Are mormons christians?

[SFG75]

So what do ya'll think?

[::Major_Baker::]

I don't know, but Utah is strange.

[Dangerrmouse]

Define "Mormon" and "Christian". Some will be, some won't.

[Democritus]

In so far as that they believe in Christ? Then yes to the best of my understanding they are.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Anyone who accepts Christ as their savior is a Christian.

Sects merely fight over (sometimes violently) the details.

[Soren]

<Soren wonders if SFG75 realizes he is LDS (AKA Mormon)>
In so far as that they believe in Christ? Then yes to the best of my understanding they are.
Having testified of Christ innumerable times as a missionary and in my ordinary life I'd say I find the assertion we're not Christian quite ludicrous. Nevertheless, I hear it from time to time.

[Blueangel]

I think it's more a case of do Mormons view other Christian faiths as being true Christians? Too often, I've found that they don't and I fail to understand that logic.
It's all too sects within sects and religions within faiths for my liking.

You either believe or you don't! Simple as!
Having said that...and for the sake of sheer awkwardness...I'm decidedly sceptical :D

[AgentM]

Mormons are one of the more *ahem*...interesting sects. But yes, if you worship Christ you are a Christian, no matter what other peoples opinions of that are.

[rjamortega]

All I know is back in the day when I was a young fella caught up in the evangelic, born-again movement (mid-70s), they didn't think real highly of the Morman version of worship.

Nowadays I look at both of them and figure they both have their heads in their shorts...as do I and everyone else-believer and non-I can think of. ;)

[faithfulservant]

Having an interesting backdoor perspective into the LDS (my wife is the great-great-great granddaughter of Orson Pratt, the property that the Mormon Tabernacle is built on was donated to the church by one of her great(?)-grandparents), I can say with a high level of confidence that the Mormon church is not a Christian Church, but there are a lot of Mormons who are Christians (the large majority would fit a Biblical defintion of a Christian). The LDS church has far too many non-Biblical teachings and too many doctrinal flaws to be truly considered a Christian Church.

[Nuke the Oil]

Having an interesting backdoor perspective into the LDS (my wife is the great-great-great granddaughter of Orson Pratt, the property that the Mormon Tabernacle is built on was donated to the church by one of her great(?)-grandparents), I can say with a high level of confidence that the Mormon church is not a Christian Church, but there are a lot of Mormons who are Christians (the large majority would fit a Biblical defintion of a Christian). The LDS church has far too many non-Biblical teachings and too many doctrinal flaws to be truly considered a Christian Church.

Doubtless by the teachings and doctrines of your own church (or as you probably call it, the Truth). See the flaw here?

[towski]

My folks recently relocated to SLC for my father's job. (They are not mormon). While the Mormon's believe some things I would consider strange, my folks say that the majority in SLC are the most christ-like people they have known. They go out of their way to be kind, helpful, and charitable.

Having said that, they also share a lot of Christian beliefs I find repulsive, like intolerance and an excessive evangelicism.

So, they sound like Christians to me...

[faithfulservant]

My folks recently relocated to SLC for my father's job. (They are not mormon). While the Mormon's believe some things I would consider strange, my folks say that the majority in SLC are the most christ-like people they have known. They go out of their way to be kind, helpful, and charitable.

Having said that, they also share a lot of Christian beliefs I find repulsive, like intolerance and an excessive evangelicism.

So, they sound like Christians to me...
What an intolerant thing to say.

If you really want to get right down to it Christians are supposed to be incredibly tolerant of others. The thing they are supposed to be intolerant of is thier own sin. When they start focusing on other people's sin, they become what teh Bible refers to as a "stumbling block". Their role in this world is tell people about the saving power of Jesus Christ, make disciples, baptize those newly saved and be a light unto the world. When they start focusing on the sins of the unsaved, they are out of line with God's Word. Once a person does give the lives to Christ, then part of the discipling process is dealing with the sin.

As far as evangelism is concerned, if you knew of a way for people to get $1,000 dollars by simply asking for it, wouldn't you be telling as many people as you could about it?

