Posted on 01/09/2012 7:55:18 PM PST by Colofornian
Did Joseph Smith say all Christian churches are wrong and Mormons should join none of them? From our series entitled, "Are Mormons Christians?":
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-catholic-church-say-about-the-practices-and-beliefs-of-mormonism
“”What does the Catholic Church say about the practices and beliefs of Mormonism?
Answer:
While individual Mormons may be persons of good conscience, Mormonism itself is a belief system that would reduce the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from being the three Persons of the one, true, and infinite God to being three limited, finite deities among an uncounted multitude of deities, all of whom merely reshaped small parts of a preexisting cosmos.
Mormonism teaches that human beings may, by practicing the tenets of its faith, become gods and goddesses themselves, with their own planets full of people worshiping them.
While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is blasphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.””
Nor do most unitarians even try to pass themselves off as "Christian."
Unlike Mormonism. (The counterfeit Christianity)
If Muslims said, "Hey, we're 'Christian' too," some would object to that. When fLDS say, "Hey, we're Mormon, too," surprise, surprise, mainstream Mormons somehow object to that.
A Romney presidency would open the door wide open for the massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign. (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all political races): Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
Let's break this down...one word and one phrase at a time.
First of all, you are sadly mistaken if you think Mormonism teaches that Jesus is THE Son of God -- as if Mormons don't also think you're a son of god, I'm a son of god, Satan's a son of god.
Because of the Mormon teaching of the so-called "pre-existence," they believe ALL men were spirit-babies -- "sons of god" -- near Kolob.
So -- what then makes Jesus unique among BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of sons of god per Mormonism? The phrase "the only begotten"; but even then you need to understand that doesn't have anything do do with Jesus being THE Son of God from eternity past!
When Mormons use the term "the only begotten," they mean that in connection with Mary only. The Mormon Jesus only became God's "only begotten Son" upon conception within Mary. That stands in contrast to THE Jesus of the Bible as THE Son of God from eternity (John 17:5) -- having shared God's glory before the world was -- is God's one and only Son (John 3:18)...the rest of us are mere "adopted" sons -- if we are indeed His.
Wow! You are ignorant of Mormon doctrinal nuances, aren't you?
(a) Lds "Article of Faith" #3: We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, BY obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
You do see what follows that little word "by" don't you? [IOW, Lds are trusting in their level of obedience to laws and God's (perceived) decrees...IOW they are trusting themselves].
That is how Mormons use "save" in the narrow sense.
When Mormons use "save" in the broadest sense, they embrace a form of near-universalism -- that just about everybody will eventually wind up in three degrees of heaven. So when Mormons use the word "salvation" in the broadest sense, they mean Jesus will eventually resurrect (about) everybody.
The problem (for Mormons) is Jesus said there is a "resurrection unto damnation": 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:29)
Sorry, Mormons...but "damnation" is not a "degree of glory." "Damnation" is not "salvation."
(b) This is where you're rather loose tossing around of the word “salvation” confuses posters & lurkers. They see that word and think, “Oh, they're more biblical than I thought.” Hence, the needed clarification:
(1) As I just mentioned above, when LDS talk about “all saved” -- they basically mean ALL – or close to it – minus the sons of perdition. It's a near-universalism where just about everybody will have their own kingdom. But what did Jesus say? ...wide is the road that leads to destruction. Narrow is the way that leads to life... [Sorry...but “destruction” isn't a degree of salvation]
(2) When LDS use “save” in this manner, they are talking about their article of faith which talks about how Christ died to save people from the effects of original sin.
Word Picture
Imagine it's 1800 and you're on one side of the Grand Canyon and disabled due to an inherited disease and no way to get around it to the other side. The Mormon Jesus arrives where you are, takes away the effects of your inherited disease, and then announces, “I now pronounce you with free agency!"
Is there still a "salvation" problem for you? Of course! The problem is you still need to get to the other side of the canyon even minus any supernatural bridge being built for you. The Mormon Jesus still leaves you on the other side of the chasm!
So. Does the Mormon Jesus offer additional help beyond that? "Why, of course I'll help you out! But NOT UNTIL you've done ALL YOU CAN DO.”
