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

Post #11

Post by Kuan »

TheFoolForHimAboveAll wrote: First: Mormons do not follow or believe in the historic Jesus Christ of the Bible, but rather in a difference Jesus. This is why most Biblical Christians emphatically insist that Mormons are not Christians. Let me explain.

The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. So I understand that there is only one Jesus in the bible so he must be the same.

TheFoolForHimAboveAll wrote: Second: The Jesus Christ of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

The Mormon Jesus is the son of this man-god. The Mormon Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and according to LDS teaching, he married several of the Marys of the New Testament. He is not, to the LDS church, "God incarnate" as the Bible plainly states. Clearly, the Mormon god and Jesus are not the true.

God and Jesus of the Bible
Yes we do believe that Lucifer is the brother to Jesus but that he rebelled in the premortal life. Thats a very hard topic to explain and I recommend looking at our official teachings for the answers and not at a book i have never heard of. Our church doe not teach that Jesus married multiple marys, instead we actually don't know the answer to who Jesus got married to.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

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

Post #12

Post by Kuan »

Katzpur, Thanks for helping me out here, I was out of town for a couple days with some friends in the mountains in Utah and had no connection from my phone. You explained it better than I could since i just turned 18, haha.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

User avatar
sleepyhead
Site Supporter
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Grass Valley CA

Post #13

Post by sleepyhead »

mormon boy51 wrote:The church was actualy not two churches. A group split off before the main church, the real one had to move to nauvoo then to Utah because of persecution. The one in the east you are talking.g about is the RLDS church which is very different from the LDS church just like the FLDS are different from us.
Hello mormonboy,

I would think that the group that JS was involved with would be the main one. That was the one in the East and thats the one that changed their name to the church o latter day saints. They built a temple in (either ohio or indiana) which the Community of Christ now owns. A plaque on the temple says something to the effect of built by the church of latter day saints. They also republished the book of commandments with changes as the D & C for the church of latter day saints. I don't recall who was leading the further west group. They changed their name to Chruch of Jesus Christ. Some time later JS went west and took charge of that group and gave the church the present name.

User avatar
sleepyhead
Site Supporter
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Grass Valley CA

Post #14

Post by sleepyhead »

Hello mormonboy,

katzpur>>>Your post is far too long for me to respond to in a single sitting. Furthermore, much of what you have posted is not official doctrine at all, but rather conjecture. In case you are not aware of this fact, there are four books of scripture that comprise our canon. They are: The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Together they comprise what we refer to as “The Standard Works.� They are the standards against which all teachings are measured. If something can not be found in one of those four books, it is nothing more than the opinion of the individual who said it.<<<

me>>>The membership of your church are expected to believe what the prophet of your church tells them. Thus they believe the prophet can't lead the church astray even though it isn't part of your standard works. Women can no longer hold the priesthood isn't part of your standard works. Blacks not holding the priesthood wasn't part of your standard works.<<<

you>>>The first part doesnt really relate to standard works honestly. I have thought about that in my life, what if. I have faith in my prophet and trust that the lord will not let him lead me astray. One reason women cant hold the preisthood is because they dont need it. Women are special beings, they are our mothers and that is a great thing. If men didn't have the priesthood we could not become as close to heavenly father as women can. There are other reasons to but this is what i see as a good reason. Yes in the early days of our church blacks couldnt hold the priesthood. Thats why we believe in revelation, if we didnt have revelation we would not have changed it.

My message was in response to Katzpur's claim that we should only judge the LDS church based on doctrine found in the standard works as opposed to what the membership are actually taught and are expected to believe. The above were examples of teachings that are not part of the standard works but are taught and believed by the membership. I didn't comment on whether the specific teachings were good or bad.

