What the Holy Bible Teaches

[person0]

I recently read a news article where the author was lambasting a certain protestant pastor for his double standard when supporting Mitt Romney, vs Donald Trump.  The author claimed that Romney's Mormonism should never have been an issue, even though the author herself does not believe that Romney is a Christian, which is in agreement with the pastor.

The fact that many protestants do not consider us to be Christian does not really bother me anymore.  I mean, if we know what we believe is true, who cares what they think?  However, what sparked my interest is that after a Catholic commenter indicated shock at the author's rejection of Mormons as Christian, the author sought to qualify her statement.  The authors exact response to the commenter was:

Quote

I dont consider anyone who has a doctrine other than what the Holy Bible teaches as Christian

This same sentiment was parroted by other commenters as well.  I decided that I couldn't resist jumping in, although I knew my efforts would likely be to no avail.

What I find so intriguing about such a statement, is that as a qualifier of what is true and what is not, it fails miserably.  I could honestly look at the author in the eyes and tell her that she has doctrines 'other than what the Holy Bible teaches' and then procede to claim, based on her own indicated qualifier, that she is therefore not a Christian.  Then what?  Then we retort to trying to 'prove' our individual interpretations to be accurate, which is an endless and fruitless challenge, wrought not only between me and her, but every other Bible believing denomination.  At that point it all falls apart.  None of us have any grounds to say the other's belief is false ' because the Bible', there has to be something else (Which obviously for us, there is.  I didn't bring that up though because that wasn't the point).

Even attempting to explain the need for a better qualifier simply as a logical concept seemed to be lost on the responding commenters, who interestingly, proceeded to qualify their opinion with their interpretations of certain biblical passages.

I also indicated to them that it was reasonable to say that Mormon doctrine is false because it is contradictory to [x] doctrine that they believe in.  However, I indicated that using biblical passages to support that doctrine as the actual reason, was insufficient if used alone.  Ultimately, even when, for the sake of explanation, I presented them with the idea that they might actually be correct, and they might actually espouse the correct doctrines and the Mormon's might actually be wrong, but that an appeal only to mortal man's interpretation of biblical passages is insufficient as evidence, just this simple logic does not appear to have gotten through.

So where does that leave us?  I suppose most Christians are not actually Christian because they have doctrines other than what the Holy Bible teaches (at least according to every other Christian).  

Edited March 12, 2018 by person0

[Guest]

We don't insist on being called Christian because we want to fit in with everyone else.

Au contraire!  We don't care what everyone else thinks.

We insist on being called Christian because a key part of Mormonism is that it is the very same religion practiced by Jesus, His disciples, and the first century Christians.

If we give up being called Christians, we would be tacitly admitting we are not a continuation of First Century Christianity, that we are something else, and that would just be untrue.

[Guest]

This is really the same thing I've been saying about this "Mormons aren't Christians" thing.

1) If they want to simply exclude us, no problem.  I'm not part of their faith.
2) If they want to make up a definition of a word -- well, they're falling into the same category as "gender fluid" SJW.  Change the definition of what male/female is.
3) If they want to declare what they believe to be "disqualifying beliefs" from Christianity, then they are really going to disqualify every other faith other than their own.

It isn't that they don't believe we are "Christian" that bothers me.  It is the fact that three is simply no consistent logic to it.  They say some variation of the following two statements.

1) That faith believes this incorrect (even disqualifying) doctrine, but that's ok because we know they're actually Christian.
2) Mormons believe this correct (even central) doctrine, but that doesn't matter since we know they aren't Christian anyway.

Nice way to be consistent.  With this kind of logic, do you really expect to be able to have a reasonable conversation with these people?

Edited March 12, 2018 by Guest

[Vort]

Look at it from their perspective. There exists this thing called "historical Christianity". It has certain precepts that all Christians believe -- "even Catholics". The most foundational of these beliefs is that revelation through prophets as recorded in ancient scripture doesn't happen any more. Some version of continuation of authority is also accepted, as it obviously must be. If you're a Catholic, that continuation is an unbroken line of authoritative succession through the bishops and cardinals from Jesus' time to ours. If you're a Protestant of some sort, the issue of authority gets murkier, but it boils down to It Doesn't Matter. Maybe the authority exists in the body of Christ's believers, or maybe authority per se is irrelevant. In any case, there is some hand-waving argument to settle the issue.