[towski]

What an intolerant thing to say.

If you really want to get right down to it Christians are supposed to be incredibly tolerant of others. The thing they are supposed to be intolerant of is thier own sin. When they start focusing on other people's sin, they become what teh Bible refers to as a "stumbling block". Their role in this world is tell people about the saving power of Jesus Christ, make disciples, baptize those newly saved and be a light unto the world. When they start focusing on the sins of the unsaved, they are out of line with God's Word. Once a person does give the lives to Christ, then part of the discipling process is dealing with the sin.

As far as evangelism is concerned, if you knew of a way for people to get $1,000 dollars by simply asking for it, wouldn't you be telling as many people as you could about it?

Hardly intolerant, and frankly, I kind of resent the implication. I tolerate Christians fine, and although you probably wouldn't, consider myself to be one. It was an observation on the nature of modern christianity in America, which I find to be incredibly intolerant.

I agree, they are supposed to be incredibly tolerant of others. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I find the majority that I encounter to be much more worried about the sins of others than they are of their own sin.

Criticism of christianity is not intolerance, just like criticism of america is not treason.

[nogoodname90]

i got a question what chirsitan religons are true and what ones are fake their is like 10 diffrent types pick one for crying out loud

[Kong]

The more complex the dogma the more corrupt the belief. Christians fight against Christians, Muslims against Muslims and Jews against Jews. More tolerance and peace amongst people of differing faiths would be a good path to follow. In the words of Jesus “judge not least ye be judged.”

If Mormons want to be Christians then let it be so. Where’s the harm? Just say no to coffee! It may burn you now, it will burn you later.

[Soren]

I don't know, but Utah is strange.I agree, but then not all strangeness is bad, and some of Utahn strangeness has nothing whatsoever to do with religious doctrine (you ought to hear the teasing which Utah Mormons and California Mormons give each other). That said, I'd actually feel like we were doing something wrong if too many considered us "normal" or "average".
I think it's more a case of do Mormons view other Christian faiths as being true Christians? Too often, I've found that they don't and I fail to understand that logic. How many have you actually known? It doesn't seem like you could know too many in your neck of the woods. Are you quite sure you aren't misunderstanding them or making the exception the rule? Please recognize that many people don't live up to their beliefs and I am sorry if anyone has given reason for offense. I have, for example, known a few people of the Baha'i faith, and were I to have judged that group solely on the behavior of the five individuals I've known, I would have misjudged that faith quite badly.Having an interesting backdoor perspective into the LDS (my wife is the great-great-great granddaughter of Orson Pratt, the property that the Mormon Tabernacle is built on was donated to the church by one of her great(?)-grandparents), I can say with a high level of confidence that the Mormon church is not a Christian Church, but there are a lot of Mormons who are Christians (the large majority would fit a Biblical definition of a Christian). The LDS church has far too many non-Biblical teachings and too many doctrinal flaws to be truly considered a Christian Church.Given the range of contradictory and false doctrines considered biblical by one group or another this attempt at insult hardly injures me at all. I do not apologize for my membership in a church which believes in the need for modern revelation.

As for potential value of your wife's insight, does this mean that I can be consulted as an expert on Catholicism because I have nearer relations than the Mormons you referred to who were nuns in Iowa? I do not want to insult your wife, but to give her special insight into a milieu she seems quite removed from hardly seems fair.
i got a question what chirsitan religons are true and what ones are fake their is like 10 diffrent types pick one for crying out loudMany more than that, actually. Read James 1:5 in the Bible. It tells us to pray and ask of God.

[::Major_Baker::]

Soren, is it true that Mormons own a large chunk of the gambling racket in Las Vegas?

[Soren]

Soren, is it true that Mormons own a large chunk of the gambling racket in Las Vegas?Yes, I think some jack-Mormons (a colorful term we use to describe some of our more wayward members) do or did. But we preach against gambling where it exists and against its expansion. I would consider owning such a business almost comparable to selling pornography because it promotes sin and the destruction of lives. I loathe the something-for-nothing attitudes it promotes and the lives it crushes on the false hopes that "the odds apply to everyone but me".

