Mormon / Jehovah's Witness / Christian?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:26 pm

Thread opened for discussion.

[Keep it respectful, folks. Let's not force the moderator(s) to come in because this thread has turned into flamebait.]

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:59 pm

Well my vote is obvious…It’s “Yes” they are Christians.

Xamindar · Post by **Xamindar** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:20 pm

Why not just make it a poll? It's a silly thing to ask anyway. You need to actually ask a mormon or a jw and have them tell you themselves.

They believe in Jesus? Then Christians! What is so hard to understand about that?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:49 pm

Since Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and JW's all maintain different conceptions of what being a Christian is, how can we possibly come to a conclusion about this matter? It might make sense to ask, say, within your protestant church, \"Are Mormons Christians according to our Protestant conception of Christianity?\" But this will be a difficult conversation between, say, a Protestant and a Mormon, who may have irreconcilable beliefs about what being a Christian really is to begin with.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:02 pm

Mormons ARE Protestants. *See Edit in later post*

Chris·tian [kríschən]
n (plural Chris·tians)
1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody whose religion is Christianity

adj
1. christianity from teachings of Jesus Christ: based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels

Prot·es·tant [próttəstənt]
(plural Prot·es·tants)
n
1. member of church rejecting papal authority: a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith.
The formulation of Protestants' beliefs began with the Reformation in the 16th century.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:31 pm

Xamindar wrote:
They believe in Jesus? Then Christians! What is so hard to understand about that?

lol. As you probably not a Christian, I can see why you would say that, but there are several fundamental differences that statement flatly not true.

Which i simply don't have the energy to go into right now.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:05 pm

More than just being any Christian who is not Catholic, I thought Protestants are those who came out of the Catholic church--who \"protested,\" if you will. The Catholic church's domination of Christendom was not absolute, so I don't believe it's accurate to say that everyone who is not a Catholic must be a Protestant.

I'll go into some of the details that I know of concerning the differences that Mormonism has with Christianity later, but just as a precursory summation, Mormon teachings aren't just a variation on Christianity--a matter of disagreeing with this thing here or that teaching there--Mormonism is far more fundamentally different. Mormonism drastically redefines God and who he is, it redefines Jesus Christ... it pretty much redefines everything, and the only reasons given are the revelations supposedly received by a man of questionable character and appetites (appetites, the grandchildren of which have been a subject of recent discussion)--Joseph Smith. On top of that, it adds many extra-Biblical practices to the church (Masonic secret initiation ceremonies, magic underwear, etc).

Mormonism certainly purports to be Christianity, but based on many of the things I've learned about it, I call bull****.

A few of you seem to be thinking that this is just a personal vendetta on my part myself (and maybe others), to officially discredit denominations that I don't agree with. That's just not the motivation at all.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:34 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:More than just being any Christian who is not Catholic, I thought Protestants are those who came out of the Catholic church--who "protested," if you will. The Catholic church's domination of Christendom was not absolute, so I don't believe it's accurate to say that everyone who is not a Catholic must be a Protestant.

I never implied that, and I can’t recall anyone else implying that.

There are other Christian churches that are not Protestant, The two that come to mind other than Roman Catholic are : Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox, and there are more I’m sure.

Edit:
Ok I just looked it up, and it turns out that Mormons & JWs do not consider themselves to be Protestant, but Restorationists, so I stand corrected. But they are still Christians.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:13 pm

I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

Furthermore I seem to be arguing substance over definition (if that makes any sense to you). Mormons do claim to believe in \"Jesus Christ,\" so I guess maybe it's not possible to separate them from Christendom, by definition. From a substance point of view, however, the Christian religion, under Mormonism is only barely recognizable in some ways, and isn't at all in others.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:15 pm

Spidey wrote:[dictionary definitions]

You're not being smart by copying and pasting dictionary definitions.

The inquiry here is what is a Christian really, not what does the dictionary say the definition of the word "Christian" is. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how people tend to use words, not prescribe how people should use words. A church can use the word "Christian" however they like, especially if its meaning is understood among all of its members.