If the authority of men is the most foundational belief, surely the authority of the Bible is the most important. Since prophets in the scriptural sense don't exist any more, and we don't have that kind of public ongoing revelation, our beliefs HAVE to stem from somewhere. That somewhere is the Bible. The existence of extra-Biblical truth is looked upon with narrowed eyes and suspicion. Catholics consider Holy Tradition to be of equal weight with Biblical doctrine. Most other sects simply don't deal with the issue, instead using some version of sola scriptura to claim that their beliefs are Biblically based and in fact THE ONLY POSSIBLE Biblically based interpretation. That this is palpable nonsense is not generally thought about and certainly never spoken aloud. Not in polite company, anyway.

Certain doctrines are also agreed upon, such as the Holy Trinity and the insubstantiality of spirits. Whether these beliefs existed in the primitive Church is not really considered, nor (to be blunt) is it relevant. THIS is Christianity today. THIS is what the word "Christianity" means. Are there some who disagree? Sure. But by definition, they are not "believers".

Now some ignorant yokel from frontier America comes in claiming to be an Old Testament-style prophet. The nerve! Oh, but it gets better. He has another Bible! A different holy book, one that has been "revealed" to him! BY ANGELS! This is lunacy. BUT IT GETS EVEN BETTER! This guy publishes ongoing revelation in the name of God himself! He wants to form commune-style cities! He wants to have POLYGAMY!

Honestly, if anyone here held the long-established prejudices about Christianity, would any of us have been receptive to the restored gospel? In context of 19th- (and 21st-) century Christianity, it is utterly absurd. No, I don't blame my non-LDS acquaintances for saying that our Church is not "Christian". From their perspective and using their definitions, it isn't. I don't agree with them, of course; but that's because I have different definitions and a different viewpoint.

Truth is not established by popular vote, no matter what people might think. The truth or falsity of the Church stands on the validity of its claims, not on whether a majority of people vote to include it as a Christian sect.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

I recently read a news article where the author was lambasting a certain protestant pastor for his double standard when supporting Mitt Romney, vs Donald Trump.  The author claimed that Romney's Mormonism should never have been an issue, even though the author herself does not believe that Romney is a Christian, which is in agreement with the pastor.

The fact that many protestants do not consider us to be Christian does not really bother me anymore.  I mean, if we know what we believe is true, who cares what they think?  However, what sparked my interest is that after a Catholic commenter indicated shock at the author's rejection of Mormons as Christian, the author sought to qualify her statement.  The authors exact response to the commenter was:

This same sentiment was parroted by other commenters as well.  I decided that I couldn't resist jumping in, although I knew my efforts would likely be to no avail.

What I find so intriguing about such a statement, is that as a qualifier of what is true and what is not, it fails miserably.  I could honestly look at the author in the eyes and tell her that she has doctrines 'other than what the Holy Bible teaches' and then procede to claim, based on her own indicated qualifier, that she is therefore not a Christian.  Then what?  Then we retort to trying to 'prove' our individual interpretations to be accurate, which is an endless and fruitless challenge, wrought not only between me and her, but every other Bible believing denomination.  At that point it all falls apart.  None of us have any grounds to say the other's belief is false ' because the Bible', there has to be something else (Which obviously for us, there is.  I didn't bring that up though because that wasn't the point).

Even attempting to explain the need for a better qualifier simply as a logical concept seemed to be lost on the responding commenters, who interestingly, proceeded to qualify their opinion with their interpretations of certain biblical passages.

I also indicated to them that it was reasonable to say that Mormon doctrine is false because it is contradictory to [x] doctrine that they believe in.  However, I indicated that using biblical passages to support that doctrine as the actual reason, was insufficient if used alone.  Ultimately, even when, for the sake of explanation, I presented them with the idea that they might actually be correct, and they might actually espouse the correct doctrines and the Mormon's might actually be wrong, but that an appeal only to mortal man's interpretation of biblical passages is insufficient as evidence, just this simple logic does not appear to have gotten through.

So where does that leave us?  I suppose most Christians are not actually Christian because they have doctrines other than what the Holy Bible teaches (at least according to every other Christian).  

This woman is from the sola scriptura division of Christianity.  I wouldn't be surprised if she's also in the same group who considers Catholics as not Christian anymore.

The label Christian came from the movement that was started by Jesus, continued by the Apostles and moved forward by the Bishops.   They started calling themselves Catholics instead of Christian.  That's pretty much the sum total of Christianity.  The Protestant reformation broke off from this and took the label Christian while declaring Catholics as having left Christianity.  After the protestants splintered into many sects, some of them welcomed Catholics back to the fold of Christians. 

