Why do some people believe mormons are not christian?

[Kuan]

So, you can probably tell I'm Mormon and I'm willing to debate my religion or answer questions. The purpose of this thread though is that I have had many people tell me I'm not Christian even though I believe in Jesus. I'm wondering why that is. Thanks for any answers!

[Kuan]

Yes, Joseph Smith made a claim.. does that mean that claim is true. The teachings he claims are at odds with all traditional church doctrine,

I can see why non-Mormons can be skeptical of the claims of Joseph Smith and the BOM.

I like to think that they are not at odds but rather fill in spots where the bible is missing information.

[Katzpur]

we do rely on Jesus Christ for salvation

However, there are a number of other beliefs that are at odds with the rest of Christian beliefs, such as


We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so on from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient...
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1853, page 132

It's never a very good idea to quote from a source you are unfamiliar with. Using "The Seer" as a source is particularly questionable. "The Seer" was published in Washington, DC, by Orson Pratt, who used the publication to promote his own ideas and beliefs. Not only was it never sanctioned by the Church, the Church's First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles formally repudiated it, and in a written statement declared that it "contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." I'm not sure where you got your information, but keep in mind that any time you use an anti-Mormon source, you're going to run into stuff like this. Those who write against the Church are, of course, aware that "The Seer" does not reflect the doctrines accepted by the Church. They just assume that their readers aren't going to bother checking into it.

and


How many earths are there? ...they are continually coming into existence, and undergoing changes and passing through the same experience that we are passing through... Sin is upon every earth that ever was created. ...consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter...
LDS Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1870, Vol. 14, p 71

The Journal of Discourses is a collection of sermons given by Brigham Young. While most non-Mormons assume that this makes them authoritative, they are absolutely wrong about that. If these sermons contained LDS doctrine, the Journal of Discourses would have long ago been part of our canon. Before people start quoting from such sources, they would do well to double-check the teachings found therein against what is found in our actual Standard Works. If the same teachings cannot be found there, it is quite simply one man's opinion.

And much much more. These beliefs are at odds enough with the rest of Christian belief that I can see why many say that Mormons are not Christian. They might bear the same relationship to Christianity as the Christian religion does to Judaism.. having the same base, but going into totally different directions.

Yes, there is much, much more. On the other hand, while many of our beliefs are "at odds with the rest of Christian beliefs," nothing we believe contradicts the Bible. Much of it concerns teachings that are simply absent from the Bible. And it's quite impossible to contradict something that is never said. Of course, many Christians are quick to point out that all spiritual truth can be found within the pages of the Bible -- a fact, incidentally, that they cannot substantiate using the Bible. The Bible never even aludes to the idea that it is a complete record of God's dealings with mankind.

I am not Christian, so it is not up to me to decide who is Christian and who is not. I note that many Baptists claim Catholics are not Christian, even though Catholics far out number those Baptists, and have a much longer and richer religious tradition.

Interestingly, Catholicism, by far the largest single Christian denomination in the world today, relies on holy tradition in addition to scripture, so anyone who would exclude Mormons from the Christian family due to the fact that not all of our doctrines are found in the Bible would also have to exclude Catholics for the same reason. As you pointed out, many Baptists do just that.

Many Christians would consider the statements above to make Mormons out to be polytheistic.

And virtually every Muslim you might ask would consider the triune God described in the Nicene Creed as polytheistic. If the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God, Muslims will argue that, despite the "disclaimer" which states that "there is only one God," there are really three.

It's not my call, but I can see the point of the other Christians who say that they are not Christian. It all depends on how you want to define "True Christian".

Right, it does. Unfortunately, most of the criteria they use to exclude Mormons would also exclude first century Christianity. Since the word "Christian" is never actually defined in the scriptures, people can pretty well define the word any way it suits them.

[sleepyhead]

Hello katzpur,

you>>> For the first several years of its existance, the Church was known simply as the Church of Jesus Christ.<<<

me>>>The discussion with regards to the church name came as a result of a false claim made by Katzpur.

you>>>I trust this will prevent any additional "false" accusations being made against me.<<<

What false accusation did I accuse you of.

me>>>Holland isn't a member of the forum. Are you prepared to stand behind Holland's sermon. <<<

You>>>So references to sources who aren't members of the forum is against the rules? What gives? <<<

I never said it was against the rules. Since this is a forum for debate the sermon by holland doesn't have any value unless someone is willing to stand behind his comments. As far as I know no rules were broken.

you>>>Obviously we do rely on Jesus Christ for exaltation.<<<

My present understanding is that your exaltation involves participation in various temple ceremonies and that in order to take part in these ceremonies you must be deemed worthy by the LDS church. If the above is correct and it is up to the church, then you would be relying on the church rather than Jesus.

