

the Dead Sea Scrolls were written before Jesus came but absolutely mention the Savior in the very manner which Isaiah did aswell as Adam being taught of a Savior to come. salvation through divine intervention. The part ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls which i mentioned has a VERY direct connection to Christianity. Barker even uses it to show how the Holy Trinity was taught in the Old Testament times yet you reject this? I've seen many other trinitarians make theat very argument yet you seem resistent to such a teaching.

"I have read the Book of Mormon and God witnessed to me that it was not true. However, he revealed to me that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ. I hope you can come to know that truth too.
'

If that's the case then absolutely follow it. You denouncing my faith to something it is not will cause me to bump heads with you but if you truly think and feel that Catholicism is God's true church then I hope you live it and preach it, and that you find great peace in the service of the Lord.

"If you read the context the two sticks were the two kingdoms. People had paper, clay, and parchment back then. Basically Mormons read into it what they want to see, that is eisegesis not exegesis."

I've read it and stand by my words.

"We believe that no one can take your wife. "

Mormons agree.

"If you are married then that is a sacred bond and anyone, I mean anyone, who would tell you to give her to him is a false prophet and founder. "

What if God told me? Would you do it if God told you? What of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son? The marriages Joseph Smith entered into are poorly seen in temrs of our concept of marriage. They are not romantic, or had any ounce of eros in them. They were eternal sealings and that was the extent of it.

"If I surrounded myself with several dozen wives and claimed that I had no sexual relations with them no one would buy it and rightly so. "

The problem with that analogy is that Joseph Smith never did 'surround himself' with 'dozens of wives'. And unless you have evidence of sexual relations, accusing him of havingthem places you as one who is bearing false witness against your neighbors. I've advise against that.

"Arians did not treat Catholics very well either.'

Very true but I know of nnothing that leads me to believe that this was the reason Arius was expelled.

And I'm really not looking to convince you of anything except your accusations against mormonism.


"May the one God bless you. '

And you too.

Fr J, Please note that you have placed Smith as an equal to the Christ, not I nor any Mormon I know. You tread close to blasphemy. And no, Mormonism does not teach that the Father had sexual relations with Mary. This paper might help you understand the position of the LDS on the subject, though I suspect your point in bringing it up was not to learn but to simply sling another stone.

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Did_God_have_Sex_with_Mary.pdf

I would think it was a fair analogy to compare Smith with a Pope (and in this you are right, my comparison to a priest was unfair). You discount Smith in part at least because of some unsubstantiated and spectacular claims about him. So let us imagine for a moment that they are true. All of them and blacker still lies than you can dream. Let’s imagine them all true. And let us agree that this disqualifies a man to speak for God or to lead any faith bearing the name of the Savior. Then let us look at Pope John XII. And he is only a start… Let us try many Popes. Let us look into Pope Benedict IX, and also Urban VI. Can we throw Leo X into the mix? And also Sixtus IV. I believe the vile acts of murder, torture, rape, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, not to mention incest and papal indulgences that boggle the mind. And all of these are more readily documented in a scholarly fashion than whatever you believe about Smith. Shall we go on? Or are we done throwing stones, ready to act like grown-ups?

I shall assume you can comport yourself as a man of your station should from here forward and just ask you sincerely to explain the scripture I asked about in my previous post. In your belief, how can this scripture be reconciled?
Matthew 3:16-17 16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

If they are of one substance how could this be?

We can couple this with John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

To my mind, it seems that in the first the Savior is recognized by his father, who is not of the same substance and is in fact separate from him, while the holy ghost apart from the 2 descends on Jesus. And then in John Jesus seems to be praying to his Father (himself in your belief? I am lost… Not trying to obtuse but sincerely confused.) and he is explaining how he is one with the Father and how he is not. He wants his followers to be united, right? But he is not praying that they will become the same, of one substance. And he says this is how he and the Father are one. Maybe I am too simple for this sort of conversation but I am having a hard time reading this any other way. Can you help me to see another perspective?

Darren, I think she hit the nail on the head. In fact on the Smith's wives website it shows that not all DNA testing is complete and several children died and cannot be tested. But none of that means that Smith never had sexual relations with his wives. It is ridiculous to claim that he didn't. Smith's predilection for other mens wives is a scandal. He had no right to do that. Whenever he wanted something he suddenly received a revelation from God that he could have it. That is very convenient. This man was your founder, not just one of your leaders.

