Posted on 01/06/2008 3:22:57 AM PST by restornu
The issue really isn't what you believe, or how you worship. The stereotypes surrounding Mormons are generally positive. The problem is the proclamation that you are Christians.
I really don't wish you ill, but I do take offense with having Mormons considered Christian. In the end you believe you will evolve into gods yourselves with planets you will rule over. This belief is not Christian.
They get a great deal of grief for their "veneration" of graven images. However, as with all Christian assemblies they believe in the Trinitarian God and do not believe that Christians evolve into gods.
No argument from me.
As for the trinitarian god, does not exist in my Bible. There is only one God his name is Jesus
How about God the Father, God the Holy Spirit? The three are one, that is what is meant by "Trinitarian GOD".
I'm so relieved that you are able to state that.
What you have described sounds a lot like the historic heresy of Modalism or Sabellianism.
“Let’s Call Mormons ‘Nontraditional Christians”
Let’s not for there is no such person...
Christians are Christians...
And mormons are not Christians.....
“There is but one God whose name is Jesus.
He has the 3 roles of the godhead Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Just as a man can be a father, son, and uncle.”
______________________________________________________
DUH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Harold Armstrong and his World Wide Church are wrong in several areas .......
Mormons are artists in double speak. What he's saying is, "they think they are Christians." Notice he doesn't say they are saved. Mormons want real Christians to consider them Christians, while hiding their own bigotry. Cult.
for later.
With Mitt Romney in the field this kind of question is all over and it's getting to me. As an aside, and having nothing to do with the rest of this post, based on what I know now, I will vote for Romney if he is the Republican nominee. In fact, my preferred ticket right now is Thompson for president and Romney for VP, with Fred giving Mitt the "reinventing government" task that the goracle supposedly undertook for Clinton. I know that Mitt would fix a huge amount of the problems we face based on his track record in business and as governor.
This is my first post on this topic that I can remember, and definitely my first post on this thread, so forgive me if I'm lumping in things that have nothing to do with you or your post. If you'll forgive me I'll use your post to dump all of my thoughts, to date, on the subject (I tend to collect lots of things and then let them all go in one fell swoop, with way too much shoved together).
You (members of your church) may call yourself whatever you want, but for me to not agree to call you what you want to be called is not bashing your church (and you have not said that it is, at least not in the post I'm responding to). That would be the same thing as the Democrats screaming bloody murder for their party being called “the Democrats” when they now want it to be labeled “the Democratic party.” In their case a snake is still a snake. In your case, if you're a Christian someone refusing to call you a Christian doesn’t matter. Nor does calling yourself a Christian, if you’re not, make you one.
I'm 52 now and I've "known Mormons" (I hope that doesn't sound too much like the cliche "some of my best friends are negro") since I was 5 and spent lots of time, particularly as a young person, in the company of members of your church. I also have co-workers now who are members of your church as well as co-workers (and friends) who are "escapees" from "that cult" (and I consider the chance of having those particular contacts, on both sides of the equation, to be odd as I live in Memphis, not exactly a "hot bed" of the LDS, so far as I know).
I personally do not accept the Church of Latter Day Saints as a Christian church. I also didn’t accept Jim Bakker’s church as a Christian church. That doesn’t mean that the people in either church are necessarily not Christians, as I define the term but, for me, the LDS church itself isn't a Christian church, no matter what the members claim. You are clearly entitled to believe that I'm wrong.
I believe that I am a Christian but I’m not a member of any church. I’m very cynical about churches, particularly ones that claim they have the only “Truth,” based on extensive bitter experience. Churches are institutions of men. My faith is in God.
I am probably as likely to drop disparaging comments about the Muslim “church” as anyone on FR, as I don’t believe that they have any truth at the core of their creed, particularly their position on Jesus, The Christ. But I believe that there are good people who follow the Muslim faith. I also believe that there can be true believers in God within that faith (NOT "allah," who was a pagan moon god before Mohammed recast him as the god of Abraham), even to the extent of holy people, though none that the current dominant crop of Muslims have identified as "holy" (or even "good") measure up in my book. In fact, many that current "Muslim leaders" call apostate are, at the very least, good people, and some may be true saints, or even prophets.
Clearly the same can apply, IMO, to people of any faith, even if I disagree strongly with the "core tenets" of the faith they espouse. I believe that "non-believers" can be good, or even holy, just as "believers" can be bad. For me it's the person, not the label or the particular rituals, that matters. For me the biggest problem I have with some "evangelical Christians" is the "I'm saved, you're not" argument. Maybe they are, but that's up to God, not them.
I assume that others have already pointed to the response to Orson Scott Card (who I think is brilliant and love his work, both fiction and non-fiction, by the way), written by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. I trust that you don't find him among those who "for reasons of their own, choose to put down my Church, and those of us who worship with it." I agree with his arguments about whether the LDS church is a Christian church or not, even as I can appreciate (even if I disagree with) the arguments of Mr. Card (or the "Mormons" I have spent long hours with talking about this issue). I hope that doesn't offend you.
Bottom line, PBUY (peace be unto you).
We believe, and history supports, that the “traditional Christianity” that Dr. Mohler so able explicates is remote indeed from the gospel that Paul taught.
***Then it’s really a question of history and archaeology. Let those guys sort it out. There’s more than enough evidence for someone without an axe to grind to come to a decision on historicity.
***Also the Jews do not have three god heads in there scripture, which we get the old testament from.***
So who was this?
Jdg 13:20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on [it], and fell on their faces to the ground.
Jdg 13:21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he [was] an angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
Jdg 13:23 But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands,
You might be suprised how many Christian Fathers from the early centuries were non Trinitarian Christians.
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian and Justin Martyr just to name a few. Plus those Apostles in the Bible. The word Trinity didn't appear until Post Apostolic times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.