Why do some people believe mormons are not christian?

Getting to know more about a specific belief

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Are mormons christian?

Yes
32
63%
No
19
37%
 
Total votes: 51

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Why do some people believe mormons are not christian?

Post #1

Post by 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!

User avatar
Burninglight
Guru
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am

Post #131

Post by Burninglight »

dianaiad wrote:
Burninglight wrote:Yes, what makes us true Christians is believing in Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation.
We really do need to rename the 'True Scott' fallacy.
Burninglight wrote: It is being born again; it is trusting God's grace through our faith; It is believing God when he said there was no god before me nor shall there be after me; It is believing that Jesus is the unique son of God born of a virgin and without sin; the word of God incarnate; it is making Jesus the Lord of our life not just believing in Him.
Well, you have no quarrel with Mormons in any of the above. You realize that, yes?
Burninglight wrote: It is not to believe in the Adam god.
You have absolutely no idea what "Adam god" is. That's obvious by the way you brought it up. However, feel free to explain it.
Burninglight wrote: It is to believe God is Spirit;
..and we must 'worship Him in spirit and truth." Gotcha.
Burninglight wrote: It is to believe God is Holy; it is to believe that God is the Holy Spirit. [/quote\

I see. You ARE a modalist. That's supposed to be a heresy, you realize this, yes?
Burninglight wrote:Those who don't believe that are not True Biblical Christians.
I'll concede that you don't think so. You are, of course, wrong about that.

Burninglight wrote:Mormons give the appearance of having sound Christian doctrine by the Christian terms they use, but they mean something completely different than that of the congregation of churches. IMO, it is a cult. Cults say they are the only ones doing the ministry of God;
Well, that leaves us out, since we don't claim that.
Burninglight wrote:Its leaders are only accountable to God.
Aren't all religious leaders?
Burninglight wrote:They say their way is the only true way.
Isn't that what you are saying?
Burninglight wrote: Cults have pride that go along with believing this. Some are better at hiding it than others.
I'd say so, yes. Some project a great deal, as well.
Burninglight wrote:Joseph Smith plagiarized from the KJV of the Bible saying he found golden plates.
There's something in the Bible about new scriptures being found on golden plates?
Burninglight wrote: I read some of it and could see that he copied the translational errors in the KJV.
I rather imagine that he did. After all, he, like you, believed that the KJV was to be relied upon as a good translation. So when he got to those areas in the BoM which were obviously scriptures brought with the folks who left the old lands, he decided not to reinvent the wheel, and trust to what he thought was fairly trustworthy rather than do work that had already been done. That's MY opinion of what happened, anyway.

How ironic it is that you, who claim that the bible is absolute truth and is the Word of God, are claiming that Joseph Smith shouldn't have done that because there are ERRORS in the Bible?

Which side of this argument are you taking?
Burninglight wrote: True Biblical Christians belief that we are all God's creation, but we are not all God's children.
Really? Where does it say that?
Burninglight wrote: Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil to the scribes and pharisees. They are the ones with the lying pens. So God has his children and Satan has his.
So..you are claiming that Satan was literally the father of those Pharisees and scribes? Wanna tell me how that happened, exactly?
Burninglight wrote: Joseph Smith like Muhammad was not a confirmed prophet.
Oddly enough, I disagree with you about Joseph Smith. I hate to break this to you...I'll put this as gently as I can.

You don't get to decide that.
Burninglight wrote: In order to be a confirmed prophet he has to be of the right ancestral line; have done a miracle or given a prophecy that happens; be confirmed by other prophets and know the name of God. Joseph Smith like Muhammad doesn't pass the test!
Uh, HUH????? Ok, you have a whole bunch of requirements that I've not heard of. Care to expound on this? Especially with some proof that these ARE requirements?
Burninglight wrote:Mormons have a different gospel that is no gospel at all and a different Jesus to go with it. True Biblical Christians believe that in the beginning was the word (Jesus) the Word was with God and the word was God. Jesus was the word God used to speak all things into existence without Him not anything was made that was made. All things were made by Jesus for Jesus and through Jesus. God was never a man and man will never become God. God said it Himself "I know no God before me and no god shall come after me." God won't let it happen.
The book of Mormon is another testament of another Jesus; not my Jesus not our Jesus!!!
Peace to truth seekers
Why do I even try?
I don't know what a true Scott fallacy is.

You said, "Well, you have no quarrel with Mormons in any of the above. You realize that, yes?" What about "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become?" That certainly goes against: "No God before me and no God after me!

You said, "You have absolutely no idea what "Adam god" is. That's obvious by the way you brought it up. However, feel free to explain it." No, I don't know what that is. I only know it is not Biblical Christianity to believe such a thing. I thought maybe you could explain why Mormons believe that or once did.