Even supposing that the dictionary was somehow the ultimate authority in this matter, all it really says is that the definition of "Christian" is "one who believes in Jesus." So then just apply everything I said to everyone having a different conception of what a Christian is to everyone having a different conception of what believing is and who Jesus is. You're still in the same sort of jam.

For example, Protestants consider Jesus God. JW's don't consider Jesus God. So to a Protestant, JW's don't believe in Jesus because they don't recognize Jesus' Godhead.

So now are you going to attempt to resolve this issue by looking up "Jesus" in the dictionary?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:35 pm

Jeff 250 wrote:But this will be a difficult conversation between, say, a Protestant and a Mormon, who may have irreconcilable beliefs about what being a Christian really is to begin with.

Definitely difficult, but only because people are stubborn. It's not a difficult matter to look into the Bible, which has always been the ultimate (and ought to be the only) source of Christian doctrine, and see the glaring differences between what God says and what Joseph Smith says that God says (knowing that God is perfect and does not change). But if someone doesn't care what the Bible says, I'd say that's reason enough not to consider them a Christian anyway.

In addition to that, one could look at the life of Joseph Smith, who, according to what I've heard, used his position of prominence in his new denomination, using theological leverage, to take advantage of women under him, even married women! He was also involved in divination, and used divination to translate the scriptures he claimed to have found (the existence of which is a matter of faith, rather than history, unlike the Bible).

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:52 pm

Well Jeff, why do you have to make this a personal thing by saying something like “you are not smart..blah blah”

Once that BS starts, I take a new position altogether.

You know what…you “Religious” people can argue about this until the end of time as far as I’m concerned.

You are all wrong!

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:10 pm

I'm not religious.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:34 pm

Well that gives you even less right to say who is a Christian and who isn’t.

I’m just going to say this…

If they say they’re Christians then so be it. If they don’t then that’s fine too.

Maybe we should ask a Mormon or JW.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:26 pm

So what are we trying to determine in this topic?

Can Mormons call themselves Christians? They can call themselves pink elephants if they want. There's no point arguing that.

Should people refer to them as Christians? I don't know... are they Christians?

I'm actually failing to see how this can be anything but an argument of substance. And for the answer, I would say that you need to compare them with Jesus Christ and his teachings, from whom they're taking the label.

There is a cartoon illustrating some of the beliefs of Mormonism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:33 pm

Spidey wrote:Well that gives you even less right to say who is a Christian and who isn’t.

Recall that my point is that it is difficult for anyone to say that a person is a Christian in a universal sort of way without everyone agreeing on what a Christian is first, which is something that I predict won't happen. Remember this? This is why I have already refrained from calling anyone Christians or not.

You say that a Christian is one who says that they're a Christian, but I doubt that most people would agree with this, especially people who say that they're Christians. Besides, don't you identify yourself as non-Christian? Doesn't this give you less of a right to say who is a Christian by what you just said? It doesn't seem like you're taking this conversation seriously.

Thorne wrote:Definitely difficult, but only because people are stubborn. It's not a difficult matter to look into the Bible, which has always been the ultimate (and ought to be the only) source of Christian doctrine...

I suspect that you'll have difficulty having this discussion with a Mormon, who doesn't think that the Bible is the only source of Christian doctrine. If the Mormon rejects your premises, then there isn't much room for debate about this. I mean, you could just then debate the premises, like whether the Book of Mormon is inspired by God or something, but then this isn't really so much a discussion of what counts as a Christian anymore as just debating the greater question of whose religion is correct.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:46 pm

Well Jeff, I’m actually defending their right to call themselves Christians, more so than actually calling them Christian myself.

So who “does” have the right to decide what a Christian is?

A Christian...

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:47 pm

How about this question, then, guys?

Since Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics and Protestants all call themselves \"Christian\", but there are fundamental differences between them (deity of Christ, historical accounts, relevance of extra-Biblical books, etc.)... could a discussion between them be workable somehow? Or would it be impossible to get beyond the theological barriers separating them?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:49 pm

The book of Mormon has been proven to be inaccurate. That wouldn't be hard to argue, if they were willing to hear it.