The Mormon Jesus comes to Mormons and announces, "Ye are saved by grace AFTER ALL YOU CAN DO!" (2 Nephi 25:23)
Who within the world wants to be the very first person to step up and claim, "I've done ALL I can do spiritually. I've done all I can do relationally. I've done all I can do physically. I've done all I can do love-wise. I've done all I can do emotionally and attitudinally. I've done all I can do..." ????
Even one Lds FREEPER poster -- Reno232 – went on record one time to emphasize this above point – that Christ is the One that takes us the rest of the way through the atonement but not by us doing nothing...
So, how did Reno – and how do Mormons retwist Jesus? Jesus said, I am the Way (John 14:6). Mormons say, “Jesus is the REST of the Way” (after ALL YOU can do).
And what happens if you DON'T DO ALL you can do? Well, there's no promise of salvation there – at least not if it's not enough to “command” the attention of God's grace. Hence, this is why LDS constantly use the phrase “personal worthiness.”
Now, of course, men can try to make their way around the Mormon Grand Canyon in this word picture. But Jesus never said, “I am the Way, but make your own way.”
Now try to imagine you spanning the eternal gap of our filthy rags coming to live eternally with an all-holy perfect God who made Moses remove his profane sandals in his presence...what's worse, would be a filthy-ragged man appearing unto God claiming, “Yup, Heavenly Father. I've done ALL I can do. See my wonderful wardrobe? Isn't it lovely?”
Heavenly Father would reply. “Did you not read My apostle's words? 'For all have fallen short of the glory of God.'”
Trying to bridge the gap of the canyon between our glory or His on the basis of our own righteousness is foolishness, especially when Jesus Himself offers to BE our substitute righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). Jesus HIMSELF is our Way! He doesn't just "make" a way; and He's not just some late-developing rocket booster of grace that kicks in AFTER ALL we can do!
Grace is a pure GIFT. Heaven is a pure GIFT. Salvation is a pure GIFT.
Well, there's also a (c) portion to this Mormon "nuance" you've neglected to realize...in where Mormonism parts pathways from Christianity.
It's that use of that one word -- ONLY -- as highlighted above.
Q Is the Mormon christ just one savior among many?
Yes. Admittedly this is currently publicly downplayed -- but to Lds directly -- baptism of/for the dead has been played up by Lds "prophets" from Joseph Smith to Joseph Fielding Smith to others as THE most important individual responsibility there is -- wrapping that responsibility up in their own works-driven salvation:
Lds "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith: “But greater than all this, so far as our individual responsibilities are concerned, the greatest is to become SAVIORS, in our lesser degree which is assigned us, for the dead who have died without a knowledge of the Gospel. Joseph Smith said, ‘The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us, is to seek after our dead’…It will suffice here to say that the Lord has placed upon us this responsibility of seeing that our dead receive the blessings of the Gospel. Said Joseph Smith: ‘Those saints who neglect it, in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation.’” (The Way to Perfection, pp. 153-154)
Lds "prophet" John Taylor: ...we are the only people that know how to SAVE our progenitors, how to SAVE OURSELVES, and how to SAVE our posterity in the celestial kingdom of God;...we in fact are the saviours of the world..." (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.163).
Joseph Fielding Smith again: "... mortals have to BE SAVIORS on Mount Zion, acting by proxy for the dead." (The Way to Perfection, p. 325)
Taylor again: "We know something about our progenitors, and God has taught us how to BE SAVIORS FOR THEM by being baptized for them in the flesh,, that they may live according to God in the Spirit." (March 20,1870, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14, 3/20/1870)
No, "saviors of the world" are NOT plentiful per the Bible (see 1 John 4:14; John 4:42).
****************
BTW, I could have included MANY more Lds leader/"prophet" quotes introducing themselves as the "saviors" (plural) of mankind.
For anybody interested in reading those, go here: Are Mormon people LITERAL saviors of dead Jews, others? (The OTHER World Series: Vanity)
So not only do Mormons dilute Jesus as being one "son of a god" among many, but they dilute His Savior role by claiming he is one savior among many!
Because anyone can name themselves whatever they want. The bible teaches that Satan comes dressed as an angel of light. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Judas called himself a follower of Jesus - right up to the time he stabbed him in the back.
Are the editors of secular dictionaries the appropriate individuals to define theological terms? And, if they define them, are they defining them for secular or theological purposes?
I believe thousands of individuals with advanced degrees in theology with countless hours of prayerful thought on this topic may disagree. They are going to spend the rest of the day considering this and similar topics. And tomorrow, and the remainder of their lives.
The editors at Merriam-Webster are going to approve the definition and then move on their next task, approving the definition of 'Christianite."
Chris"tian*ite\, n. [In sense ( a ) named after Christian Frederic, of Denmark; in sense ( b ) after Christian VII., of Denmark.] (Min.) (a) Same as Anorthite. [R.] (b) See Phillipsite.
Plus, there's another issue. What if two parties profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but they believe in different Jesus Christs?
For this, you'll need to study LDS scriptures or simply go to places like LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7, speaking of former LDS President (prophet) Gordon B. Hinkley:
"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'"
I wrote quickly before retiring. I didn't take time to note that *I* don't believe in a Christ, one of the sons of aa god out of a countless number.
I was trying to make the Mark 8:29 distinction for a poster whom I thought was suggesting all belief in Christ was the same thing. To me it's significant whether Christ is The One or Just One Of A Whole Lot Of Ones Like Him Who Have Been And Will Be In The Future, Even Christs Out Of Your Own Loins Once You're Exalted And Become A God
fred4prez, I don't believe any member of FR follows your thought out to its conclusion. Every single one of us is going to draw the line regarding that point at which we will cease to celebrate a candidate's religious beliefs and would instead refuse to vote for the candidate solely because the candidate was sincere and consistent in those beliefs.
It's called the Parade of Horribles.
How would you feel about a candidate who sincerely and consistently believed in the whites-only Creativity Movement (World Church of the Creator), or practiced magic as an earnest follower of Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth, or was a follower and a professor in The Grey School of Wizardry of the Robert-A.-Heinlein’s-science-fiction-worshipping Church of All Worlds, or simply believed in and held a billion-year contract as a SeaOrg member of the Church of Scientology?
You may say “that’s ridiculous; those aren't normal religions with normal religious views.” But the point is that the whole question is based on a continuum. At one end of the continuum there are personally held spiritual beliefs about which every voter is going to say “really? You believe that . . . (edging away from the candidate a little) . . . I didn’t know.” It's just a matter of where each voter draws the line.
The idea of celebrating someone who is sincere and consistent in his beliefs is warm. And it's fuzzy. I'm not voting for a sincere and consistent professor in The Grey School of Wizardry. As you asked with respect to something else, yes, I would have a problem with The Grey School of Wizardy, sincere and consistent and all.
All of use are going to have a problem with certain religious believes, no matter how sincere and consistent they are.
OK...how about this?
Romney Won't Release Tax Returns
IMO Mitt doesn't want it known that he is deducting hundreds of thousands of dollars every year that he pays to the mormon church as tithing, along with the fact that he is still receiving payments from Bain.
don’t we support everyone’s freedom of religion and worship?
Well, WE do...but we don't send out 52,000 missionaries every year to tell Christians that their faith is bogus and the only road to salvation is to become mormon. Mormon leaders and members believe that only they have the "right" to proselytize and no one has the right to push back.
you almost give a reason to support him: he of all people will be sure to protect the freedom to worship as one chooses, since he is a religious minority.
THAT statement is pure hogwash! Anyone who leaves the mormon church is subject to loss of employment, loss of family, loss of friends. Shunning is practiced by members all the time.
Don't buy into the pretty picture that the mormon church spends millions of dollars on each year concocting of the "ideal person".
Sorry lds do not even teach the Biblical Christ:
“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’” (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).
If you believe that is true, you don’t know anything about Mormonism.
Mormons are not Christians because of their theology.
Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, that salvation only comes through Him
- - - -
No, Mormons really teach that salvation only comes from being a good Temple Mormon. Unless you are redefining ‘salvation’ to mean only resurrection.