I should note again here that I personally don't define myself as a Christian.

[Kuan]

Hello katzpur,

you>>> For the first several years of its existance, the Church was known simply as the Church of Jesus Christ.<<<

me>>>The discussion with regards to the church name came as a result of a false claim made by Katzpur.

you>>>I trust this will prevent any additional "false" accusations being made against me.<<<

What false accusation did I accuse you of.

me>>>Holland isn't a member of the forum. Are you prepared to stand behind Holland's sermon. <<<

You>>>So references to sources who aren't members of the forum is against the rules? What gives? <<<

I never said it was against the rules. Since this is a forum for debate the sermon by holland doesn't have any value unless someone is willing to stand behind his comments. As far as I know no rules were broken.

you>>>Obviously we do rely on Jesus Christ for exaltation.<<<

My present understanding is that your exaltation involves participation in various temple ceremonies and that in order to take part in these ceremonies you must be deemed worthy by the LDS church. If the above is correct and it is up to the church, then you would be relying on the church rather than Jesus.

I should note again here that I personally don't define myself as a Christian.

You are correct that we must perform some ordinances. Yet we still rely on Jesus. He atoned for our sins in the garden of gethsemane and then was crucified to complete the process. The ordinances are for earning degrees of glory in heaven and the atonement is so we can make it to heaven. Without the atonement the ordinances are useless.

[Katzpur]

What false accusation did I accuse you of.

You stated that I made a false claim concerning the original name of the Church. I believe that particular issue has been resolved.

I never said it was against the rules. Since this is a forum for debate the sermon by holland doesn't have any value unless someone is willing to stand behind his comments. As far as I know no rules were broken.

Clearly the individual who made the statement was prepared to stand behind it since he specifically posted it in arguing his position.

My present understanding is that your exaltation involves participation in various temple ceremonies and that in order to take part in these ceremonies you must be deemed worthy by the LDS church. If the above is correct and it is up to the church, then you would be relying on the church rather than Jesus.

The institutional Church is run by men who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. This priesthood authorizes them to act in Jesus' name.

[sleepyhead]

Hello Katzpur and mormonboy,

I forgot to respond to this yesterday.
>>>Talk about twisting a comment to mean something other than the original poster meant! Nobody who has ever lived could hope to be exalted without Jesus Christ. Obviously we do rely on Jesus Christ for exaltation. Furthermore, I explained the relationship between exaltation (the LDS term) and sanctification (the traditional Christian term). While there are some differences between the two, if you are to insist that our belief in exaltation is reason enough not to call us Christians, you'd have to also admit that anyone who believes in sanctification cannot be called a Christian either.<<<

While others might claim you are not Christian because of this or that belief, I haven't. Your belief in and of itself of exaltation, nor the belief in sanctification doesn't make someone not a Christian. The question is do the various faith systems which desire the title of Christian rely upon Jesus for sanctification/exaltation.

mormonboy>>>You are correct that we must perform some ordinances. Yet we still rely on Jesus. He atoned for our sins in the garden of gethsemane and then was crucified to complete the process. The ordinances are for earning degrees of glory in heaven and the atonement is so we can make it to heaven. Without the atonement the ordinances are useless.<<<

The significant part of what I wrote was that you must be approved by the church. The churchg must consider you worthy.
If we compare it to legally driving, We believe God created the world and gave us are arms and legs. We woudl have never been able to drive without God. Yet in order to legally drive we need to gain approval from our state to obtain a license. We then must drive responsibly or the privilege provided by the state to drive will be taken away. Under these conditiions I think most people would agree that our reliance is on the state to be able to drive rather than God.

Hello katzpur again

>>>Clearly the individual who made the statement was prepared to stand behind it since he specifically posted it in arguing his position. <<<

It wasn't clear to me and thus far he hasn't come back and specifically stated he was going to stand behind whatever holland said either in part or in whole.

>>>The institutional Church is run by men who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. This priesthood authorizes them to act in Jesus' name.<<<

And Christians believe that Jesus had the authority to act in God's name and they look to Jesus/God for sanctification. If you believe that the church has the authority to act in Jesus's name then you are saints, mormons, latterday saints, but not christians.

[McCulloch]

>>>The institutional Church is run by men who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. This priesthood authorizes them to act in Jesus' name.<<<

And Christians believe that Jesus had the authority to act in God's name and they look to Jesus/God for sanctification. If you believe that the church has the authority to act in Jesus's name then you are saints, mormons, latterday saints, but not christians.

The Roman Catholic Church is run by a man who holds the keys of Saint Peter. The Holy Father is authorized to act in Jesus' name.
And, according to sleepyhead, Christians believe that Jesus had the authority to act in God's name and they look to Jesus/God for sanctification. If the Roman Catholics believe that the church has the authority to act in Jesus' name then they may be Catholics, but not Christians.
Right?

[Ooberman]

I don't know if it has been said, but the reason many Christians don't accept Mormons as Christian, or many other sects is the exclusivity of the Christian religion specifically and religion in general.

Mormonism is easy for most Christians because of the extra book and different theology. But that doesn't stop them from considering Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Baptists, etc. as "true" Christians either.

Basically, ask a Baptist and they will tell you Baptism is the only true Christianity. While the Methodists and Episcopalians may not be far off, they still make some errors, but we love them anyhow...

Ask a SouthCottite and they will tell you they have it right, but we love the others... just that some will burn in Hell....


Religion is a way to make yourself feel good at the expense of others, and at the expense of your dignity.

[Kuan]

mormonboy>>>You are correct that we must perform some ordinances. Yet we still rely on Jesus. He atoned for our sins in the garden of gethsemane and then was crucified to complete the process. The ordinances are for earning degrees of glory in heaven and the atonement is so we can make it to heaven. Without the atonement the ordinances are useless.<<<

The significant part of what I wrote was that you must be approved by the church. The churchg must consider you worthy.
If we compare it to legally driving, We believe God created the world and gave us are arms and legs. We woudl have never been able to drive without God. Yet in order to legally drive we need to gain approval from our state to obtain a license. We then must drive responsibly or the privilege provided by the state to drive will be taken away. Under these conditiions I think most people would agree that our reliance is on the state to be able to drive rather than God.

The church only approves you to be worthy to enter the temple to perform that ordinance. That might be what you said but this will stop misunderstandings in the future.

[sleepyhead]

>>>The institutional Church is run by men who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. This priesthood authorizes them to act in Jesus' name.<<<

And Christians believe that Jesus had the authority to act in God's name and they look to Jesus/God for sanctification. If you believe that the church has the authority to act in Jesus's name then you are saints, mormons, latterday saints, but not christians.

The Roman Catholic Church is run by a man who holds the keys of Saint Peter. The Holy Father is authorized to act in Jesus' name.
And, according to sleepyhead, Christians believe that Jesus had the authority to act in God's name and they look to Jesus/God for sanctification. If the Roman Catholics believe that the church has the authority to act in Jesus' name then they may be Catholics, but not Christians.
Right?

Hello mcculloch,

I was raised as Catholic and attended catholic school through 8th grade. My understanding is that they changed some stuff since the 1950's. While growing up I was never encouraged to refer to myself as Christian. We were all pretty content to just be known as Catholic.

The distinction I attempted to make with mormonboy is whether or not they rely on Jesus for their salvation or in the case of mormons exaltation. If the membership relies on anything else (usually their church) then based on my understanding of what a christian is then they wouldn't be christians.

What I was taught is that you can't have any mortal sins when you die. Missing mass was considered a mortal sin. So in that case they would be relying on there church for salvation, however, I don't know how common it is for individuals to make it to adulthood still believing that. I also remember they had the sacrament of extreme unction when a person was about to die, but I don't recall what that was supposed to do. Are there any catholics who believe extreme unction has a value?

mormonboy>>>The church only approves you to be worthy to enter the temple to perform that ordinance. That might be what you said but this will stop misunderstandings in the future.<<<

My understanding is that in order to obtain your exaltation you need to perform these ordinances. Is that incorrect?