The most damning thing I've heard is that it says that native Americans are descended from Jews. Research in native American DNA has proven that they're closely related, rather, to Asians.

EDIT:
Spidey, will you defend my right to call myself Superman?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:08 pm

Spidey, before you throw a fit: where does the right come from, and for whom is the decision made?

Foil wrote:could a discussion between them be workable somehow?

A discussion about...?

Foil wrote:Or would it be impossible to get beyond the theological barriers separating them?

Faith. With Compromise all things are possible. Or maybe I should say, nothing shall be impossible to those who compromise.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:10 pm

Well try to understand, I don’t have the right to disagree with anybody’s right to call themselves anything they want, unless I can prove differently.

I’m not that presumptuous.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:22 pm

Thorne is correct about protestants being a slightly more narrow definition. For example, The Eastern Orthodox church is NOT protestant, nor is it Roman Catholic.

And, I think Jeff250 has some really good points about the difficulty of defining Christianity.

Most Catholics and protestants define Christianity as \"Believing in Christ as savior and God\". Despite our MAJOR differences, this covers most Christian denominations, Catholic, Protestant, and otherwise.

BUT, by that definition, JW's certainly fail, since they are Arians and do not believe in the divinity of Christ. Mormon's DO believe that Jesus is God, or becoming God, but then they also believe He was once NOT God, but then so was God once Not God. And WE might become God's ourselves someday. It's a bit baffling to most other Christians and doesn't quite seem to fit. (We have a Mormon or two on the descentbb, don't we? Would they like to explain better than that?)

If you define Christian just a tiny bit more loosely, simply as those who claim to follow Christ, then JW's and Mormons fit in.

So it all depends on who's doing the defining. I'm not certain it's really an important point in any case.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:32 pm

You know I could make a video about a man who put 2 of every kind of living beings on a relativity small boat, which also had a guy who could part the seas and some idiots building a tower to heaven, then a god divides all the people into different races, etc…and it would look just as stupid.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:35 pm

Kilarin wrote:Thorne is correct about protestants being a slightly more narrow definition. For example, The Eastern Orthodox church is NOT protestant, nor is it Roman Catholic.

Nobody at all is debating that.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:39 pm

Spidey wrote:Nobody at all is debating that.

Yes, sorry, trying to catch up on a long thread.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:39 pm

Spidey wrote:So who “does” have the right to decide what a Christian is?

A Christian...

Ah, so you are a Christian if you are a Christian. That settles it then.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:08 pm

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:39 pm

Spidey wrote:You know I could make a video about a man who put 2 of every kind of living beings on a relativity small boat, which also had a guy who could part the seas and some idiots building a tower to heaven, then a god divides all the people into different races, etc…and it would look just as stupid.

A more precise word is implausible. But there must be reasons why things are implausible, aside from the fact that we've never seen such a thing (because there is a great deal that all of us have not seen).

You've already alluded to the fact that the story of the flood is implausible because you couldn't fit our current animal kingdom into the dimensions given in the Old Testament. I've got an answer for that. How many breeds of dog do we have now compared with X years ago? What if you go back further? If there is a God, parting the seas is a small thing next to creating the same. By the way, the Bible says their languages were confused, not their races. The races can be explained by gene-pooling.

One of the implausibilities of Mormonism is mentioned at the end of the video, when he says that a finite being cannot become an infinite being. I don't think you'll find anyone that can disagree with that. The Bible claims that God is infinite. Really, no other explanation for God makes sense. Can then a God who is infinite make another infinite God? I'll put it to the resident mathematician, Drakona.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:11 am

First I want to define why I think religion is not an accurate word to describe Christianity anyways.

Religion to me is man's way of trying to earn favor with a higher power by some sort of work, service or sacrifice. Christianity on the other hand, is unique in that it was initiated by God, all done to remove barriers that sin brought into place, so that He and man could once more have fellowship.

At the very first Christianity was called \"The Way\". It was'nt until much later they started calling themselves christians which simply meant \"christlike\".

