True/False:Christian but different is the best way to categorize Mormons http://indianapolismormontemple.org/new-testament-christianity .html

Comments

• How can mormonism believe in a different jesus yet believe in the same abraham?

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 22nd, 2011

• Mormonism didn't change the nature of Abraham thus making him a different person and being in it's scripture and doctrine, they DID change the nature of Christ.
  (see http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m04aa.html; http://www.irr.org/mit/is-mormonism-christian.html )
  
  That's how.
  
  And you DO understand that the term "Abrahamic Religion" doesn't mean that those in the Abrahamic Religions worship Abraham don't you?
  
  If you need clarification on that please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 22nd, 2011

• Really Mr. IT? Thanks for insulting my intelligence.
  
  So the characteristics and story attributed to Abraham in the Pof GP don’t make him a different Abraham but the book of Mormon and D&C make Christ a different Jesus? Just want to make sure I understand you here.

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 23rd, 2011

• Unanonymous if you don't understand the staggering theological implications of changing the nature of Jesus Christ so drastically that it's no long congruent with Biblical Christology I don't think that I can help you.
  
  Your fixation on Abraham is an irrelevant red herring. Who cares?
  
  And my intention wasn't to insult your intelligence. Rather your question about Abraham is so bizarre that one could logically conclude that you were equating Biblical figures in Joseph Smith's revelations being "different" than the same Biblical figures with the Mormon Jesus being "different" than the Biblical Jesus.
  
  No one's come up with a comparison of the "Mormon Abraham" v. "Biblical Abraham" for a reason: It's not relevant to the Theological differences that make Mormons a unique, and different religion that's separate and apart from any other Abrahamic religion.
  
  Now I'll continue this discussion if you have something relevant to discuss. However, I'm not going to be drawn into another multi-day debates on one of your childish tirades in which your whole intention is to "win one for team Mormon" rather than come to a personal understanding of truth.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 23rd, 2011

• You seem to have missed my point. It is not about the theological implications of Jesus vs. Abraham but rather the method you use to determine that we worship a Different Jesus yet surmise we believe in the same Abraham.
  
  If I may extract from your response what I believe is your answer. You are saying that Mormons believe things about Abraham but that it’s not a big enough difference to make him a completely different Abraham. Christ on the other hand is so different that he could not be the same being.
  
  So why is it necessary to say that the different characteristics Mormons associate with Jesus make him a different Jesus? The characteristics your brand of Christians associate with G_d are so different From the Jewish Characteristics associated with him as to constitute a belief in a different G_d. So then why are Jews given the privilege of worshipping the same G_d as you “biblical Christians?”

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 23rd, 2011

• The reason other Christians can say that Mormons worship a different Jesus is because many Mormons ignore the fact that Jesus Christ is Jehovah and instead believe he is a *spirit child.*
  
  Jesus Christ cannot be Jehovah, the Mighty One of Jacob, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the Great I AM and also a *spirit child.* The two terms are at odds with each other. Jesus is not a spirit child, but the Alpha and Omega. He is the Lord of all. That's why the angels bow down and worship him forever and ever. He is God Almighty and I do mean Almighty.

  • Report
  

  by Bridget_D8547 on June 23rd, 2011

• Thank you for chiming in with your irrelevant comment Bridget.

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 23rd, 2011

• //Unanonymous if you don't understand the staggering theological implications of changing the nature of Jesus Christ so drastically that it's no long congruent with Biblical Christology I don't think that I can help you.//
  
  Yep.

  • Report
  

  by Bridget_D8547 on June 23rd, 2011

• YOU WROTE
  "You seem to have missed my point. It is not about the theological implications of Jesus vs. Abraham but rather the method you use to determine that we worship a Different Jesus yet surmise we believe in the same Abraham."
  
  MY RESPONSE
  It's an irrelevant point - period.
  
  Let's say that Mormon DID preach and teach "another Abraham", like say, the Roman Catholic Church preaches and teaches "another Mary". In the end, it's concerning, it might even be disturbing, it could even be considered "idolatrous" if taken too far as it is in some sectors of the Roman Catholic.
  