[Dangerrmouse]

Apropos of nothing in particular, I recall a story of the Roman Catholic owner of a factory which manufactured condoms, on being upbraided on his contribution to a form of birth control which was anathema to the church, pointed out that as "good" catholics would not use them, he was helping control only Protestant births!

[Soren]

Apropos of nothing in particular, I recall a story of the Roman Catholic owner of a factory which manufactured condoms, on being upbraided on his contribution to a form of birth control which was anathema to the church, pointed out that as "good" catholics would not use them, he was helping control only Protestant births!And I'll bet that the individuals I referred to justified it to themselves in similar ways.

[sub_zer0]

No Mormons are not Christians, not at all.

In 1841, Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion,” and suggested that “a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book” (History of the Church, 4:461).

Christians believe in the Bible as the most correct book on earth, and we should abide by the Bibles precepts, than by any other book. So with that known Mormonism is NOT Christianity. POINT BLANK!

[Duo_Maxwell]

Wrong. A christian is one who accepts Christ as their savior. Nothing more, nothing less.

Besides, your classification would mean many protestants and catholics who reject parts of the bible because they are ludacrious (such as rabbits and curds, as well as bats = birds) are not Christians even though they have accepted Jesus as their savior.

[sub_zer0]

Forget Christian, Protestant, etc, etc. more a relationship with Christ. So if you have that, then you should read all things pertaining to the subject, but believe in few. I choose the Bible, others have other books. But if you are TRUELY guided by the Holy Spirit the right book will find its way into your life.

As far as I am concerned the Bible is the most authoritative work ever about God and Jesus Christs life.

[Duo_Maxwell]

And that is relevant how?

You would have us believe that those who do accept jesus as their savior are not Christians if they are mormons?

You minus as well start saying that Sunnis are not Muslim because they have a different set of ruling beliefs.

[JoeR]

minus as well?

[sub_zer0]

Dude a Christian is someone who thinks the Bible is the authoritative word of God. Nothing else.

Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is also the word of God.

See the difference?

[JoeR]

Duo's definition of a Christian is more accurate

[sub_zer0]

let me be more accurate.

A Christian is one who believes that the Bible is the authoritative word of God and believe that Christ died for their sins, rose the third day on the corss and is the Son of God and was born a virgin.

I could go on...

[Duo_Maxwell]

Dude a Christian is someone who thinks the Bible is the authoritative word of God. Nothing else.

Then you consider people who have accepted Christ as their savior but disvow the Bible as absolute truth not to be Christian.


Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is also the word of God.

See the difference?

And who per se is the savior in the book of Mormon? :rolleyes:

Chris·tian (krĭs'chən)
adj.
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

http://www.answers.com/topic/christian

[sub_zer0]

Isn't that what I said.

Where can you get the life and times and teachings of Jesus Christ? In the Bible, which is why Christians read it.

[Duo_Maxwell]

No, according to you, if you do not think that the bible is the authoritative word of God, you are not a Christian.

That makes a rather subsantial amount of alleged Christians no longer Christian, which would include many who do not accept parts of the old testament, particularly the stoning for adulters and killing people who work on Sundays.

It doesn't matter what book you read, it is who you have accepted as your savior. And I do recall Jesus is the savior in the book of mormons. I may not know a lot about it (give me a few days to contact my mormon friends), but I sure know that there's no some new diety in the book of mormon.

[sub_zer0]

No, according to you, if you do not think that the bible is the authoritative word of God, you are not a Christian.

That makes a rather subsantial amount of alleged Christians no longer Christian, which would include many who do not accept parts of the old testament, particularly the stoning for adulters and killing people who work on Sundays.

What is wrong with that? After all a Christian believes in all the Bible.

Bi·ble
1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

[Nuke the Oil]

What is wrong with that? After all a Christian believes in all the Bible.

Do you go around killing people who work on Sundays?