To be a christian, you must become christlike. The only way to become christlike is to know who Jesus is and what he said about himself. Going to a church and being a part of a group does not qualify you. It is a very personal, and individual choice.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:38 am

well said Flip.

I have found that \"religion\" does more to harm Christ's teachings than anything. Christ IS going to do his work we just need to get out of the way.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:20 am

Sergeant Thorne…

Your splitting hairs rather than getting the point. Hell I could go on and on about the implausibilities in the bible, that wasn’t the point.

I understand discussions like this can never be settled in this kind of forum, it’s not a true debating forum. There are no rules, set teams or a judge, so the best anybody can do is make a point.

Can God create the weight that he cannot lift? I’ve been in “real” debate forums on that topic…and that’s called a semantic argument. And that particular question is very easy, the answer is “yes”. (Infinite being question)

PS: I was going to use implausible, but my mood got the better of me…

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:33 pm

You make the point with some more plausible (less stupid) hairs and I promise not to split them.

I got the point, but even that I disagree with. You're saying it's the cartoon itself that makes it look bad. Maybe you're right, but why argue that if you're not going to contest any of the points of the cartoon? The cartoon is trying to show the errors of the Mormon church in an ungarnished manner. I'm sure it sounds better when you're talking to a Mormon (though they won't even tell you some of that), but is the substance any different? I was trying to show you that even if you were to make a cartoon in ridicule of the Bible, the subjects are defendable, however implausible you may initially suppose they are. Not so with Mormonism. But even aside from the implausibility or impossibility of the Mormon teachings, there is the fact that it doesn't line up with the Bible in which it claims to have its ultimate basis.

Anyone who wants to believe in whatever insanity they want is free to do so in this country, as long as it doesn't directly harm others. But if someone wants to believe in Jesus Christ, and accepts Mormonism, they've been deceived into following a totally different gospel than that set forth in the Bible.

I've heard it said that anyone who buys into Mormonism is falling for the same lie that Adam and Eve fell for, wanting to be \"as Gods.\" (KJV)

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:50 pm

Spidey wrote:Well try to understand, I don’t have the right to disagree with anybody’s right to call themselves anything they want, unless I can prove differently.

I’m not that presumptuous.

I just wanted to say "good show." I agree.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:21 pm

Thorne, see, this just goes to show my point that "who is a Christian" cannot be solved without debating whose religion is correct.

Spidey wrote:

The point is this: Saying that Christians have the right to determine who Christians are isn't illuminating. Because then we still need to find out who the Christians are that have the right to do this to begin with, which is just the original question.

Your other claim that people have the right to call themselves whatever they want, including calling themselves a Christian, may be correct, but note that this still does not answer the question of who is a Christian. You might make it into such a claim by saying that anyone who calls themselves a Christian actually is a Christian, but this is problematic for reasons already set out.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:39 pm

Actually Jeff, I absolutely agree with you on this, that “was” my point that you are alluding to. (I agree a bit obscure) The reason I stated it in that way was because there \"is\" no way to determine who the real Christians are. Although flip may be on to something, I don’t know.

So it still comes down to needing an authority on just what a Christian really is, and I will endeavor to say that none of us here are qualified.

My true belief is a Christian is someone that follows the teaching of Christ, and that would prolly disqualify just about everyone.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:10 pm

Many monotheistic religions claim that they alone worship the one true God.
Just as many Christian religions claim that they alone are the true Christians.

If \"The One True God\" can be a relative term meaning different things to different religions - \"Christ\" can be relative too.

To accuse some group of not being Christian, is just the same as accusing some group of not worshiping the true God. It's all relative to what side of the fence you're on.

So i think Mormons and JWs are Christians.
(disclaimer, i'm an Ex-JW now Athiest)

IIRC Muslims and Jews are not Christian - because Jesus was never \"Christ\" to them - the core of the word \"Christ-ian\". You could say Muslims believe in Jesus though (as they believe him to be just another prophet).

It's kinda like asking about any historical figure - do you beleive in him? Well if history records him, you'd at least believe in his existance. But you can believe many things about him.