  However, unless such teachings on Abraham - or Mary - have a DIRECT bearing on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith (see http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-of-christianity ) it's irrelevant. Period.
  
  YOU WROTE
  "If I may extract from your response what I believe is your answer. You are saying that Mormons believe things about Abraham but that it’s not a big enough difference to make him a completely different Abraham. Christ on the other hand is so different that he could not be the same being."
  
  MY RESPONSE
  No, I'm saying that it's irrelevant UNLESS Mormon teachings about Abraham somehow touch on the essentials of the Christian faith.
  
  The ONLY place that I see the LdS Abraham narrative even REMOTELY touching there at ALL - AND it's a minor point to boot - is this passage in the Pearl of Great Price where God COMMANDS Abraham to lie:
  
  Book of Abraham 2:22-25
  And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon;
  
  Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:
  
  Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.
  
  And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee."
  
  That passage is problematic because it makes God a liar and in violation of His own moral criteria as established in Torah.[1] However, it's NOT significant in and of itself to say that Mormons worship another God in my opinion.
  (However, I'm sure that other Christians might feel it is)
  
  - CONTINUED -

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 23rd, 2011

• YOU WROTE
  "So why is it necessary to say that the different characteristics Mormons associate with Jesus make him a different Jesus?"
  
  MY RESPONSE
  Because they materially change Christ's nature and being. Apparently you have referenced the sources that I provided. Here they are again:
  
  http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m04aa.html
  http://www.irr.org/mit/is-mormonism-christian.html
  
  YOU WROTE
  The characteristics your brand of Christians associate with G_d are so different From the Jewish Characteristics associated with him as to constitute a belief in a different G_d.
  
  MY RESPONSE
  That is not correct. The Jews "beef" with Christianity has always been, at it's core, the issue of the Messiah as well as the inclusion of gentiles into the Abrahamic Covenant. As Bart Ehrman explains:
  
  "Although Jesus and his earliest followers were Jews, later Christians understood their religion as something different, even if it did stem from Judaism. Thus, conflicts arose between those Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not. The tension became even greater when Christians taught that Gentiles, too, were included in God's promises even if they did not adhere to the Jewish Law. These theological problems led Christians to develop a self-definition, a group identity that explained the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.
  
  All social groups establish criteria by which individuals are measured as a means of defining group boundaries. Christianity eventually sought an identity independent of Jews who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah."
  (Bart Ehrman, "A Brief Introduction to The New Testament", Chapter 19)
  
  You're comparing apples to oranges.
  
  YOU WROTE
  So then why are Jews given the privilege of worshipping the same G_d as you “biblical Christians?”
  
  MY RESPONSE
  Actually your reasoning is flawed. Since Jewish Orthodoxy preceded Christianity your question SHOULD be:
  
  "So then why are Christians given the privilege of worshipping the same G_d as 'biblical Jews?'”
  
  Well candidly, Jews probably don't take umbrage at Christian claims to worship the Old Testament God because we don't deceptively claim to be Jews and represent ourselves as such to the public. In addition, our founder - Jesus Christ - insisted that His followers remain fully submitted to the authority of Jewish Scripture as He was. And our body of scripture and doctrine reflects this.
  
  I suspect that if Mormons would public acknowledge that they are NOT Christian, that they are NOT fully submitted to the authority of the Bible, and that their body of Scripture and doctrine reflects a new and distinct, non-Christian religion, they might find Christian attitudes toward them softening.
  
  
  
  
  [1] AND, I would add, His own moral criteria as established in The Book of Mormon - which explicitly states that God Cannot Lie:
  
  Ether 3:12
  And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.
  
  2 Nephi 9:34
  Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 23rd, 2011

• YOU WROTE
  "Thank you for chiming in with your irrelevant comment Bridget."
  
  MY RESPONSE
  Actually, Bridget's comment wasn't irrelevant in the least!
  