[Duo_Maxwell]

In your opinion. Please, tell me do you believe that bats are birds and that rabbits chew curd, that adulters should be stoned, people who work on sundays should be executed, that those who curse their parents should as well be executed, that nonvirgin brides should be killed as well, it's sin to eat pork or shellfish, or for a man to shave his beard, or anyone who marries after divorce commits adultery (Mark 10:11); that women must remain silent, not teach, and have no authority over men (1Tim 2:11); and that slaves must obey their masters at all times (Col. 3:22)?

Well, do you?

[sub_zer0]

No, that is why we follow more along the lines of the New Testamant which is the life of Christ and His teachings. Things worked differently with the Lord in the Old Testamant, He worked more directly with humanity. But through Christ, in the New Testamant, it is all about Jesus Christ and through Him you ask for forgiveness from God.

[Duo_Maxwell]

But you just said The sacred book of Christianity [the bible], a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

How can you now just disvow the old testament?

More contridictory arguments

[sub_zer0]

In your opinion. Please, tell me do you believe that bats are birds and that rabbits chew curd, that adulters should be stoned, people who work on sundays should be executed, that those who curse their parents should as well be executed, that nonvirgin brides should be killed as well, it's sin to eat pork or shellfish, or for a man to shave his beard, or anyone who marries after divorce commits adultery (Mark 10:11); that women must remain silent, not teach, and have no authority over men (1Tim 2:11); and that slaves must obey their masters at all times (Col. 3:22)?

Well, do you?

In reference to Mark 10:11 - sounds fine to me. marriage is the most important thing as it is a divine law between two people to be an enduring force forever.

1Tim 2:11 - sounds fine to me. did you also know that it is WISE to be silent and hear things and listen rather then to talk all the time as the Bible states. it is a fair punishment for the woman as she sinned.

[sub_zer0]

But you just said The sacred book of Christianity [the bible], a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

How can you now just disvow the old testament?

More contridictory arguments

Read it better to understand it... I said that because you were saying that the Christian is about the life and times and teachings of Christ. I'm saying that is why we rely on the New Testamant which deals with just that about Christ. As Christians we don'nt need the Book of Morman we have the New Testamant.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Then you would be for stoning everyone who remarries and has sex to death no?

:rolleyes: :lol:

1Tim 2:11, you are therefore aganist women in teaching all together, aganist having women raise boys, aganist having women in positions of business power, aganist women having many rights they enjoy today (including voting as that gives authority over men in eelections), and a myraid of other positions in today's society.

You do realize the date is 2005 right, not 1105?

And the scripture reads remain silent, not be quiet most of the time.

Since you apparently have problems with the rest, doesn't that mean you therefore do not accept the bible as the absolute truth of God and therefore you according to your own logic are not a Christian?

Read it better to understand it... I said that because you were saying that the Christian is about the life and times and teachings of Christ. I'm saying that is why we rely on the New Testamant which deals with just that about Christ. As Christians we don'nt need the Book of Morman we have the New Testamant.

Again, you are contridicting yourself. How can you state that bible is both the new and the old and then state that you rely upon the New? That is essentially stating that part of the bible which is the old is not valid. Think before you post next time.

[sub_zer0]

1Tim 2:11, you are therefore aganist women in teaching all together, aganist having women raise boys, aganist having women in positions of business power, aganist women having many rights they enjoy today (including voting as that gives authority over men in eelections), and a myraid of other positions in today's society.

You have neglected the verse in 1 Tim 2:13 which states that "Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus", do you see the benefit in doing those things as written for women - that is what you strive for as a Christian or one with a relationship with Christ. 1Timothy 2:12, not 11 very well could be Paul talking about prohibiting teaching only by women not properly instructed. Such as those at Ephesus, such women tended to exorcise authority over men. Not to mention that it clearly states that she should LEARN in quietness and full submission, not everyday life.

[Duo_Maxwell]

But you just stated that women should not be teaching or have any authority over men. How can someone serve and gain excellent standing when they are barred from serving at all? At this point you are just embarrassing yourself and I as well, I should be dealing with someone of my own proverbial 'size.'