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

Post #15

Post by Kuan »

sleepyhead wrote:
mormon boy51 wrote:The church was actualy not two churches. A group split off before the main church, the real one had to move to nauvoo then to Utah because of persecution. The one in the east you are talking.g about is the RLDS church which is very different from the LDS church just like the FLDS are different from us.
Hello mormonboy,

I would think that the group that JS was involved with would be the main one. That was the one in the East and thats the one that changed their name to the church o latter day saints. They built a temple in (either ohio or indiana) which the Community of Christ now owns. A plaque on the temple says something to the effect of built by the church of latter day saints. They also republished the book of commandments with changes as the D & C for the church of latter day saints. I don't recall who was leading the further west group. They changed their name to Chruch of Jesus Christ. Some time later JS went west and took charge of that group and gave the church the present name.
You are partially correct the main branch was the one he was involved with. The one in the east and west were the same just in different areas until Joseph Smith was murdered in Carthage Jail. Then they had disagreements on who the next prophet was and split up into the RLDS who now own the Kirkland, Ohio temple, and the LDS, main branch, which owns many temples including the Nauvoo, Illinois temple. Brigham Young became prophet after Joseph Smith was murdered and lead the main branch west.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

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

Post #16

Post by Kuan »

sleepyhead wrote:My message was in response to Katzpur's claim that we should only judge the LDS church based on doctrine found in the standard works as opposed to what the membership are actually taught and are expected to believe. The above were examples of teachings that are not part of the standard works but are taught and believed by the membership. I didn't comment on whether the specific teachings were good or bad.
We believe in revelation and those specific beliefs came from our prophet. What we are referring to is the journal of discourses, I have never even heard of it and it is never used in our church.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

User avatar
sleepyhead
Site Supporter
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Grass Valley CA

Post #17

Post by sleepyhead »

Hello mormonboy,

This is my oruiginal post in response to Katzpur. Is there something in it that you disagree with? I was responding to her claim that the church was always known as the church of Jesus Christ during the first several years of it's existence. The Church of Christ was started in 1830. JS was killed in 1844, and the RLDS didn't appear until sometime after that.

Hello Katzpur,

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

The above isn't quite accurate. For a quick verification of the following just open up your D&C to the printing history. When the church began it was known as the Church of Christ which is taken from a book of Mormon instruction stating that the church should be called the Church of Christ. Then a few years later (about 1833) there were essentially two churches. The one in the east where JS was became the church of latter day saints. The church further west changed it's name to the Church iof Jesus Christ. A few years later because of some financial dealings JS had to leave town and he went to the church further west. He sort of combined the two names to what it is now.

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

Post #18

Post by Kuan »

sleepyhead wrote:Hello mormonboy,

This is my oruiginal post in response to Katzpur. Is there something in it that you disagree with? I was responding to her claim that the church was always known as the church of Jesus Christ during the first several years of it's existence. The Church of Christ was started in 1830. JS was killed in 1844, and the RLDS didn't appear until sometime after that.

Hello Katzpur,

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

The above isn't quite accurate. For a quick verification of the following just open up your D&C to the printing history. When the church began it was known as the Church of Christ which is taken from a book of Mormon instruction stating that the church should be called the Church of Christ. Then a few years later (about 1833) there were essentially two churches. The one in the east where JS was became the church of latter day saints. The church further west changed it's name to the Church iof Jesus Christ. A few years later because of some financial dealings JS had to leave town and he went to the church further west. He sort of combined the two names to what it is now.
Well when you talk of the two churches being east and west, are you talking about east being ohio and west being illinois?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

User avatar
sleepyhead
Site Supporter
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Grass Valley CA

Post #19

Post by sleepyhead »

Hello mormonboy,

I'm not sure what the full story is. Maybe it wasn't two churches. Maybe it was two parts of one church. In 1830 the church was known as the Church of Christ. Then a few years later, I guess around 1833 they (meaning JS in the east and someone else a little further west) changed the names to Church of latter day saints, and church of Jesus Christ respectively.

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

Post #20

Post by Kuan »

sleepyhead wrote:Hello mormonboy,

I'm not sure what the full story is. Maybe it wasn't two churches. Maybe it was two parts of one church. In 1830 the church was known as the Church of Christ. Then a few years later, I guess around 1833 they (meaning JS in the east and someone else a little further west) changed the names to Church of latter day saints, and church of Jesus Christ respectively.
Well the church was in kirkland until it split up because of financial problems and some moved to Nauvoo, Illinois and some stayed in Kirkland, Ohio. After being in Nauvoo Joseph Smith was murdered and Brigham Young led the church to Utah.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

Post Reply