  She cut right to the chase: The issue here is that Mormons define God FAR differently that He is defined in the Bible (AND I might add the Book of Mormon).
  
  And I repeat (and thank you for validating this Bridget):
  
  Unanonymous if you don't understand the staggering theological implications of changing the nature of Jesus Christ so drastically that it's no long congruent with Biblical Christology I don't think that I can help you.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 23rd, 2011

• Ah, caught a big typo after the fact:
  
  MY RESPONSE
  Because they materially change Christ's nature and being. Apparently you have referenced the sources that I provided. Here they are again:
  
  http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m04aa.html
  http://www.irr.org/mit/is-mormonism-christian.html
  
  Should have said:
  MY RESPONSE
  Because they materially change Christ's nature and being. Apparently you haven't referenced the sources that I provided. Here they are again:
  
  http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m04aa.html
  http://www.irr.org/mit/is-mormonism-christian.html

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 23rd, 2011

• MR IT’s response:
  That is not correct. The Jews "beef" with Christianity has always been, at it's core, the issue of the Messiah as well as the inclusion of gentiles into the Abrahamic Covenant. As Bart Ehrman explains:
  My reply:
  The Jews “beef” with Christianity is much deeper than that, at least among Hasidic and orthodox Jews. (reform and conservative Jews are a whole different ball park) Please refer to the following: http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php/Christianity_and_Noahide_Law
  
  In any case, my point is that Jews DO have a “Beef” with how Christians view G_d and it is similar to the “beef” Christians have with how Mormons view G_d.

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 24th, 2011

• Here is another Hasidic source which also details more of the Jew’s "beef" this one however is exclusive to Jesus: http://noahide.com/yeshu.htm
  
  This same group also considers Christmas a pagan holiday if you care to dig further.

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 24th, 2011

• Please reread what I wrote and the exact wording that I used:
  
  "The Jews "beef" with Christianity has always been, at it's core, the issue of the Messiah as well as the inclusion of gentiles into the Abrahamic Covenant."
  
  I didn't say that Jews have NO issue with Christian Theology - such as the Trinity - however, it's not at the CORE like the issues of the Messiah and the inclusion of Gentiles into the Abrahamic covenant are.
  
  Further, one must always consider the source. Most of the Rabbis cited in the article draw their arguments from the Talmudic books. Unanonymous do you know who wrote the Talmud? If not, let me enlighten you as well as any other readers who are unfamiliar with Talmudic history:
  
  "The sages of the Talmud see a direct link between themselves and the Pharisees, and historians generally consider Pharisaic Judaism to be the progenitor of Rabbinic Judaism, that is normative, mainstream Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple. All mainstream forms of Judaism today consider themselves heirs of Rabbinic Judaism and, ultimately, the Pharisees."
  (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud )
  
  So did you really expect to get objective theological arguments from the very people who conspired against Christ and manipulated the Romans into murdering Him in an attempt to end His teachings and movement?
  
  Again, the CORE "beef" that the Jews have ALWAYS had with Christianity is it's belief that Christ was the Messiah and it's inclusion of the Gentiles into the Abrahamic covenant. All other arguments are secondary.
  
  This much is different than the Christian "beef" with Mormonism which at it's CORE is that Mormons worship a different god that was introduced via the False Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.
  
  And I repeat:
  Christians do NOT deceptively claim to be Jewish like Mormons deceptively claim to be Christian.
  
  And I will repeat yet again:
  I suspect that if Mormons would public acknowledge that they are NOT Christian, that they are NOT fully submitted to the authority of the Bible, and that their body of Scripture and doctrine reflects a new and distinct, non-Christian religion, they might find Christian attitudes toward them softening.
  
  So your arguments are liable to turn around and "bite" you unAnonymous. That's because if you assert that the Jews arguments that Christians worship another God is identical to Christian arguments that Mormons worship another God then you're just begging the question:
  
  "Fine, then why don't you acknowledge that Mormonism isn't the same as 'Christian' the same way that Christians acknowledge that Christianity isn't the same as 'Jewish'?"
  