Want sources?
can one of you please explain to me why the non-Christian Mormon Faith is officially called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?”
- - - -
First, it wasn’t always called that. Second, having the name Jesus Christ in the name of your organization doesn’t make you a Christian any more than paining ‘auto repairs’ on the side of your garage makes you a mechanic.
Finding perceived doctrinal differences in the minutiae doesn’t change the fact that Mormons have a fundamental belief that Jesus is the Christ. And because Mormons hold that belief they easily qualify as Christians. I will agree that Mormons belong to the restorationist branch of Christianity which is different from reformationists, but they are both Christ centered faith systems.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2830889/posts?page=4#4
Freddy here is trolling.
“I can’t see for the life of me why Mitt is such a bad option. “
“He understands the economy, has served as a savy business executive for years, and has some good ideas about how to decrease unemployment.” -yeah, the way he did with BAIN.
“He understands the economy, has served as a savy business executive for years, and has some good ideas about how to decrease unemployment.” -except for that whole pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-gun bans thin, flip flops, outright lies, etc etc.
“On healthcare, he did what he thought should be done at state level in MA, and has said repeatedly that the federal government should leave those decisions on the state level; he has specifically said he would repeal Obamacare.” -he is for individual mandates, why would he repeal something he is for?
“but I can’t see why Romney is such a horrible option” -of course not.
“so definitely not a so-called Romneybot here, lol.” Really?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2830871/posts?page=17#17
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2830866/posts?page=28#28
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2825850/posts?page=3#3
And, he likes trolling like Soothesayer9 did:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2689722/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2689722/posts?page=35#35
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2769199/posts?page=26#26
He’s a real piece of work our freddy here.
Saying that Mormons aren’t Christian would be like McDonald’s saying that Burger King isn’t a hamburger restaurant. And their reason? Because they cook their food differently.
There is nothing "perceived" about it, the differences are bigger than the Grand Canyon.
Mormonism believes Jesus is a created being who had to earn his godhood and is spirit brother to satan.
Christianity believes Jesus to be God the Son, second Person of the Trinity - always and ever eternal God.
Nothing minute about this fundamental belief DJD.
Christ-centered is only compatable if the definitions of Christ are compatable. As shown in the example above, they are not compatable, mormonism is polytheistic while Christianity is monotheistic. These and more differences easily disqualify them from being called Christian.
What a stupid comparison - and not even close at all. More like McD's saying a place that makes a tofu burger isn't a hamburger restaurant because their hamburger isn't made out of real meat.
Or perhaps better example is the 'hamburger' in a child's play set (plastic facimile) is not a real hamburger all though it 'looks' like one - its plastic/fake.
You do know by definition how Mormons define "restorationist" -- don't you?
It means they don't believe ANY authentic Christianity was existent for 1500-1700 years (anywhere beyond some point starting within the 2nd to 4th centuries)
What's quite "quaint" of you is that you vie for Christianity to "tolerate" Mormonism as "Christianity," yet Mormonism doesn't "tolerate" Christianity beyond the 4th century as the "true faith." (Hence, the need for a supposed "built-from-scratch-from-the-ground-up" Mormonism)
Lds "scripture" -- Doctrine & Covenants 1:30 -- says that the Mormon church is the "only true and living church on the face of the earth."
That's what is so hilarious in coupling your above comment with how you started out that comment: "Finding perceived doctrinal differences in the minutiae..."... because Mormonism NEVER even pretends that the distinctions between Mormonism and the historic Christian faith is mere "minutiae" in "doctrinal differences."
Mormonism assumes a "scorched earth" approach to its faith: Christianity allegedly apostatized; and now the "lone" TRUE Christianity is supposedly Mormonism!
So what's extremely laughable is how you get on us Christians' case for supposedly highlighting mere "minutiae" to outline distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity...yet when Mormonism kicks us out of true Christianity entirely -- and separates us well beyond any "minutiae" in "doctrinal differences," you are totally silent on any & all of that!
In this way, you're outright hysterical!!! (And highly inconsistent)
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.