Mormons, on the other hand, are not from this movement.  Not only do they believe the old Christianity is apostate, they also believe in a "different God".  God in Christianity is triune.  Any religion that doesn't accept this are heretics.  To them, there's no difference between the heretics who believe that Christ is not part of a Trinity to those heretics who believe Christ is not divine and even to the whacky ones who might believe Christ is this little green man dancing with shamrocks or something.  They can't be Christian because the Christ that they worship is not the same Christ in Christianity - it's some kind of impostor.  It's like Muslims believing in Allah - it's not the same God that Jews believe in because Allah and the Jewish God don't resemble each other in their teachings.

  

Edited March 12, 2018 by anatess2

[person0]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

This is really the same thing I've been saying about this "Mormons aren't Christians" thing.

1) If they want to simply exclude us, no problem.  I'm not part of their faith.
2) If they want to make up a definition of a word -- well, they're falling into the same category as "gender fluid" SJW.  Change the definition of what male/female is.
3) If they want to declare what they believe to be "disqualifying beliefs" from Christianity, then they are really going to disqualify every other faith other than their own.

It isn't that they don't believe we are "Christian" that bothers me.  It is the fact that three is simply no consistent logic to it.  They say some variation of the following two statements.

1) That faith believes this incorrect (even disqualifying) doctrine, but that's ok because we know they're actually Christian.
2) Mormons believe this correct (even central) doctrine, but that doesn't matter since we know they aren't Christian anyway.

Nice way to be consistent.  With this kind of logic, do you really expect to be able to have a reasonable conversation with these people?

You hit the nail on the head my friend, and I suppose not.  I basically was laughing internally at the failure to understand the flawed logic.  I agree with what you have written, I don't have a problem with what they are saying, my own father (a Muslim) thinks I espouse heathen doctrine, my issue is with the logic behind how they qualify their opinion.  Sounds like you agree.

[person0]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Certain doctrines are also agreed upon, such as the Holy Trinity and the insubstantiality of spirits. Whether these beliefs existed in the primitive Church is not really considered, nor (to be blunt) is it relevant. THIS is Christianity today. THIS is what the word "Christianity" means.

Actually, I agree with you, and I actually even pointed out to these people, that when they say Mormon's are false because they do not espouse traditional Christian doctrines, that is an entirely reasonable statement.  Difference of doctrine, sure, we are false to them, they are false to us.  However, that is not what they were saying, they were saying we are false specifically because our teachings are contradictory to what the Bible teaches, not because we differ from traditional Christianity.  Well the Bible is interpreted in so many different ways, just about anyone can twist it to suit their own belief, and they do.  To me, those are two completely different statements, and I pointed out to them that one of them is adequately logical, and one of them is not.  Still a fruitless exercise, but I did seek to make that distinction clear.

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, person0 said:

Actually, I agree with you, and I actually even pointed out to these people, that when they say Mormon's are false because they do not espouse traditional Christian doctrines, that is an entirely reasonable statement.  Difference of doctrine, sure, we are false to them, they are false to us.  However, that is not what they were saying, they were saying we are false specifically because our teachings are contradictory to what the Bible teaches, not because we differ from traditional Christianity.  Well the Bible is interpreted in so many different ways, just about anyone can twist it to suit their own belief, and they do.  To me, those are two completely different statements, and I pointed out to them that one of them is adequately logical, and one of them is not.  Still a fruitless exercise, but I did seek to make that distinction clear.

There is a huge difference between somebody who teaches that the Bible teaches that God is triune than somebody who teaches that Joseph Smith saw God and this experience led him to teach that God is not triune.  Very very different.

[zil]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

just this simple logic does not appear to have gotten through.

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

no consistent logic to it

 

50 minutes ago, person0 said:

my issue is with the logic behind how they qualify their opinion

 

30 minutes ago, person0 said:

one of them is adequately logical, and one of them is not

In my experience, most people wouldn't recognize logic if it bit the nose off their face.  (Just sayin'.)

[person0]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

There is a huge difference between somebody who teaches that the Bible teaches that God is triune than somebody who teaches that Joseph Smith saw God and this experience led him to teach that God is not triune.  Very very different.