I personally define Christianity by it's linguistics - CHRIST. So you must believe in a Christ. Unfortunately, it could just mean anything about the Christ concept. Jews could even be Christians - as they recognise the Christ concept.

So perhaps Jews could be called pre-Christians, and people who follow the Bible could be called POST-Christians. As in - they beleive that we are living AFTER the comming of the Christ.

But this is troublesome language, as when people tell me they are post-Christian it means they have transcended (moved on from) the concepts of Christ and Christianity itself. It's contempory cultural meaning is more like Ex-Christian.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:30 pm

--- Note... I've been away a couple days and had missed this thread. Sorry. ---

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There is a cartoon illustrating some of the beliefs of Mormonism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo

You're using that to 'illustrate' the beliefs of Mormonism??? That's like using a member of Osama Bin Laden's personal staff to describe the beliefs of Catholicism. Pretty obvious that everyone involved in the grossly incorrect clip is very anti-Mormonism. No way are you going to get accuracy out of that. It's so off in so many ways it would never be worth the effort.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The cartoon is trying to show the errors of the Mormon church in an ungarnished manner.

"ungarnished" ? Bull____. Any fool can see that it's very "garnished". Why can't you?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The book of Mormon has been proven to be inaccurate. That wouldn't be hard to argue, if they were willing to hear it.

And I suppose you'd be actually willing to hear the other way around? Who ever wants to try to reason to a brick wall?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The most damning thing I've heard is that it says that native Americans are descended from Jews. Research in native American DNA has proven that they're closely related, rather, to Asians.

To me, this statement is funny 'cause the Jew's DNA happens to also be rather closely related to Asians. ... You're also talking 2,600 years seperation between lineage. There's no accurate DNA tests that can account for that... yet.

Getting to the point of the thread ...

Mormon's learn of Jesus Christ, discuss Jesus Christ, teach of Jesus Christ, preach of Jesus Christ, study Jesus Christ, strive to live after the teachings of Jesus Christ (even if you don't agree with the "Mormon viewpoint") and incidentally do a better job of living after the manner Jesus taught than a whole lot of people do. Every single day Mormon's (practicing Mormons) pray to Jesus Christ and strive to live after his teachings. In every ceremony and meeting, Jesus Christ is spoke of.

How can any one say that isn't evidence of Christianity?

As for JWs, I don't know so I won't say.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:59 pm

TechPro wrote:No way are you going to get accuracy out of that. It's so off in so many ways it would never be worth the effort.

By all means elaborate/critique. I'll hear you out if you want to give me a point-by-point. All I ask is that you back it up with quotes.

I'm not a brick wall, and I've heard more than what I mentioned in regard to the book of Mormon.

TechPro wrote:To me, this statement is funny 'cause the Jew's DNA happens to also be rather closely related to Asians.

Source? Or are you a DNA expert?

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:11 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
TechPro wrote:No way are you going to get accuracy out of that. It's so off in so many ways it would never be worth the effort.
By all means elaborate/critique. I'll hear you out if you want to give me a point-by-point. All I ask is that you back it up with quotes.

I'm not a brick wall, and I've heard more than what I mentioned in regard to the book of Mormon.

Point by Point argument on the validity of a certain religious text? That'd be huge! Do it in another thread please.
But surely you can at least admit here that there is ARGUMENT about the validitiy of prettymuch ALL religious texts, including your Bible. So who are you to point the finger at the Book of Mormon, without admitting the controversies about your own Bible.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:38 pm

Well I am agnostic, so my opinion does not really matter, but my ideas:

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are not Christians because they each follow a sub-text, like the book of Mormon. I think that this makes them non-christian because if you look at Muslims, they believe in Jesus, but follow the Quran. They are not Christian, but do believe in Jesus.

They are easily known as Abrahamic, because they are derived from the stories of Abraham, and could be considered a sub-religon of Christianity.

As I said, go to the beach and get a lot of salt, and eat it, because thats what you'll need to take this with

Mormon / Jehovah's Witness / Christian?

Mormon / Jehovah's Witness / Christian?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: