Christianity? who fits the definition?

Jakkass wrote:

But don't they follow by the same teachings as us in the Bible. (Fair enough they use the Joseph Smith translation of it but it can't be that different). It's not so much whether you believe in it. The question is do they classify as Christians?

Well obviously not if they deny the Eternity of God and the full deity of Jesus Christ. These are not minor doctrines - they are essential to Christianity.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The book of mormon speaks of a civilisation existing in North America for which no archaelogical evidence exists.

Definition of irony. A semi-creationist who criticises someone for the lack of archaelogical evidence.

Jakkas, someone who I know on-line from elsewhere, asked me to post my 2 cents on this topic.

On the topic of how one is a "Christian," the Greek of the Book of Acts uses "Christianos," the -ianos ending meaning "partisan of," indicating the term means a follower of the Christ. Broadly, this would include anyone who acceptes Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), including "splinter-group" Christianity, such as Latter-day Saints ("Mormons").

PDN

<<I would say doctrine, rather than morality, would be the issue with the Mormons. For example, Mormonism teaches that God was once a mortal man who grew up into being God. This would appear to be incompatible with the Christian view of God as eternal.>>

The King Follett Discourse does state God having once been mortal, and as with Jesus, having experienced a “kenosis.” However, Joseph Smith qualified his statements in the KFD in that the Father’s mortality was that of the Sons (Marvin Hill, The essential Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1995), 235), suggesting that the Father was God before, during, and even after whatever Kenosis he experienced. He did not "[grow] up into being God."

<<Mormons also teach that Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer, rather than worshipping Jesus as God the Son.>>

The very Title Page of the Book of Mormon states that Jesus is the Christ, the eternal God. Furthermore, in LDS belief, we are all the spirit sons and daughters of God the Father. There is nothing sinister in us being all spirit brothers and sisters, though anti-Mormons such as Ron Rhodes makes a huge deal about it.

<<Well obviously not if they deny the Eternity of God and the full deity of Jesus Christ. These are not minor doctrines - they are essential to Christianity.>>

God the Father is eternal in LDS theology and Jesus is divine. Now, the Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the deity of Jesus, so perhaps this is where you are getting the belief that LDS reject Christ’s divinity.

See http://uk.geocities.com/irishlds87/mormons_and_god.pdf and Barry Bickmore’s review of arguments against LDS Christology at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=340

I deal with the arguments about the Father’s mortal phase and the question of how can be said to be “eternal” and “unchanging” as the Bible (and Book of Mormon) states God to be there.

Brian Calgary

<<Mormonism has also altered their theology on marriage over the years.>>

No. Critics claim that Celestial Marriage always was equated with polygamy (to be more correct, polygyny). However, D&C 132, the very revelatoin discussion plural marriage, equates Celestial Marriage many times between a man and a (indefinite article [singular]) woman (e.g., D&C 132:18). Polygyny was an extension to it, something that was practiced from 1831 to 1890, though in some parts, until 1904.

<<The book of mormon speaks of a civilisation existing in North America for which no archaelogical evidence exists.>>

For several decades now, LDS scholars have believed that the geography of the Book of Mormon is that of Mesoamerica (south Mexico and north Guatamala). The best resource on this issue is that of Dr. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985).

A lot of confusion has resulted over the location of the Hill Cumorah. Instead of discussing all the points of this topic, I suggest going through my review of Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine’s rather popular book, “Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons,” at http://uk.geocities.com/irishlds87/rhodes_bookofmormon.pdf

Also see a discussion of Book of Mormon evidences at www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

As for Joseph Smith and Freemasonry, a heck of a lot of critics on this vein charge Smith with plagiarising from Freemasonry to come up with the Temple. However, there are problems with such claims. Let us examine one of them -

Critics claim that Joseph Smith got the idea for a white veil in the temple from Royal Arch Masonry, which does use a white veil in its Royal Arch Degree.

Problem 1: Joseph Smith was NOT a Royal Arch Mason.

Problem 2: Joseph Smith had not seen the Royal Arch Degree.

Problem 3: People who were practicing Royal Arch Masons took their obligations seriously and did not disclose details of the rituals to non-Royal Arch Masons, particularly after the disappearance and alleged murder of William Morgan.

Problem 4: The Royal Arch Degree in America used and has, from the beginning, used FOUR veils in its ritual, through which the candidates must pass, blue, purple, scarlet, and white.

Problem 5: None of these have markings or places through which one may place one's hands and there is in no case any portion of said Degree where any act done at the veil in LDS temples is done there.

Much more could be said, of course, on these issues. Notwithstanding, I do hope that the following was of some use.

Wicknight wrote:

Surely a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

In that case a scientist could be someone who believes they are following the principles of science. So I am a scientist after all.

Incidentally, up until about 30 or 40 years ago Mormons themselves used to insist that they were not Christians, and that all Christian denominations and churches were corrupt and in error.

PDN wrote:

In that case a scientist could be someone who believes they are following the principles of science. So I am a scientist after all.

As I went on to explain the difference is of course that because religion is based on the supernatural belief, and as such unverifiable

Religion in essence shoots itself in the foot when it comes to trying define itself in any meaningful way, because ultimately to be a religion in the first place it is open to the undefinable supernatural.

Something like science draws its authority to say something is or is not science from the collective standards of the scientific community. This authority can be argued against, and is required to justify and explain itself.

Religion on the other hand draws its authority from a untestable supernatural source, namely a supernatural deity.

If you claimed to be a scientists I could say "Well you aren't a scientists because you don't follow A, B, C, which have been defined by the scientific community as requirements to follow science"

You can of course challenge that, say that I'm wrong that you do follow ABC, or that C isn't necessary etc etc. It is possible to verify who is correct, you simply ask everyone else. Because the authority is grounded in reality in the first place it is easy to verify it.

If though this was a religion then there is no way to verify who is correct, since you would go away and ask your god, I would go away and ask my god, and it is impossible to tell who's god is actually correct. Even if one said that the community itself can establish by group consensus a definition this is not authority in of itself, it is simply a proxy. The group consensus can be wrong, ultimately the authority rests with God (unlike science, which is a human concept and therefore gains it authority solely from humans themselves)

Which is why the only sensible way to look at it is to say that a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus, because it is impossible to verify in any meaningful way if they actually are or not following the teachings of Jesus.

At least until he returns of course

Jesus wrote:

I think what Wicknight is getting at is the distinction between teachings by Jesus, and teachings about Jesus.

It is also important to remember the context in which Jesus taught.

Jesus' teachings cannot be really separated from the supernatural element of the concept of sin and God's love/punishment. That is the why behind all of Jesus' teachings. Jesus didn't teach what he did because it was considered simply a good idea, it was taught in the context of God tells you to do this, this is Gods way In fact questioning exactly why one should do such and such was discouraged. It is not the place of the Christian to question, simply to follow, since God cannot be wrong so questioning is ultimately pointless.

So while an atheists might be in agreement that some (a lot?) of what Jesus taught is a good idea, the reason why it is a good idea tends to be quite different.

Anyway, that is getting a bit off topic.