Are Mormons Christians?

[RollTide]

       I happen to be a mormon, and will gladly answer your questions about our faith. because i know for a surety that they are true. Mormons are just as much as christians as you guys are. I would like to know who said that to be a christian you have to hold the strict belief of the trinity being one. I always thought the word trinity ment three. Just read a few of these verses: John 17:21, Matt 3:16-17, John 8:17-18, Acts 7:55-56, Matt 26:39, Matt 19:17. 

   As for the Great Apostasy i could name countless scriptures that prove that a universal apostasy occurred. Amos 8:11-12, 2Thes 2:1-3,1 Tim 4:1-3, 2Tim 4:3-4, 2Peter 2:1-2.

     there is no denying these things. The Christ i believe in still loves his children like he does in the past. Hence the need for living day prophets and modern revelation

[God-Sent]

is mormonism is a false teaching ? , if it is yes/ no why it is/isnt ? 

It is an occult, and it is not Christian due to preaching another Gospel.

 

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." -Galatians 1:8-9

 

Does this sound Christian?

 

“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.345-346. Italics in original).

 

It's founder dabbled in the occult prior to his false claims about an "angel" giving him a message.

 

Don't take my word for it. Check out the following:

 

 

Racism in Mormonism:

The First Presidency of the church in 1947 said: “From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.” (Letter from the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, July 17, 1947, as cited in Mormonism and the *****, by John J. Stewart, 1960, pages 46-47)

 

“And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which WAS A CURSE, upon them because of their transgression.” (Alma 3:6; 2 Nephi 5:21)

 

Always be so: “I say now, when they (his discourses) are copied and approved by me they are as good as scripture as couched in the Bible…”(Journal of Discourses vol.13 p.264 also p.95)

 

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, ad seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then other curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they would be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, pages 290- 291)

Remember Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon church said that whatever he preached was a good as scripture; that is Mormon Scripture. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, page 95, 264.)

 

Joseph Fielding Smith said “No man ever went astray by following the counsel of the authorities of the Church. No man who ever followed the teachings or took advise or counsel from the one who stands as the representative of the Lord ever went astray.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, Page 243)

 

Brigham Young understood that Joseph Smith classified these people as The Seed of Cain. Young went on to say said that “Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but 'the posterity of Cain are black because he (Coin) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity”' (The Improvement Era, Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 105).

 

Even one of their modern apostles was not corrected and was allowed to print in his book Mormon Doctrine explaining what Mormons believe “As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed and told that “the earth” would not thereafter yield him its abundance as previously. In addition he became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition...The Lord placed on Cain a mark of a dark skin, and he became the ancestor of the black race. (Moses 5; Gen. 4; Teachings, p. 169.” (Mormon Doctrine by Apostle Bruce McConkie, p. 109.)

 

Was McConkie mistaken? Is the book of Mormon which is given by a supernatural means not so perfect? Or should I say accurate... “Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in the preexistence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth....As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 109.) To illustrate: Cain Ham, and the whole ***** race have cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.” (Mormon Doctrine, p.114.)

 

Book of Moses, Joseph Smith wrote about a group of people in the Old World who were cursed with a black skin: “For behold the Lord shall curse the land with much heat... and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. “ (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 7:8)

 

“The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the lord's doing... “ (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 477)

 

This all sounds like a thus saith the Lord to me. The  majority of the leaders were saying it, not just a few. -Let Us Reason

Edited August 14, 2014 by God-Sent

[RollTide]

Ok, fair enough. I think every religion has some preacher or authority figure who wears something different to show his excellence or mastery before god. Whether it be a pastor, a father, whoever. The only difference is we don't flaunt it to the whole world like the Pharisees did in Jesus time.

As for the secrets as you call them, to us are sacred. Even Jesus had secrets that he never revealed, being in nature too sacred for those not ready or unwilling to understand. It's the Same in our day,

The preaching of another gospel??? To me another gospel are those who deny that god can call a prophet when he has done it for 4000 years, who think god has already spoken and that he has nothing left to say, who say baptism isn't necessary, who twist the concept of the trinity so it's so confusing that even their followers don't understand it, who don't proclaim to hold the priesthood but administer its ordinances, who say they are saved by simply moving their mouth, who say we never existed before birth, who say that angels can't minister to man. To me this fits more in the category of "different gospel"

[RollTide]

Very interesting topic, I happen to be a Mormon. And I am proud of it, Mormons are in fact Christians. We believe that Jesus Christ is our savior and redeemer of the world and that only through him we can enter into the presence of the father. I would be happy to clarify any question you guys have about us, because you honestly cannot believe everything you see and hear on the internet.

[God-Sent]

The False Prophet Joseph Smith

 

When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." (Deut. 18:20-22).

 

 CARM:

1. History of the Church
   1. Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years--"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189). See context.
      1. Jesus did not return within fifty-six years when 1891 arrived.
2. Doctrine and Covenants
   1. Prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri within Smith's Generation--"Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion,ⁱ which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. ³ Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. ⁴ Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. ⁵ For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house . . . ³¹ Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed."(Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.)  See context.
      1. The Mormons were driven out of Jackson County in 1833.  They were not gathered there in accordance to this prophecy dealing with building the temple.
      2. The prophecy clearly states that the generation present when the prophecy was given would not pass away until the temple was built at the western boundaries of the state of Missouri which is in Independence.  This clearly failed.
   2. All Nations would be involved in the American Civil War--"Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; ² And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. ³ For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations," (Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3).  See context.
      1. This is clearly another false prophecy since all nations did not get involved in the American Civil War.
   3. Prophesy that the earth will tremble and the sun be hidden in "not many days": "For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig-tree," (Doctrine and Covenants 88:87)  See context.
      1. The sun hasn't yet been hidden nor has the moon hidden its face.
      2. This prophecy was given on 12/27/1832.  "Not many days hence"?  Since the writing of this article on 6/22/06, it has been 63,364 days or 173 years, 5 months, 26 days.  I think that 63,364 days is more than "not many days".
         1. For reference to January 1, 2000 it was 61,000 days (even), or 167 years, 5 days.
3. Pearl of Great Price
   1. Prophecy that Isaiah 11 was about to be fulfilled--"In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when 'they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,' but soon would come," (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, History, verse 40).  See context.
      1. Isaiah 11:6-9 says, "And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the kid, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. ⁷Also the cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like the ox. ⁸And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. ⁹They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea."
         1. This has not yet been fulfilled.  The wolf is not dwelling with the lamb, the calf and the lion are not together, nor are the cow and bear grazing together.  The lion is not eating straw like an ox.  Nursing children are not playing in the dens of cobras.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, fair enough. I think every religion has some preacher or authority figure who wears something different to show his excellence or mastery before god. Whether it be a pastor, a father, whoever. The only difference is we don't flaunt it to the whole world like the Pharisees did in Jesus time.
As for the secrets as you call them, to us are sacred. Even Jesus had secrets that he never revealed, being in nature too sacred for those not ready or unwilling to understand. It's the Same in our day,
The preaching of another gospel??? To me another gospel are those who deny that god can call a prophet when he has done it for 4000 years, who think god has already spoken and that he has nothing left to say, who say baptism isn't necessary, who twist the concept of the trinity so it's so confusing that even their followers don't understand it, who don't proclaim to hold the priesthood but administer its ordinances, who say they are saved by simply moving their mouth, who say we never existed before birth, who say that angels can't minister to man. To me this fits more in the category of "different gospel"

Who are you responding to?

[Guest Mike Spero]

Ok, fair enough. I think every religion has some preacher or authority figure who wears something different to show his excellence or mastery before god. Whether it be a pastor, a father, whoever. The only difference is we don't flaunt it to the whole world like the Pharisees did in Jesus time.

As for the secrets as you call them, to us are sacred. Even Jesus had secrets that he never revealed, being in nature too sacred for those not ready or unwilling to understand. It's the Same in our day,

The preaching of another gospel??? To me another gospel are those who deny that god can call a prophet when he has done it for 4000 years, who think god has already spoken and that he has nothing left to say, who say baptism isn't necessary, who twist the concept of the trinity so it's so confusing that even their followers don't understand it, who don't proclaim to hold the priesthood but administer its ordinances, who say they are saved by simply moving their mouth, who say we never existed before birth, who say that angels can't minister to man. To me this fits more in the category of "different gospel"

Can you explain what you said about secrets? You hear that a lot from Mormons, honestly. As Godsent showed in his last post, there are numerous and ripe contradictions with Mormonism, and it seems like the answer is always "it makes sense that Joseph Smith said we are to have multiple wives and be womanizers, but we really shouldn't. Why? Oh, it's a secret." I'm not trying to come down on you or be aggressive at all, but I find many more questions than answers from your faith and don't see how you can hold it o.O

 

I actually agree with (slightly) more of what you put in the second paragraph then I don't, but I feel like you can be a Christian and not: "deny that god can call a prophet when he has done it for 4000 years, think god has already spoken and that he has nothing left to say, say baptism isn't necessary, twist the concept of the trinity so it's so confusing that even their followers don't understand it, and say they are saved by simply moving their mouth". Those aren't strictly-Mormon beliefs

[Bethany Elise]

I believe it is a false teaching, because it says Jesus isn't God.

[Chris-M]

8|

 

You guys are being distinctly discourteous, not to mention mean-spirited. And if I were on another forum, I'd use choicer language.

[Wesker]

Let me be more diplomatic. The reason I do not believe Mormonism is Christian is objective and not normative. It is not a value-judgment when I say Mormonism is non-Christian. I maintain that Mormonism is not Christian for the same reason Islam is not Christian. Islam, like Christianity, claims Christ for its own tradition. I have heard imams say that if you are a True Christian you follow Mohammad since Christ was a prophet in the line of prophets from Adam to Mohammad. Yet this does not make Muslims Christian. What separates Islam from Christianity is a distinct revelation. Muslims are beholden to the revelation of Mohammad by the Archangel Gabriel. Islam is a tradition which harkens back to the continued tradition of the followers of Mohammad. Christianity is a religion which follows the tradition continued by the Apostles of Christ. 

 

Mormonism claims its own distinct revelation. Mormonism is behold to the tradition of Joseph Smith and his disciples. And just as Islam is not Christian, by the same logic, neither is Mormonism. Perhaps another example will make this point clearer. Christianity, Islam and Mormonism are all Abrahamic faiths in that they claim a certain connection to Judaism. YHWH in the Jewish Scriptures is claimed as the Real God by all three. Yet, it would be rather ridiculous to proclaim that Christianity, Islam and Mormonism are actually Judaism. Besides that small group of so-called "Messianic Jews", Christians do not call themselves Judaists. Muslims do not claim to be Christians or Judaists. Neither should Mormons claim to be Christians.

[God-Sent]

 

Yet, it would be rather ridiculous to proclaim that Christianity...actually Judaism. Besides that small group of so-called "Messianic Jews", Christians do not call themselves Judaists.

 

I agreed up to this point. I would have to argue that Christianity is Judaism in it's purest form, but I won't derail the thread so won't comment further on this here.

[Zabby]

Guys, I've deleted some posts. Please be respectful of other people's opinions. The forum does not recognize Mormonism as a denomination of Christianity, but that does not mean you can throw around insults and harsh words to a member. 

[God-Sent]

Guys, I've deleted some posts. Please be respectful of other people's opinions. The forum does not recognize Mormonism as a denomination of Christianity, but that does not mean you can throw around insults and harsh words to a member. 

Apologies if any of mine came off that way.

Back to the discussion!

[AlexFL93]

I will let Ellicott take this from here, and just about all other Bible commentaries agree with him

 

 

For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead.—This version is misleading, and seems indeed to be one of those rare cases where the original has been expanded by the translators for doctrinal ends. The Greek is simply, For for this end was the gospel preached to the dead also, or, still more literally, to dead men also. No one with an un-preoccupied mind could doubt, taking this clause by itself, that the persons to whom this preaching was made were dead at the time of being preached to. If this is the case, then, pretty obviously, St. Peter is carrying us back to his teaching of 1Peter 3:19, and is explaining further the purpose of Christ’s descent into hell.