  And you can argue from Talmud and Rabbinical sources until you're blue in the face and THAT won't change a whit!
  
  So if you REALLY want to continue this line of argument then you must FIRST acknowledge that Richard Land is right and that Mormonism is INDEED the Fourth Abrahamic religion and, therefore, neither Christian or Jewish as it currently claims to be.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 24th, 2011

• The Point to my line of reasoning is that if I am to accept that Mormonism is the fourth Abrahamic religion, you must accept that you worship a different G_d than the Jews.

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 24th, 2011

• Your reasoning is AGAIN fallacious.
  
  That's not the ONLY determinant for a group developing a self-definition. Please read Ehrman again:
  
  "Although Jesus and his earliest followers were Jews, later Christians understood their religion as something different, even if it did stem from Judaism. Thus, conflicts arose between those Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not. The tension became even greater when Christians taught that Gentiles, too, were included in God's promises even if they did not adhere to the Jewish Law. These theological problems led Christians to develop a self-definition, a group identity that explained the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.
  
  All social groups establish criteria by which individuals are measured as a means of defining group boundaries. Christianity eventually sought an identity independent of Jews who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah."
  (Bart Ehrman, "A Brief Introduction to The New Testament", Chapter 19; bolding and underlining added for emphasis)
  
  In this case those issues were the dividing with the Jews not a uniquely different Theology of God's nature. The keys were (again, ad nauseum):
  
  1) Belief that Jesus was Messiah.
  2) Inclusion of the Gentile into the Abrahamic Covenant through #1.
  
  Those differences ALONE are enough to define Christianity as the Second Abrahamic Religion.
  
  That's not the case in the differences between modern Mormonism and Biblical Christianity. Again, the key dividing points are:
  
  1) Mormon beliefs that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.
  2) The Mormon departure from Monotheism into Heno-Polytheism.
  
  Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Monotheistic, thus adhering to the central tenet and demand of the Jewish God which is:
  
  "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God — the LORD alone."
  -- Deuteronomy 6:4
  
  Mormonism can not legitimately make that claim due to it's Heno/Polytheistic Theology that make "the LORD" god of ONLY this planet.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 24th, 2011

• Now, I'm been citing from Bart Ehrman for a while. Perhaps this explanation from a Roman Catholic Theologian will be clearer to you:
  
  "Some have suggested that the LDS is a Christian derivative much as Christianity is a Jewish derivative, but that is surely wrong. The claim of Christianity is that its gospel of Jesus Christ is in thorough continuity with the Old Testament and historic Israel, that the Church is the New Israel, which means that it is the fulfillment of the promise that Israel would be "a light to the nations." The Church condemned Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament, and she never presumed to rewrite or correct the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of a new revelation. On the contrary, she insisted that the entirety of the old covenant bears witness to the new. While it is a Christian derivative, the LDS is, by way of sharpest contrast, in radical discontinuity with historical Christianity. The sacred stories and official teachings of the LDS could hardly be clearer about that. For missionary and public relations purposes, the LDS may present Mormonism as an "add-on," a kind of Christianity-plus, but that is not the official narrative and doctrine.
  
  A closer parallel might be with Islam. Islam is a derivative of Judaism, and Christianity. Like Joseph Smith, Muhammad in the seventh century claimed new revelations and produced in the Qur’an a "corrected" version of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, presumably by divine dictation. Few dispute that Islam is a new and another religion, and Muslims do not claim to be Christian, although they profess a deep devotion to Jesus. Like Joseph Smith and his followers, they do claim to be the true children of Abraham. Christians in dialogue with Islam understand it to be an interreligious, not an ecumenical, dialogue. Ecumenical dialogue is dialogue between Christians. Dialogue with Mormons who represent official LDS teaching is interreligious dialogue."
  
  -- Father Richard John Neuhaus, "Is Mormonism Christian? A Respected Advocate for Interreligious Cooperation Responds" ; http://www.irr.org/mit/neuhaus.html

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 24th, 2011

• do you have any of your own opinions Mr. scholar, or do you always let others answer your questions?