"Aren't all religious leaders?"
No, they are accountable to the congregation and eachother!

"Isn't that what you are saying?"
No, I am not saying that.

"Really? Where does it say that?" Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil to the scribes and pharisees. So God has his children and Satan has his. Do you want the Bible reference?

"So..you are claiming that Satan was literally the father of those Pharisees and scribes? Wanna tell me how that happened, exactly?"
No, where did I say I literally believe that? I believe what Jesus said!

"Oddly enough, I disagree with you about Joseph Smith. I hate to break this to you...I'll put this as gently as I can." I know, Don't feel bad about it.

"You don't get to decide that."
Yes, I do, because God showed me. Mark my words!

"Uh, HUH????? Ok, you have a whole bunch of requirements that I've not heard of. Care to expound on this? Especially with some proof that these ARE requirements?"

Every major prophet that came with an universal word for the world in the Bible has come from the right ancestral line, has been confirmed by other prophets, as done miracles or gave prophecies that came to pass. I challenge you to show me this is not the case. What I share comes with observation and study of the Scriptures.

fredonly
Guru
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: Houston

Post #132

Post by fredonly »

Burninglight wrote: I don't know what a true Scott fallacy is.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge�, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
--http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/

User avatar
Burninglight
Guru
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am

Post #133

Post by Burninglight »

fredonly wrote:
Burninglight wrote: I don't know what a true Scott fallacy is.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge�, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
--http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?
You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.

fredonly
Guru
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: Houston

Post #134

Post by fredonly »

Burninglight wrote:
fredonly wrote:

The No True Scotsman Fallacy

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge�, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
--http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?
Agnostic.
You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
Speak of circular reasoning? All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which discusses the problem with arguments of the form of the No True Scotsman argument.

I don't have something "better than God." I am a skeptic. I require a convincing reason to believe in things for which there is no unequivocal empirical evidence. e.g. I don't believe there have been earthly encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens, I don't believe in reincarnations, nor in telepathy, clairvoyance, or poltergeists. There is better evidence for some of these than there is for Jesus' resurrection.

User avatar
Burninglight
Guru
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am

Post #135

Post by Burninglight »

fredonly wrote:
Burninglight wrote:
fredonly wrote:

The No True Scotsman Fallacy

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge�, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
--http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?
Agnostic.
You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
Speak of circular reasoning? All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which discusses the problem with arguments of the form of the No True Scotsman argument.

I don't have something "better than God." I am a skeptic. I require a convincing reason to believe in things for which there is no unequivocal empirical evidence. e.g. I don't believe there have been earthly encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens, I don't believe in reincarnations, nor in telepathy, clairvoyance, or poltergeists. There is better evidence for some of these than there is for Jesus' resurrection.
Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?

fredonly
Guru
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: Houston

Post #136

Post by fredonly »

Burninglight wrote:
fredonly wrote:
Burninglight wrote:So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?
Agnostic.
You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
Speak of circular reasoning? All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which discusses the problem with arguments of the form of the No True Scotsman argument.

I don't have something "better than God." I am a skeptic. I require a convincing reason to believe in things for which there is no unequivocal empirical evidence. e.g. I don't believe there have been earthly encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens, I don't believe in reincarnations, nor in telepathy, clairvoyance, or poltergeists. There is better evidence for some of these than there is for Jesus' resurrection.
Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?
There are many reported eyewitness accounts of alien encounters. For example, Barney and Betty Hill. There's also a Wikipedia article on this. There are eyewitness accounts of all the phenomena I listed. Is that enough to convince you all of them are true? They are actually first-hand accounts. Compare that evidence to that of Jesus' alleged resurrection: all we have are accounts written by unknown authors in superstitious times, decades after the alleged event, written outside the locale of the event in a language other than that spoken by the people who would theoretically have been the actual eyewitnesses. So no, eyewitness accounts of extraordinary phenomena aren't enough for me - tell me if they're enough for you. If you insist the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection are convincing accounts, and you do not accept the accounts of the other phenomena - then please explain your assessment criteria.

Regarding your second question: yes, I would tend to believe my sensory input. I would need to satisfy myself that it wasn't a trick (ever see a good magician?).

User avatar
Burninglight
Guru
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am

Post #137

Post by Burninglight »

fredonly wrote:
Burninglight wrote:
fredonly wrote:
Burninglight wrote:So you were Catholic and rejected it, and you claim to have been a former Chrisitan; so, what are you now?
Agnostic.
You speak of circular reasoning, but it seems like you are going in circles still. What do you have that is better than God or that can be justified not using "circular reason?" as you would call it.
Speak of circular reasoning? All I did was quote from Wikipedia, which discusses the problem with arguments of the form of the No True Scotsman argument.

I don't have something "better than God." I am a skeptic. I require a convincing reason to believe in things for which there is no unequivocal empirical evidence. e.g. I don't believe there have been earthly encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens, I don't believe in reincarnations, nor in telepathy, clairvoyance, or poltergeists. There is better evidence for some of these than there is for Jesus' resurrection.
Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?
There are many reported eyewitness accounts of alien encounters. For example, Barney and Betty Hill. There's also a Wikipedia article on this. There are eyewitness accounts of all the phenomena I listed. Is that enough to convince you all of them are true? They are actually first-hand accounts. Compare that evidence to that of Jesus' alleged resurrection: all we have are accounts written by unknown authors in superstitious times, decades after the alleged event, written outside the locale of the event in a language other than that spoken by the people who would theoretically have been the actual eyewitnesses. So no, eyewitness accounts of extraordinary phenomena aren't enough for me - tell me if they're enough for you. If you insist the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection are convincing accounts, and you do not accept the accounts of the other phenomena - then please explain your assessment criteria.

Regarding your second question: yes, I would tend to believe my sensory input. I would need to satisfy myself that it wasn't a trick (ever see a good magician?).
You would believe it if you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears. Well then how do you know you are not imagining it or if the chemical balance in your brain is not off. I submit to you that even if you saw and heard you wouldn't believe because if you saw it alone it is not falsifiable and cannot be repeated. There are some thing in life that can only be accessed by faith. For without faith it is impossible to please God. I don't know what cause you to be agnostic, but at least I see more more for agnosticism than atheism.
BTW, I have spoken to people that I had considered to be intelligent and of a sound mind, and one of them is still my friend today. They saw a space ship of some sought come up close to them. One friend rebuked it in Jesus' name, and it left, the other was knock down by it. I believe their testimony. You wouldn't, that is the difference between us!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24875
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Post #138

Post by Goat »

Burninglight wrote:
Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?

What eye witness accounts. What you have are CLAIMS that there are eye witness accounts. Of course, 'eye witness accounts' are not very reliable to begin with.. but you don't even have that.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Burninglight
Guru
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am

Post #139

Post by Burninglight »

Goat wrote:
Burninglight wrote:
Okay, but what about eye witnessed accounts. Do you doubt those as well? And even if you did see it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears would you believe it?

What eye witness accounts. What you have are CLAIMS that there are eye witness accounts. Of course, 'eye witness accounts' are not very reliable to begin with.. but you don't even have that.
Jesus disciples saw Him arrested and charged with blasphemy and some of them saw him on the cross. Are you saying or denying that Jesus died on the cross? IMO, that would be tantamount to to Germans denying the holocaust happen; in fact, many of them do. Besides, I was talking about eye witnessed accounts in general. We even spoke of UFO's which I believe are demonic spiritual occurrences.

This discussion is pointless, because even if I could convince you that Jesus died on the cross, you wouldn't believe it was God's plan for our salvation which is the only message I am interested in conveying; otherwise, I wouldn't be interested in having discussion or debates on any forum with anybody. I would just go my own selfish little way and not feel an obligation to share the good news!

fredonly
Guru
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: Houston

Post #140

Post by fredonly »

Burninglight wrote: You would believe it if you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears. Well then how do you know you are not imagining it or if the chemical balance in your brain is not off. I submit to you that even if you saw and heard you wouldn't believe because if you saw it alone it is not falsifiable and cannot be repeated. There are some thing in life that can only be accessed by faith. For without faith it is impossible to please God. I don't know what cause you to be agnostic, but at least I see more more for agnosticism than atheism.
Don't define my skepticism for me. I have a few properly basic beliefs, and this includes a trust in the validity of logic and a qualified trust in my senses. Regarding my sensory input, it's not a certain faith, like some people profess in God – I'm willing to hear arguments that my seeing or hearing are mistaken (that's part of being married ;-) ) If I have a chemical imbalance that is undetected, and this results in hallucinations – then so be it; I'll be in error. I'm not that extreme a skeptic – I simply have a plausibility hurdle. I gave a brief sketch of my road to agnosticism here.
BTW, I have spoken to people that I had considered to be intelligent and of a sound mind, and one of them is still my friend today. They saw a space ship of some sought come up close to them. One friend rebuked it in Jesus' name, and it left, the other was knock down by it. I believe their testimony. You wouldn't, that is the difference between us!
You are right, I probably would not believe a friend who told me this. It is an extremely low likelihood that there is intelligent life, more scientifically advanced than our own, within a traversable distance from earth, that would somehow know to come here (we can barely detect the existence of planet around other stars), and that they would expend the resources, and undergo the risk, to travel all this way. Still, it's not impossible.

Post Reply