Yes, but there are many denominations that teach that God is not triune, that have nothing to do with Mormonism, or Joseph Smith, or claimed revelation.  To them the Bible also is sufficient to determine that the commonly accepted doctrine of the trinity is not accurate.  Here is a list of some of them as compiled by wikipedia.  If we were the only denomination in existence with such a claim, and that claim was only ever based on Joseph Smith's vision, I might think it was a more reasonable conclusion.  However, my grandfather, a self declared Baptist, although he is not very faithful or active in his beliefs, also rejects the trinity, but also rejects the Mormon faith.  There is in fact a small population of what are called non-trinitarian baptists.

[anatess2]

Just now, person0 said:

Yes, but there are many denominations that teach that God is not triune, that have nothing to do with Mormonism, or Joseph Smith, or claimed revelation.  To them the Bible also is sufficient to determine that the commonly accepted doctrine of the trinity is not accurate.  Here is a list of some of them as compiled by wikipedia.  If we were the only denomination in existence with such a claim, and that claim was only ever based on Joseph Smith's vision, I might think it was a more reasonable conclusion.  However, my grandfather, a self declared Baptist, although he is not very faithful or active in his beliefs, also rejects the trinity, but also rejects the Mormon faith.  There is in fact a small population of what are called non-trinitarian baptists.

These denominations are all considered heretics.  

[zil]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

heretics

This seems sexist to me.  Why are there only heretics and never hisetics?  And what are "etics" anyway - is this like dresses?  The men don't want them anyway?

[anatess2]

Just now, zil said:

This seems sexist to me.  Why are there only heretics and never hisetics?  And what are "etics" anyway - is this like dresses?  The men don't want them anyway?

No zil, it's heretics as opposed to theretics.

[person0]

Just now, anatess2 said:

These denominations are all considered heretics.  

Yes, of course they are.  But they aren't all claiming revelation, most are just reading the same Bible as everyone else.  They are not mainstream or historical, but the Book is the same.  Therefore, the interpretation of the Book alone is insufficient as a qualification for their heresy.  Rather, their heresy must be qualified in comparison to the collectively mainstream ratified beliefs.  That's where the logic falls through, it is fine to say they are false because they disagree with the collective mainstream interpretation, but to say they are false solely based on doctrines inconsistent with the Bible, is a self defeating argument, because it can just be flipped in reverse.

[zil]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

No zil, it's heretics as opposed to theretics.

Dang!  I'm going with the "theretics" then, cuz I certainly don't want no "heretics"!

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

These denominations are all considered heretics.  

@person0, just to clarify... the difference between non-Christian and heretics is that non-Christians were never part of Christianity whereas heretics are Christians that apostatize.  So, people may still call them Christians (just like Catholics still call baptized Catholics as Catholic even if they go and become Mormons) but they have departed from Christianity and require repentance to come back to the fold.

 

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

Yes, of course they are.  But they aren't all claiming revelation, most are just reading the same Bible as everyone else.  They are not mainstream or historical, but the Book is the same.  Therefore, the interpretation of the Book alone is insufficient as a qualification for their heresy.  Rather, their heresy must be qualified in comparison to the collectively mainstream ratified beliefs.  That's where the logic falls through, it is fine to say they are false because they disagree with the collective mainstream interpretation, but to say they are false solely based on doctrines inconsistent with the Bible, is a self defeating argument, because it can just be flipped in reverse.

I was very fast - I answered this issue above before you even said it!  Yeay me.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

In my experience, most people wouldn't recognize logic if it bit the nose off their face.  (Just sayin'.)

If it bit their nose off, they'd probably think it is something to avoid.

[zil]

Just now, Carborendum said:

If it bit their nose off, they'd probably think it is something to avoid.

Stop being logical already!  Sheesh!  Some people never learn.

[person0]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I was very fast - I answered this issue above before you even said it!  Yeay me.

Yes, but it's the same issue, the heretics will consider themselves correct and the mainstream to be heretics by the same definition.  It's still an endless circle.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

Yes, but it's the same issue, the heretics will consider themselves correct and the mainstream to be heretics by the same definition.  It's still an endless circle.

Yes.  But the issue you raised is why Christians don't consider Mormons Christians.  Heretics don't have this problem.

Edited March 12, 2018 by anatess2

[person0]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But the issue you raised is why Christians don't consider Mormons Christians.

I think I may have failed to adequately communicate my issue.  Or else it is intertwined enough to the issue you just mentioned that most people are incapable or unwilling to distinguish.  I was going to stop, because you may have perfectly understood, but now just for fun I want to use an analogy because I just got really excited about this analogy!