Paul could be talking about that, and he could be talking about something else. trying to use something vague to create a loophole in something very clear doesn't make a good argument, it makes one that is full of holes. And it makes no sense.

that women must remain silent, not teach, and have no authority over men

That is clear. NO AUTHORITY PERIOD. Then to state that women properly instructructed can have authority is contridictory. You either can or cannot. There is no gray area here.

By the way, ignoring most of a post doesn't help your argument.

[sub_zer0]

She has no authority because it was the women that sinned first and was tempted by Satan (do you see the weakness of the woman already?) and decieved the man. Again that is a fair punishment, a woman is not to have authority over man as the man is the head of the family. And you are forgetting about free will, people are allowed to do what they want, but that is a standard that should hold but can't because of the sinful nature of humankind and the husbands misuse of the power he has. Remember that this is a women who is married.

Remember God's purpose for the woman was a helper... "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." (NIV, Genesis 2:18)

You make it seem so horrible for a woman when the child is to ""Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. (NAS, Exodus 20:12)

Remember just because the women is like that on earth during marriage, man is like that always bowing to God. That passage is not meant to make you assume that the man in this place of power is a authoritative figure like one with an iron fist. But one with love is a good husband and a wife who has a husband like that should not argue over her role as declared in the Bible.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Can you please read what I write before responding next time?

A woman cannot gain excellent standing in service if they are not allowed to serve period. Hence, Paul cannot be talking about women in service. It is like saying you can be a engineer and bypass the ban once you have served as a engineer. That makes no sense.

Your editing doesn't even relate.

Back to something that you never answered.

If you don't believe that bats are birds and rabbits chew curd, you therefore do not believe the bible is the absolute truth of God, and therefore you are not a Christian.

As you have only accepted 2 of the many examples, you Sub Zero , according to your own standard, are not a Christian.

[sub_zer0]

If you don't believe that bats are birds and rabbits chew curd, you therefore do not believe the bible is the absolute truth of God, and therefore you are not a Christian.

As for the bats are birds comment: First, linean classification was not available when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, nor did a specific scientific definition for what a bird was exist. The classification of animals was made by function and form. This can be seen in the definition of words used to describe animals in the Old Testament. For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word owph which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing. It comes from a root word that means to cover or to fly. This verse could rightly be interpreted, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among flying creatures....". The King James Version seems to call the bat a fowl, but when you understand the times in which it was written, and the meaning of the original Hebrew, it's obvious there is no error here.

As far as a rabbit chewing cud: Rabbits are not ruminants; they practice refection. Refection is a process in which rabbits eat their own dung mixed with undigested material.

That explains it to me. So yep I believe in the Bible.

[Duo_Maxwell]

It doesn't matter. The absolute truth of God doesn't change with the times. That would be the relative truth of God, which is a entirely different subject.

So your belief is a perversion of what the bible says and is a subsitition of words and phrases that would normally be very hard to take litterally. In essence your belief is a revisionist of the bible and hance not a belief in the absolute truth of God. Therefore you are not a Christian in your own words

In there lies my point. For you to accept that Christians are those who believe the bible is the authorative, absolute word of God, that would mean you must classify yourself not as Christian.

[sub_zer0]

What subsitution of words or phrases? What revision of the Bible have I done? Please be more specific.

[Duo_Maxwell]

The bible states rabbits chew curd. They do not, you subsitute what crud and ruminants are to fix the literal problem. That is a revision of the bible. You also claim that classification changes what a bird was. It doesn't matter. the scripture clearly includes bats with birds and makes no distinction. You then justify that the bible is not wrong because scientific classification wasn't around and that the definition in today's terms makes the bible okay. That is subsitution.

You are simply not a Christian in your own model. That's not the worse thing.

[sub_zer0]

You are not reading what I am posting as it settles any doube in my mind why not yours?

To be quite honest why couldnt somebody mistake ruminents as curd? Really a lame attempt to discredit the Bible. Got any new arguments for me to smack down?