Mormonism is very subjective. My heart can tell me many things, but that does not guarantee that those things are true. Truth is objective. My heart tells me that Smith was not a prophet, but that is confirmed by my head.

The original document that Smith used for the Book of Abraham was discovered. The Mormon church reclaimed it. It was the book of the dead, common funerary texts. It had nothing to do with Abraham. That alone disproves Smith's claims.

Henothism is likewise unchristian. I am sorry, but there is only one God and no others, whether you only worship one or not doesn't matter. There is only one God.

The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but there are not three Gods, they are one. We do not worship Mary or the saints. But the understanding you have of the particular god, among many, that you worship is foreign to Christianity. The Holy Trinity is not a "name." Once again you really need to understand the doctrine. When you say Trinity you mean three Gods, we do not. Your baptismal formula is defective because of that, as the Holy See has decreed. Once again I refer you to Newman and our understanding of the development of doctrine. You are repeating yourself and going in circles.

Jewish temple rituals were not Masonic. You can ask them or read the OT. Smith became a Mason and like the ceremony, so he changed it and used it for Mormonism.

Your teachings are not Biblical, which is why you added other books to the canon. You certainly don't teach the Bible alone, in fact the BOM rejects that doctrine. In fact you try to use the Dead Sea scrolls that are not part of even the Jewish canon. They do not mention Jesus. They are not Christian texts. Mormons are not Essenes nor are Christians. They have no authority with us.

Arians were expelled yes, but if a member of the Reorganized lds church showed up at the temple would you let him in?

My accusations of Mormonism are simple:
1. That you are polytheists. You agree that you are.
2. That you do not accept the dogma of the Trinity. You agree that you do not.
3. That your baptisms are invalid. You think our baptisms are invalid and rebaptize converts.
4. That Smith was a false prophet. You disagree, but you aren't going to convince me either.
5. That Mormonism is not Christian. You disagree, but you aren't going to convince me either. The Catholic Church has spoken officially on the matter, so what I think is immaterial.

That sums it up. I suggest we conclude this exchange. You are going to have to accept the fact that the Catholic Church does not consider Mormonism to be Christian. You may not like it, but there it is.

Fr. J;

"Darren, I think she hit the nail on the head. In fact on the Smith's wives website it shows that not all DNA testing is complete and several children died and cannot be tested. But none of that means that Smith never had sexual relations with his wives. "

You know I didn't wantto go dow nthje road Ben just took but you kept pushing this issue of speculative immorality by Joseph Smith and thus he was no prophet of God. How do you do this when you know full well that the claim to be part ofthe Church Jesus set up fand [passedonn through direct authority when several in that line clearly, with evidence, committed whoredoms, destroyed the lives of the immocent, and exercised toltaltarian control over others? I think hypocracy is becoming to kind of a term for you. And Abraham had sex with multiple wives and so did Moses yet they were servants of God. Granted they did not practice polyandry but I ask you for evidence of Joseph Smith's immorality and you keep saying that you think he committed it.

Here, try ths for Brodie:

"Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence. "

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages

Following my cited passage is a list of those tested with DNA. There are nine people tested and of those nine three are not conclusive, 5 one does not old up to simply scrutiny, and fve are definitely not descended from Joseph Smith according to DNA test results. Yet you *think* he committed adultery and thus not a prophet? That seems to me bearing false witness against your neighbor. not advisable in the Christian community.

"Smith's predilection for other mens wives is a scandal. He had no right to do that. "

If it were in the manner of King David I would totally agree with you but simply put, it was not. These marriages were sealings, not in the manner which is typically thought of in marriage. There is no sign whatsoever of foul play. Themen of these women never raised opposition to Joseph Smith and in fact I do believe every sinlge one of them remained close friends to Joseph Smith and even stood up for for the LDS Church. Even the excommunicated ones. Beyond them there's not a single journal entry from any family member of these women indicating anything foul. Nor from Emma Smith.

"Whenever he wanted something he suddenly received a revelation from God that he could have it. That is very convenient."

Pure speclulation and conjecture. In fact, he was oposed to polygamy and did not practice it until god said (paraphrasing) "listen, you know what I told you, now this needs to be done". That's not the mark of a man who makes stuff up just to do what he wants.

"My heart tells me that Smith was not a prophet, but that is confirmed by my head."

My heart and mind tell me he was a great and honorable man of God and a true prophet of the Lord.

"The original document that Smith used for the Book of Abraham was discovered. "

NO, it was not. that's a piece of information which many critics ofthe Book of Abraham leave out. The original scripts have never been found. By testimony of those who saw papari, Joseph Smith had lots and lots of it which he used to translate the Book of Abraham.

Here's a very good article on the book of Abraham which shows that the documents which have survived today are NOT the ones Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham. It's onep art of a series andthis one is called "Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham"

http://www.boap.org/LDS/BOAP/SecondEd/Draft-copy/AppendixV-JS-Commentary-on-BOA.pdf

"Henothism is likewise unchristian. I am sorry, but there is only one God and no others, whether you only worship one or not doesn't matter. There is only one God."

Actually I wantot further revise this. I was reading a while ago and came across this from Wiki of all places. On mormonism and God the Father:

"Jesus Christ is the authoritative name all things are done by, for example, all prayers are adressed to God the Father and closed in the name of Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints are often considered monolatrists, believing in many gods, specifically the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but worshipping only one, the Father."

I looked up monolatrists and from Wiki I came to this: "Monolatrism or monolatry (Greek: (monos) = single, and (latreia) = worship) is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity.[1] The term was perhaps first used by Julius Wellhausen.[citation needed]". That's exactly what I have been telling you and exactly how the LDS worship,. It's the Father through the Son and there's no leway whatsoever for any oter kind fo worship. No saints invoked in prayers, no prayers to Mary, but all glory to the Father through the Son. And guess who else were monolatrists?

"The highest claim to be made for Moses is that he was, rather than a monotheist, a monolatrist. ... The attribution of fully developed monotheism to Moses is certainly going beyond the evidence."[4]

As absolute monotheism took over from monolatry in Israel, those who had originally been in the pantheon of the gods were demoted to the status of angels.[5]

The exclusivity of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel is an important element in Israel's oldest religious tradition. However, it is not necessary to ascribe the present formulation of the commandment ["you shall have no other gods before me"] to a very early stage of the tradition, nor is it advantageous to interpret the commandment as if it inculcated monotheism. The commandment technically enjoins monolatry, but it can be understood within a henotheistic religious system.[6]

The Deuteronomic Code imposes at the least a strict monolatry.[7]

In the ancient Near East the existence of divine beings was universally accepted without questions. As for unicity, in Israel there is no clear and unambiguous denial of the existence of gods other than Yahweh before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. … The question was not whether there is only one elohim, but whether there is any elohim like Yahweh.[8]"

Yup, ancient Isreal though they eventually came to accept an exclusive worship of only one God the Father and there's no room for any other deity but the Father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatrism

The same link does show that Christians do follow a monotheistic system of beliefs and i'll refine that that it is traditional Christianity which does this, not biblical Christianity. Just like ancient Isreal, Christianity changed its worship from monolartism to monotheism but yet they still refer to God in three divine deities.

So, Mormons are monolatrists. I like the sound of that.

"We do not worship Mary or the saints."

I know you don't, you worship God. I was careful to specify that saints and Mary are invoked in prayers and I know catholics do havea formal prayer t Mary. My point there was that that does not follow te "Jesus model" for prayer.

"But the understanding you have of the particular god, among many, that you worship is foreign to Christianity."

Again, we worship the Father through the Son. How is that foreign to Christinity?

"The Holy Trinity is not a "name." Once again you really need to understand the doctrine."

I do believe I mentioned "title" in conjunction with "name" regarding the Trinity. I knowe the "Holy Trinity" is the title given to refer to the Father, Son, My main point is that a) it is not biblically based, b) "their onness" is that of unity, and c) that it is not unbiblical and therefore not unchristian to view the Father and the Son as separate beings. In fact I say that there is an abundant amount of biblical passages whch can be best understood by viewing the two as separate beings but united in purpose.

"Jewish temple rituals were not Masonic. "

I do believe I needed that correction. Here's a more likely, historically provable origin of Freemasonry: "This is the kind of Masonic history which prevailed before historians debunked the tall tales and sought the reality of Masonry in incontrovertible written documents. Masonry undoubtedly existed in our deeper past, with the cathedral builders who worked on the great churches of Europe between 1200 and 1500 A.D. These guilds became organized lodges complete with ceremonies and later developed into Speculative Masonry first established as a Grand Lodge of Masons in London, England on June 24, 1717. "

http://www.themasonictrowel.com/masonic_talk/stb/stbs/68-01.htm

For a connection to LDS temple worship and ancient Isreal we return to Margaret Barker and her work on Melchizedek ( http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2011/05/margaret-barker-on-melchizedek.html ) and for a take on LDS temple worship and early Christianity you can listen to wha Lutheran Bishop Kristet Stedahl say, "His own fellow Protestants, he lamented, typically give little thought to their forebears; they certainly don't seek them out in order to bring the blessings of Christ to the dead. Accordingly, he described himself as feeling "Christian envy" for the Mormon practice of performing ordinances in the temple on behalf of deceased ancestors."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765553203/A-Lutheran-bishops-perspective-on-Mormon-baptism-for-the-dead.html?pg=2

A short You Tube clip of Krister Stedahl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_-TQivCx8

These are far more accurate descriptions of LDS temple worship than Masonic similarities.

"Your teachings are not Biblical, which is why you added other books to the canon. You certainly don't teach the Bible alone, in fact the BOM rejects that doctrine. "

You conclusions as to why the LDS have an open cannon is remarkably speculative. LDS theology in this respect returns to ancient Isreal in that revelation was believed to have come at any time. Also, the bible does not say "use onlythe Bible". The LDS believe that after the death of the 12 Apostles, revelation, and the priesthood to govern Christ's church was lost. I can see while "sole scriptura" came to be for without living revelation, that would make sense.

Also, the BOM fully supports and affirms the doctrines of the bible. You said you read the Book of mormon so why would you think otherwise?

"In fact you try to use the Dead Sea scrolls that are not part of even the Jewish canon. "

My sole purpose to bring the Dead Sea Scrolls into the discussion was that they bring in a very precise linne of thinking of Father and Son in ancient Judaic theology. In fact, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 makes no sense of Elyon dividing the nations "according to the number of the sons of Isreal" but "according to the number of the "sons of God" makes perfect sense. Then we read that the LORD inherited Isreal as His portion. This is a dirct reflection of Christian doctrine. In the New Testament "Most High God" ("Elyon") is applied only tothe Father, neverto Jesus. Yet Jesus is referred to on numerous times in the New testament as "Lord". Why you are resistent to this is beyond me.

"Arians were expelled yes, but if a member of the Reorganized lds church showed up at the temple would you let him in?
"

No sir, he was expelled, as in, expelled from the land. He had to physically go live elswhere. As I stated, I've no problem with Arius' excommunication. If that's what the early Chrisitna Church decided, then so be it. The council oof Nicea was oversought by Emperor Constatine, who was not even a baptized Christian at the time, not the bishop of Rome which I believe did not even attend and his two representatives hardly gave in a word.

In the ebnd mormonism does not follow traditional Christianity for it restores what the Church Christ set up should be. Invalidating other's baptisms is based entirely on the view of authority, not what others personally believe. If all LDS baptisms are invalid what of Jeremiah Wright's baptisms? What of pre-niciean baptisms? The doctrine is that one must believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and Mormons fully do. There is no doctrine which says one must believe in the Holy Trinity. That is why "Trinity" is not even mentioned in Catholic baptisms because doing so would be unbiblical, no? So why is that a foundation to invalidate LDS baptisms when the Catholic Church itself does not mention it in their own baptisms? They also use speculation on LDS doctrines to invalidate LDS baptisms. There is no official LDS doctrine about gods of other planets, from other planets, or the Father once being a man. None whatsoever. Why use this to invalidate LDS baptisms is beyond my capabiity to reason.

I think we've went in full cirlces long enough so unless something new is brought up I think I'm pretty much done on this thread. I do appreciate your time and hope and pray that you have much peace and success in serving God.

Take care and God bless you and yours.

If Evangelicals and other modern Christians believe what they say they believe, then most of this obsession on what Mormons believe is useless nonsense. Either everyone comes to Christ on their own, regardless of church or church tenants or they do not. The battle to prove or disprove any aspect of Mormonism is irrelevent if the primary assertion of Evangelicals is actually true.

Yet, Evangelicals spend more time and effort trying to disprove Mormonism than they do reaffirming their primary assertion about the relationship between Christ and the individual Christian. Odd, how we create our own hypocrisies, isn't it?

Darren, the man took other mens wives. That's the long and short of it. That is immoral. The idea that he opposed it and then God "made him do it." Uh, no I am not buying it. He claims to found a religion and I don't believe him. Emma Smith didn't either. She was not happy. Which is why there is another Mormon church, in fact several.

You believe he is a prophet because of that burning in your bosom. Well my bosom tells me otherwise and so do the fact. Faith is not just a nice feeling. It also involves the intellect and the use of reason.

They did find the papyrus. Smith obviously knew no Egyptian. http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/fallofbookabraham.htm

You are not a monotheist. Whatever else you are does not matter. There is only one God and no other. That God is Triune in nature. You reject this, so ergo you are not Christians. In fact you pay so much attention to Smith that he plays a larger role in Mormonism the Mary, the saints, and even Jesus. The Trinity is quite Biblical and the three Persons are not separate beings. This shows how little Smith understood the Trinity.

Masonry claims to come from the medieval guilds, but that has never been decisively proven. The rituals are not based on Christian models. If you want to know how Christians worshiped you can see it in St. Justin's apology in the section on the Eucharist or you could just visit Mass.

We see no apostasy or loss of priesthood after the 1st century. The BOM is not accepted by any non-Mormon scholar as having any historical value. The Bible mentions Rome. You can go there and see it. I don't want to get into debating the BOM's problems as books have been written on it. It suffices to say that Mormons add to revelation, we do not. Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The Dead Sea scrolls do not have any authority or bearing on the dogma of the Trinity.

Nicea was under the authority of Pope Sylvester. His two representatives had authority to act for him. It is the touchstone for orthodoxy.

In the end Mormonism founds a new religion. It is rooted in Christianity, but it is not Christian. There was no need for a restoration. Christ's Church continues to this day and you can find it subsisting in the Catholic Church. Baptisms done with proper matter and form are valid. I was baptized a Protestant and not rebaptized when I become Catholic. But my former church was Christian not Mormon. Pre-Nicean baptisms had proper matter and form. Their intention was sufficiently formed. We reject Mormon baptism because your intentions and understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are insufficient. I remind you that Mormons don't accept any of our baptisms, Protestant or Catholic, either.

I think you are correct. We should end the discussion. I do hope that I have made you think a bit. I lived in Mormon country, so this is not my first rodeo. May God be with you and guide you ever closer to his truth. Pax

Darren it's interesting to read your thoughts, yet there are so many. "The exclusivity of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel is an important element in Israel's oldest religious tradition." Surprisingly, the two religions that have the most believers worldwide are also the newest. Islam was born in 610 CE and Christianity started around 30 CE. While some count Abraham as the oldest prophet in Islam, that still puts this religion closer to modern times than many others.

I respect the skepticism that since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pretty much ignores the edicts of third and fourth century councils its members can’t truly be lumped in with the Christians who do accept council dogma to explain the Bible. And while Jesus tried his best to distinguish himself as separate from his father (his baptism, his announcement that he was ascending to sit on the right hand of God, etc.) while affirming his creative nature and Godliness (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”) I can understand the confusion .
However, some other comments range from silly to sillier.
1- The Book of Mormon and Christ’s preaching on another continent after his resurrection can’t be true because they aren’t specifically mentioned in the Bible. OK. But then because of lack of mention in the Bible, we must also toss out infant baptism, immaculate conception, limbo, baptism by sprinkling, authority by diploma, celibacy of church leaders, that clergy must dress differently from the rest of society, and titles like The Most Reverend, The Right Reverend, Monsignor, Pope, Cardinal and Archbishop.
2- The life of Joseph Smith isn’t spotless enough to consider him a rightful founder and leader of a religion. So, I guess that means we must disregard the religion founded by a man who probably had more wives than Joseph, but sent them along to heaven ahead of him by way of the guillotine or dungeon. This monarch crowned himself head of a new church because the old church said he was, well, not a very nice man. And while Joseph is discounted because he proclaimed the existence of Christ, we probably should discount another great church that traces its origins to a leader who denied he even knew Jesus. And while Joseph is criticized for attempting to flee a murderous mob, this person, considered a rock by some, ignored the teachings of the Prince of Peace by dealing with a scary situation by attempting to slice up the enemy. No wonder Jesus told him not to bother about converting anyone because he still hadn’t converted himself. And we certainly must question the closeness to God of the founder of another religion who ventured into medicine by offering some good advice along with this inspired insistence: Holding a puppy over a baby’s stomach would cure colic and the best treatment for asthma were pills created from powdered toads. And if you want to go way back, why was Moses denied access to the Promised Land and why should we accept Jonah after he ignored God’s command to preach to a wicked group of people because he said they deserved to go to hell? And how about those pious clerics who watched “witches” burn and others who used the New Testament to justify slavery? And we certainly should not follow other leaders scorched by historians for sexual and murderous scandals.
3- Temple rites are nothing more than Masonic rites dressed in white. Masonic rites reaffirm man’s connection to man under one God which probably links them more to Catholicism than Mormonism. And, of course, women are excluded from the rituals, again more like Catholicism than Mormon temple rites in which women officiate alongside men and worship reaffirms man’s connection to God and Christ. But don’t take my word for all the differences. Ask a Mason. Do Masons and Mormons have some similarities? Probably. Does Catholic and Southern Baptist worship have some similarities? Probably. Does that mean that Southern Baptists are just Catholics without the fancy hats?
4- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is racist because of many references in the Book of Mormon to darker skin signifying the bad guy. A good reading of this other Good Book will show the transitory nature of the coloration. Good guys turned bad? Dark skin. When they repent, light skin. Bad guys gone good? Lighter skin. This change can take place within months, not generations. And within families. Remember that the bad guys always are portrayed as wearing nothing more than loin clothes while the good guys dress in robes. Sun tan lotion anyone? Also remember that distinguishing between the good guys and the bad guys was very important during this time. Check out Ezra in the Old Testament which covers roughly the same time frame. Anyway, if we slam this church for something that happened prior to the birth of Christ, I assume we must label as racist Protestant churches that banned blacks in our generation, thus forcing the creation of black churches (as in the familiar headline: Arsonists Destroy Black Church)?
So, please, look both ways before crossing the street to Prejudice City. Your own church may run you down.