That they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.—In order to obtain a clear notion of this hard saying, it will be necessary once more to survey the course of the whole passage. “It is better,” the Apostle said, “to suffer in well-doing than in evil-doing.” They must take their choice, that is, which kind of suffering they would have. It was not indeed certain that in case they chose to do well they would suffer for it; and if they did, there was the history of Christ to encourage them. But in case they chose to be evil-doers, it was certain that they would suffer. “And you had better,” he says, “suffer in well-doing than in evil-doing.” He then gives an instance of persons who suffered in evil-doing—the fleshly Antediluvians, whom God cut short in their crimes by the Flood, and to whom Christ went to preach in their prison-house. He then exhorts his readers—some of whom had, for one reason or another, been allowing themselves to fall into antinomian ways—not to live any longer to the flesh, not to make true the slanders of the heathen, who tried to make out that the Christians were as bad livers as themselves; for such evil-doers were doomed to speedy suffering; those heathens would soon be called to account by Him who was ready to judge quick and dead alike; “for,” he adds, “the object of that preaching to the dead also was that they may be judged according to men in flesh, but may live according to God in spirit.” (1) The first question is, What does the Apostle mean to substantiate by this last verse, “for for this cause?” Not the fact that Christ will judge the dead as well as the quick, for that would have no practical bearing upon the readers. Not the fact that Christ was now ready for judgment; for although He will certainly not come until the dead as well as the quick are in a position to be judged, yet we should then have expected something more like, “The reason why the dead were preached to was that the judgment might no longer be put off;” instead of which, the whole point, of the verse is the particular destiny in reserve for those dead, which destiny was the intention and result of Christ’s preaching the gospel to them. It must, therefore, be a further reason for warning the Christians not to live lives of evil-doing like the contemporaries of Noah or their own heathen contemporaries. If it be necessary to attach the word “for” to any particular words, we may perhaps attach it to the words “they shall give account;” and 1Peter 4:6 would hint at the kind of account they would have to give, as “giving account” implies the settlement which follows. (2) But if 1Peter 4:6 clenches the warning to the Christians not to become antinomian, then we must understand the destiny of these dead to whom Christ preached to be not the brightest, after all. This brings us to consider what is meant by their being “judged in flesh” (i.e., as in 1Peter 4:1, so far as flesh is concerned). In the previous verse, Christ is said to be quite ready to “judge” quick and dead. The context makes us feel that St. Peter is not picturing to himself that scene as one of calm forensic investigation, with “opened books” or the like. His idea of this judgment is rather of a “judgment” such as took place in the days of Noe, a great crisis (the Greek word for “judgment”) or world-wide catastrophe, which, of course, cannot harm the just, but only the unjust. He shows the same conception of the Judgment, and illustrates it by Noe’s Flood, in 2Peter 2:5-9; 2Peter 3:6-7. Now “judgment” is a neutral word, which, in Scripture, takes its colour from the surroundings, so that it sometimes is a thing to be longed for (e.g., Psalm 43:1; Psalm 72:2; Hebrews 10:30); at other times a thing to be dreaded, as here. Though we do not limit the “quick and dead” here to mean the wicked quick, and dead, yet they are evidently uppermost in St. Peter’s mind, so that there is scarcely any conscious change in the meaning of the word “judged” when we pass from 1Peter 4:5 to 1Peter 4:6. It there means certainly a judicial punishment, or even judicial destruction. While the word often denotes a condemnation (as in English we say “to sentence”)—for example, in John 16:1-2; 2Thessalonians 2:12; Revelation 19:2—it seems to have the further notion of a judicial death in 1Corinthians 11:31-32 : “Had we been in the habit of discerning ourselves, we should not have been subject to these repeated judgments (weakness, sickness, death—1Corinthians 11:30); but now these judgments are a discipline from our Lord, to save us from being condemned with the world.” And that judicial destruction to the flesh is what St. Peter means. he proves by contrasting “but may live in spirit” rather than “be saved” or “justified.” (3) It is next to be considered what date we are to fix for this judgment of the flesh. Was it previous to Christ’s preaching the gospel to them in hell, or was it to be subsequent? Taking the former line, we should be able to paraphrase, “His object was, that though in flesh they had been judged, having been judicially destroyed by the Flood, they yet might live hereafter in spirit.” But, besides other difficulties, it is far more than doubtful whether it is Greek to infuse a past sense into the subjunctive mood here used: i.e., to render this, “it was preached in order that they might have been judged.” Had we the words by themselves, and no preconceived theology to hinder us, we should undoubtedly translate, “To this end was the gospel preached to dead men too: viz., in order that they may be judged indeed according to men so far as they are flesh, but may live according to God so far as they are spirit.” The judgment spoken of would not be their death beneath the waves of Noe, but something still future; and this view would be confirmed by reading what St. Peter says of them, and of the angels who (in all probability) sinned with them, in the passages of the Second Epistle above referred to. How, then, will they be hereafter condemned to a judicial destruction of the flesh, but a merciful preservation of the spirit? The answer, though it seems inevitable to the present writer, must be given with trembling, and in deference to the judgment of the Church, the collective Christian consciousness, whenever that shall be expressed upon the point. A close parallel may be found in 1Corinthians 5:5. There St. Paul judges to deliver to Satan (is he the warder of the “prison” where such spirits are confined?) a person who has foully sinned in the flesh, “for annihilation of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” That in that place it does not mean a temporal judgment upon the bodily life (such as was passed upon the Antediluvians or the profaners of the Eucharist at Corinth) is clear, from the fact that excommunication was not attended with temporal death. That it does not mean voluntary self-mortification of the flesh in this world seems clear (among other considerations) by comparison of our present passage, for the opportunity for self-mortification in the flesh was long past for the spirits to whom Christ preached. Now why, in these two cases, do the writers take pains to point the antithesis between “flesh” and “spirit,” if, after all, the flesh is to share the mercy shown to the spirit? The antithesis becomes a false one. Why did not St. Paul say, “To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that he may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus?” and St. Peter, “For this cause was the gospel preached to the dead also, that though judged indeed in flesh, they might, after all, live according to God?” And what is the point of this dread warning, if in the end these Antediluvians attain to the same bliss, “both in body and soul,” as other men? There is a whole set of passages which seems to teach that resurrection—i.e., the permanent restitution of life to the body—is a gift which does not belong to all. To those who eat Christ’s flesh. He promises, “I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). St. Paul suffers the loss of all things, “if by any means he may attain to the resurrection of the dead” (Philippians 3:11; comp. 2Corinthians 5:3-4). Our Lord bids the Apostles “fear Him [it is doubtful whether he means God, or Satan, who acts by God’s permission] who is able to destroy both soul [He does not say ‘spirit’] and body in hell.” So it would be the simplest explanation of our present text if we might believe that these Antediluvians were to be deprived of resurrection of the flesh which they had so foully corrupted, but in God’s mercy, through accepting the gospel preached to them by Christ after their death, were to be allowed a purely spiritual existence. They would thus be sentenced “according to men,” i.e., from a human point of view: they would be unable to take their place again among the glorified human species in a human life; but still they would be alive “according to God,” from God’s point of view—a divine life, but “in the spirit” only. It was a gospel that Christ preached to them, for without it they would not have come to “live according to God” at all. Yet, on the other hand, it was a warning to the Christians. When it says “the gospel was preached to the dead also,” it implies a similar preaching to others, viz., to the heathen who were to “give account,” and that the result of the preaching would be the same. Those heathen who through ignorance lived corrupt lives all around, might possibly, in the intermediate state, hope to receive a gospel which would enable a bare half of their humanity to live according to God hereafter. It could not avert the destruction of their flesh. What, then, could be the hope of a Christian, one who had heard and embraced the gospel in this life, and had then surrendered himself to the same corruptions as the Gentiles?