[Duo_Maxwell]

You are not reading what I am posting as it settles any doube in my mind why not yours?

That is the point. Your revisions are suppose to settle any doubt in your mind. If you actually believed in a literal translation, you wouldn't need to argue any revisions or subsitutions. I am reading exactly what you are writing.


To be quite honest why couldnt somebody mistake ruminents as curd? Really a lame attempt to discredit the Bible. Got any new arguments for me to smack down?

Sure, any man could. But God is all knowing, and perfect. Such a being could not make such a mistake. And the bible is suppose to be the absolute truth of God. This is too easy. I almost feel guilty. Almost. I'm not trying to discredit the bible. I am merely showing that you are revising literalist parts to fit your belief. That of course means you do not accept the absolute truth as written without explicit additions or justifications. Therefore, under your own logic, you are not a Christian.

[Art of War]

Hey Sub Zero here is your answer.

Christian

adj 1: relating to or characteristic of Christianity; "Christian rites" [syn: Christian] 2: following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ [ant: unchristian] n : a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination [syn: Christian]

Now if we can just get Soren to answer a few questions about Mormons.

Soren if you would be so kind:

Do you (and your Mormon pals) follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?

-and-

Do you (and your Mormon pals) attempt to manifest the teaching of Jesus in your daily lives?

(The fact that among his teachings he preaches that he is the divine son of God negates the need to ask if Mormons accept him as their lord and savior....even though I'm pretty sure they do)

From what I understand/ am told/ have learned I find Mormons to be some of the most Christ like people on the face of this planet. In that respect I would almost call them super Christians......besides don't any of you watch South Park? Mormons are the only ones getting into heaven.

:sorry: I had to throw that in there.

[sub_zer0]

Bible and Book of Mormon contradiction - a big one considering it teaches about Jesus Christ:

Jerusalem or Bethlehem?
* The Bible tells us that Jesus was to be and was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1).
* The Book of Mormon says "he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem" (Alma 7:10). Lest they say that Jerusalem is an area and not a city, in 1 Nephi 1:4 their own works call it a city.

I am not revising anything from the Bible. The Hebrew word, the original language of some of the Bible, For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word owph which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing.

And besides the bat is birds thing your spewing about is at Leviticus 11:13 "And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the ospray;"

See there, it says FOWLS, but remember the hebrew word means flying creatures.

In reference to the cud the Hebrew word for that is gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.

Cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what moderns call "chewing the cud". Again, they regurgiate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva.

So then this partially digested food, called gerah in the original Hebrew is a common element here. We therefore interpret that Hebrew word in reference to any partially digested food. That word being "cud". That chewing and regurgitating process was applied popularily to the rabbit. Techically a rabbit doesn't chew the cud with regurgitation, but the apparent chewing movements mad Moses equate it with cud chewers, such as cows do.

[JoeR]

Techically a rabbit doesn't chew the cud with regurgitation, but the apparent chewing movements mad Moses equate it with cud chewers, such as cows do.

So its wrong?

[sub_zer0]

No read the post for petes sake.

[JoeR]

So then this partially digested food, called gerah in the original Hebrew is a common element here. We therefore interpret that Hebrew word in reference to any partially digested food. That word being "cud". That chewing and regurgitating process was applied popularily to the rabbit. Techically a rabbit doesn't chew the cud with regurgitation, but the apparent chewing movements mad Moses equate it with cud chewers, such as cows do.

So because it was applied popularly, and Moses decided to equate the two even though they aren't the same, it is correct?

[Duo_Maxwell]

and sub zero misses the point as usual.

The bible is allegedly the absolute truth of God. Therefore it needs no clarification or modification to make sense. What you are clearly doing is just that.

I really think sub zero has no idea what I'm talking about.

[Duo_Maxwell]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.shtml

That clears things up as to what a Christian is.

I love the part on excommunication. Excommunication often has nothing to do with your spiritual beliefs, rather it has everything to do with your willingness to be obeident to the Church's agenda.