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 24th, 2011

• Thank you for validating for us yet again that you are NOT in any sense of the word a "scholar".
  
  A scholar would never disparage the use of credible external evidence from recognized experts in the area being discussed - especially experts as renowned and respected as Ehrman and Neuhaus.
  (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_John_Neuhaus )
  
  You have, probably without even knowing it, proven yourself a fool once again!
  
  And I'm sorry that the fact that the evidence is so thoroughly stacked against your stance that your position is ultimately untenable upsets you so.
  
  However, that's still no reason to act like a child throwing a tempter tantrum in public by tossing around ad-hominems, insults, and slurs like an infant mindlessly slinging baby food at the adults in the room from their high chair.
  
  Now if you have countering evidence to present (and no plagiarizing this time please) please do so.
  
  However, whatever you do, please knock off these childish tantrums and other ridiculous tactics that simply embarrass you and show you to be a fool before a worldwide audience.
  
  Thank you.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 24th, 2011

• No Mr. it a TRUE scholar comes up with there own, original ideas and arguements. They don't use extensively long quotes from others as their answers, that too is plagiarism.

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 25th, 2011

• Ah, I see since you're out of arguments to the evidence you've just decided to go full bore in ad-hominem abusive attacks on me.
  
  Once again this behavior is absolutely pathetic!
  
  Well Unanonymous, it's becoming increasingly evident that you're sole purpose here on Answerbag is to, "Win one for Team Mormon" at any cost however, you're STILL not allowed to make stuff up. The means do NOT justify the means.
  
  So you've really need to stop posting the utter nonsense and complete disinformation that you spew in post after post after post. As I have stated before it simply makes you look the fool before a worldwide audience.
  
  Now . . .
  
  Here is the dictionary definition of a "Scholar":
  schol·ar
  
  noun /ˈskälər/ 
  scholars, plural
  
  1. A specialist in a particular branch of study, esp. the humanities; a distinguished academic
  - a Hebrew scholar
  
  2. A person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study
  - Mr. Bell declares himself no scholar
  
  A student holding a scholarship
  
  A student
  
  (source http://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS409US409&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#hl=en&safe=off&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS409US409&nord=1&site=webhp&q=scholar&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=2TkGTvDeGcLorQesmIC5DA&ved=0CB8QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e1768da1ce57202d&ion=1&biw=1280&bih=671 ; retrieved date of post)
  
  And I would ADD that since ALL scholars depend on the work of others citing OTHER scholars isn't only no sin but an expected tool of the craft. And if it's credited to the original author, it's not plagiarized - period!
  
  And on that last point . . .
  
  Here is the dictionary definition of plagiarism
  pla·gia·rism
  
  noun /ˈplājəˌrizəm/ 
  plagiarisms, plural
  
  The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own
  
  (source http://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS409US409&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS409US409&nord=1&site=webhp&tbs=dfn:1&source=hp&q=plagiarism&pbx=1&oq=plagiarism&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=408290l408290l1l1l1l0l0l0l0l500l500l5-1l1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3057f561df3863b0&biw=1280&bih=671 ; retrieved date of post)
  
  In short, regardless who the scholar is, they stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. Acknowledging the fine work of others and building on it either via study, via synthesis, or via new original research is what scholars do.
  
  Now once again, Now if you have countering evidence to present (and no plagiarizing this time please) please do so.
  
  If not, could you please shut the frak up rather than continuing to embarrass yourself and the LdS Church before a worldwide audience with these STUPID and CHILDISH ad-hominem abusive attacks?
  
  And, be forewarned, if your next post is another ad-hominem you will most like get muted.
  
  Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 25th, 2011

• "And, be forewarned, if your next post is another ad-hominem you will most like get muted."
  
  Oh no anything but that!

  • Report
  

  by Does it matter? on June 25th, 2011

• (head shaking in disgust)
  - MUTED -

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 25th, 2011