My wife has been a Mormon for over.two years now.she really beleaves
Every thing they say.I was not brought up in any religion.but when I was 26 I started searching.for many years I went to all denomonations they all said I was going to hell. So I started studying.my self with the King James version and the strongs concrdanance and the Interlinier bible. I now feel there is whole lot of Lost
People out there.im still not sure if I'm going to heaven or not because I paid for an abortion.i believe that's murder in GODS eyes and the bible says a murder can not have forgiveness in the flesh.I have to wait till judgement day to see if my kid and Jesus will forgive me. I pray everyone will com to a true knowledge of salvation.
And all false teachers eyes would open and repent.

The reason Romney gets a "free pass" on his status as an LDS ("Mormon") Bishop is because a Bishop is an unpaid, temporary, and far more minor position within the LDS Church than would reasonably trigger complaints. It requires no special skills except a lack of huge, obvious moral failings (eg, drug addition, adultery, etc).

There are something like 28,000 of Mormon Bishops out of 14.44 million Mormons, or about one for every 500 Mormons. Compare that to Catholic Bishops, for whom there are about 1 in every 233,000 Catholics.

The LDS Church is generally more egalitarian than the Catholic Church, too. Most "confession of sins" is private, between the sinner and God alone. Bishops are not in charge of any elaborate rituals, and generally announce activities during the coming week (youth dances, scouting activities, service projects, and other congregation news) and introduce speakers rather than giving extensive sermons themselves (though they often fill in for speakers who are unprepared or unexpectedly unavailable). They are not expected to be theological experts, though they are the head bureaucrat for the congregation. Most learn on the job, and many have no idea what the job entails until after they are "called" (asked by the next level of bureaucracy to volunteer). They only serve for a few years (the most I ever heard of was 7) and they are never paid for their service. They work their regular jobs in the meantime. They are accompanied by a "Bishopric" (two "Councilors" and a clerk) who must all agree in order to exercise any official powers. The Bishopric officially "call" other lay-members to other lay-positions, such as Sunday School Teachers and Librarians. Virtually every member of a Mormon congregation has some kind of calling; if nothing else, they are called to visit neighbors in an attempt to maintain neighborhood ties and watch out for the the elderly and sickly.

None of this gives an LDS Bishop authority over LDS doctrine, or the power to defy or change it. There is no blurring of the line between church authority and government authority for a Mormon Bishop to hold public office; one is a career, while the other is religious volunteer work.

You also mention that Romney is a "High Priest." This essentially means "middle-aged guy who has been in good standing with the Church for a long time." It would be strange for a lifelong Mormon of Romney's age NOT to be a High Priest. There are something like 20 High Priests for every Bishop. It is not a position of great authority or requiring expertise (though they tend to be very familiar with theology), and is still not a paid position.