Observe the cookies.  The white cookies are vanilla, the brown cookies are chocolate.  In between the cookies is creme filling.  Lets assume you prefer the chocolate cookies.  What makes that cookie better than the vanilla cookie?  If you answer that the creme filling is what makes it better, you would be similar to some other people I know, but because they both have the same creme filling, it can't possibly be the creme filling that makes it better, so you would be wrong.  What makes the chocolate cookie better is that it is chocolate, and you like chocolate more than vanilla.  Now let's pretend that almost everyone in the world likes the chocolate cookies better, and only a few people like the vanilla cookies more.  Now what makes the chocolate cookie better?  Is it reasonable now to say that it is the creme filling?  No, because it is still the same creme filling.  But it makes complete sense to say that the chocolate is what makes it better.

(Creme filling is the Bible, all other tenets of [x] religion/denomination is the cookie itself)

Edited March 12, 2018 by person0

[zil]

32 minutes ago, person0 said:

[blah blah blah]

[blah blah blah]

Um, dude, you can't be posting pictures of cookies like that without also posting pictures of a glass of milk!  [smh]

[warnerfranklin]

4 hours ago, person0 said:

So where does that leave us?  I suppose most Christians are not actually Christian because they have doctrines other than what the Holy Bible teaches (at least according to every other Christian).  

The world is going to hell in a hand basket and Christians would rather bite at each other than reach out to the lost.

Paul warns against this sort of thing in his Epistle to Titus, 3:10  “Warn a divisive man once, warn him twice, then have nothing to do with him.”

If I have to judge you on your “Christianity” (which is rare), then I will do it in accordance to what fruits of the spirit you bear - Ephesians 5:22-23

I, like you, don’t waste much time on arguing doctrine with people. I am confident in my faith and my relationship with our Father.  Besides, according to the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, when you and I and everyone else who claims to belong to Him has to stand before Him on that day He is only going to ask us one doctrinal question: “Did you or did you not take care of the people I told you to take care of”

We are told in 2 Nephi 33:10 ...”If you believe not these words then believe in Christ.” It’s not my job to point out to people elements of their doctrine that may not line up with my own, it’s my job to help them believe in Christ.

Having been one of those people who discounted the faith of LDS members, I can tell you that I did not change my mind due to someone’s knowledge of doctrine. My mind was changed by Mormon friends and neighbors who walked with Christ and helped me with my own faith despite the fact they knew I would most likely never join the Church. LDS members who treated me like another brother in Christ. Mormons who prayed with me, gave me blessings, and cried with me when my life was coming apart. 

We should no longer concern ourselves with what others think of us or our faith. We should concern ourselves with reaching the lost and the best way to do that is to continue to live our lives in a way that is pleasing to our Father. 

[Traveler]

Generally speaking I have a low opinion of traditional Christians.  To be honest – my opinion of traditional Christians is lower than Pagans – right there with infidels and Pharisees.  I am both grateful and thankful that we LDS are excluded and not considered part of the Great Apostasy.  Isaiah described such “Christians” as drawing near with their mouths and with their lips honoring G-d but with hearts far from G-d.  Jesus spoke of such “Christians” that claim believe and to do things in his name – but Jesus said that when these kinds of Christians stand before him he will say, “I never knew you”.

Jesus spoke prophetically when he said that his “disciples” will be known by their love and compassion towards others – “By this shall ye know my disciples indeed, if they have loved one unto another.”  Traditional Christians murdered more northern Europeans for not believing their doctrine of the trinity than were killed by the Black Plague.  Traditional Christians committed genocide on entire populations that refused to be converted to their misguided interpretations of the Bible.  Charlemagne murdered hundreds of thousands and for his acts of murder he was given the grand title of “Defender of the Faith” by traditional Christians.  Prior to 1649 there was not a single traditional Christian society that did not delight in murder (as evidence by their absents of laws to protect anyone not their flavor of Christianity) to advance their cause in their “Christianity”.

Isiah prophesied of apostasy in 3 principles.  First – a transgression of the Law.  Second – changing the ordinances. and Third – Breaking the everlasting covenant (see Isaiah 24).   Traditional Christians have substituted all three principles of the Gospel with their “doctrine”.  For them – their doctrine trumps the law, is more important than the ordinances and greater than any everlasting covenant.

 

The Traveler