[Simba]

Sure they are. They got some find looking women, too. Some of my good friends are Mormon. Even sit with them in the bleachers on Friday nights for high school football games. Seem good enough bloaks to me.

[sub_zer0]

and sub zero misses the point as usual.

The bible is allegedly the absolute truth of God. Therefore it needs no clarification or modification to make sense. What you are clearly doing is just that.

I really think sub zero has no idea what I'm talking about.

If that's the case why are you even talking about it? Rabbits used to eat cud back in Moses' day.

[Craig]

If that's the case why are you even talking about it? Rabbits used to eat cud back in Moses' day.

Where's the evidence for this outside of the Bible?

[Duo_Maxwell]

My point, in the simplest of terms is:

1) Bible = Absolute truth of God
2) Modifying or subsituting parts or changing in any way any part of the bible with modern terms is not God's absolute truth

[sub_zer0]

"Where's the evidence for this outside of the Bible?"

There isn't which is why there must be another reason for him saying it. Which is what I posted.

"My point, in the simplest of terms is:

1) Bible = Absolute truth of God
2) Modifying or subsituting parts or changing in any way any part of the bible with modern terms is not God's absolute truth"

I am not adding/modifying/subsituting or changing anything in any part of the bible. This is the complete translation, you understand that right? As in English words replace the words of Hebrew. I can see where you might get confused which is why I described it from the Hebrew version.

[Duo_Maxwell]

*sigh*

Maybe there is no point arguing with a true believer. They simply ignore or make up what they think you said to suit their belief system. It is you who is confused about more then just definitions.

[Craig]

"Where's the evidence for this outside of the Bible?"

There isn't which is why there must be another reason for him saying it. Which is what I posted.


According to what I've found, you posted this:

]If that's the case why are you even talking about it? Rabbits used to eat cud back in Moses' day.

Given the context of your post as a response to Duo, you are stating that rabbits must have chewed their cud back in Moses' day in order to not conflict with Duo's assertion that the Bible "needs no clarification or modification to make sense". That's not the same thing as suggesting there was another reason for Moses saying it- otherwise, you would have said that in your initial response to Duo.

Besides, if there is another reason for Moses making this assertion, and you cannot find direct evidence of what this other reason might entail in the Bible, you still have the same problem, namely that the Bible needs clarification or modification to make sense.

[Nuke the Oil]

A more plausible explanation is that the Bible is a fiction constructed by a people with little real knowledge of the natural world. :p

[Dangerrmouse]

Which brings us to Occam's razor. Was it an all-powerful everpresent invisible creature who lives in the sky directing the process, or did somebody eat some magic mushrooms and make it all up. Which is most likely? (with or without mushrooms)

[Kong]

Christians believe in the Bible as the most correct book on earth, and we should abide by the Bibles precepts, than by any other book. So with that known Mormonism is NOT Christianity. POINT BLANK! So what is the key to salvation and why are Mormons to be excluded from salvation from a biblical point of view? Are faith and good works not enough for one to be saved?

[Soren]

Thank you Duo, Simba, JoeR, and Art of War for trying to stick up for Mormons. I can't really go for all of what Duo is saying about the Bible, but I imagine Duo knows that anyway, and I don't go online to argue about religion anyway.
Forget Christian, Protestant, etc, etc. more a relationship with Christ. So if you have that, then you should read all things pertaining to the subject, but believe in few. I choose the Bible, others have other books. But if you are TRUELY guided by the Holy Spirit the right book will find its way into your life.

As far as I am concerned the Bible is the most authoritative work ever about God and Jesus Christs life.That's your perogative, but I can say this. I have felt the influence of the Holy Ghost in my life, in helping me to show love for those who are difficult to love, in protecting me from spiritual danger and in going to those in need. You may question this, but I do not and would not.Do you (and your Mormon pals) follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?

-and-

Do you (and your Mormon pals) attempt to manifest the teaching of Jesus in your daily lives?I certainly try to, and reading the Bible and Book of Mormon have both helped me to become a better follower of Christ. (The fact that among his teachings he preaches that he is the divine son of God negates the need to ask if Mormons accept him as their lord and savior....even though I'm pretty sure they do)Certainly.

[jamesrage]

So what do ya'll think?

If I answer "no" is someone going to get their panties in bunch and acuse me of trolling?

[Soren]

A more plausible explanation is that the Bible is a fiction constructed by a people with little real knowledge of the natural world. :pIf you want to believe that, I can't stop you from doing so, but I would say such a belief is mistaken.

[towski]

If I answer "no" is someone going to get their panties in bunch and acuse me of trolling?

Isn't that the way it always works?

[Soren]

If I answer "no" is someone going to get their panties in bunch and acuse me of trolling?Certainly not in my case. You'd have to be extremely rude about it as well.

[jamesrage]

Originally posted by towski
Isn't that the way it always works?

That is what it seems like every time I voice my opinions about catholics.

[Strel]

That is what it seems like every time I voice my opinions about catholics.


That is the way it seems every time you voice an opinion. The rest of us keep wondering when - if ever - you might actually "re-evaluate" some of those opinions.

[towski]

That is what it seems like every time I voice my opinions about catholics.

I think some of the response you get around here may have something to do with the fact that you tend to be a bit absolutist. There doesn't seem to be any grey area with you. You also tend to be a smidge, um, judgemental. ;)

All I know is you entertain the crap out of me, and the forum is a much less interesting place during your "sabbaticals".

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Strel
That is the way it seems every time you voice an opinion. The rest of us keep wondering when - if ever - you might actually "re-evaluate" some of those opinions.

If the Bible says "You shall have no other Gods.
# You shall not worship (or use in worship) images of anything in heaven or on earth" Then that would lead me to beleave that anyone who prayed to dead people and used graven images to pray was not a real christian .
Some mormons beleave that polygamist marriages is alright along with gay marriage which lead s me to beleave that mormoms are fakes too.
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."Now I know this part does not say"and the three shall become one flesh" nor does it say "in the begining God made them male and male and for this reason he shall leave his mother and father and be united with his husband and they shall be be become one"

[Dangerrmouse]

Do all good Christians hate their parents as Jesus instructed in Luke 14:26, or did that just apply to disciples?

[nogoodname90]

I think mormons arnt real christians

[JoeR]

Is there anything in the Bible that actually condemns polygamy?

[Soren]

You shall not worship (or use in worship) images of anything in heaven or on earth" Then that would lead me to beleave that anyone who prayed to dead people and used graven images to pray was not a real christian .I agree, but we don't do any of that, so I don't see what you're driving at. Frankly, I don't often presume to tell people what their church teaches (or taught), they usually know better themselves. I'd appreciate the same consideration.
Some mormons beleave that polygamist marriages is alright along with gay marriage which lead s me to beleave that mormoms are fakes too.
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."Now I know this part does not say"and the three shall become one flesh" nor does it say "in the begining God made them male and male and for this reason he shall leave his mother and father and be united with his husband and they shall be be become one"Polygamy has been taught and practiced though it is not today. I have a great-grandfather who practiced polygamy. I know that it was commanded of God and revealed to a prophet of God, but I do not presume to speculate on why it was commanded then and not now. As for the gay marriage thing, apparently you haven't noticed that we teach against it. I don't know where you even came up with that rubbish. Here is one example of what is taught on the subject:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,105-1-11-1,00.html
We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,105-1-11-1,00.html

I have grown tired of this thread. Please do not regard my probable absence from this thread as anything other than evidence that I am tired of reading nonsensical accusations. :(

[jamesrage]

Polygamy has been taught and practiced though it is not today.

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."Now I know this part does not say"and the three shall become one flesh" nor does it say "in the begining God made them male and male and for this reason he shall leave his mother and father and be united with his husband and they shall be be become one"

[JoeR]

What the hell was the point of repeating that? He said they don't do it anymore!

[Kong]

Is there anything in the Bible that actually condemns polygamy?No. It is just not recommended for decons. Its in the NT.