 

• God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
• God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
• "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s . . . " (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).
• God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
• "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
• After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).
• There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
• God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
• The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

[AlexFL93]

• God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
• God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
• "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s . . . " (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).
• God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
• "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
• After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).
• There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
• God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
• The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

[RollTide]

I don't think Christianity is defined as holding your strange point of view of the godhead. It's a believer in Christ. Which Mormons are, if you deny that we are Christians because we believe that Joseph smith was a prophet, then you do not understand the bible. Name me a period in time when the believers of god we're not asked to follow his prophet? (Noah, Moses, Abraham) they were all asked to follow and listen to his prophet. That's all perfectly normal right? Because it's in the bible you read, but once god tries to speak to us again through a prophet you say he is crazy and an anti Christ. Kind of what the people did to Noah, nobody believed him, he was labeled as crazy. But they all believed in god and they all knew Adam was their father. Same thing when Jesus came to earth, nobody believed that god could speak again to this guy, they would not accept new revelation. They all believed that Noah was a prophet and Moses. But did not believe that Jesus was the son of god. The Pharisees swore that if they lived when their fathers were alive they would not reject the prophets. But they were rejecting the one god has sent them. I feel lots are the same today, feel that if they lived back then they would accept the prophet. Yet when god gives them one they call them crazy, and say he is an anti Christ, and reject him. When will gods children understand? Being a Christian implies believing in prophets, so why don't you?

[RollTide]

If you want to know more about Mormons I don't think an anti Mormon website is the most reliable source. Because they are always wrong. Clearly in d&c Joseph says that he did not know what the revelation meant, as for the temple, the word build implies starting, not finishing. The temple had definitely started. As for the war it clearly refers to other wars that would happen and other countries that would be involved, like the bible says. For the last two I will answer with a question, do you know how long a day is for god?

What you guys call secrets to us are sacred. The opposite of sacred is secular something all too common in our day. And we actually want people to go to the temple, we want them to know. That's why we have 85,000 preaching the gospel. Now polygamy is a principle so misunderstood in our day, it is the same when Christ told his followers that they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved, it says many left him that day, they probably thought he was crazy, that the scriptures didn't say that. But it's simply because they didn't understand. Same with polygamy, you guys as Christians I assume and hope have read the bible, so you cannot deny the principle of polygamy, it happened. Abraham, David, Solomon. And as a Christian you have to believe it, And it's not weird when you read it in your bible. But once god tells his prophet to do it again everyone thinks he is a pervert and just wants to get with woman. Maybe it's not us, maybe it's the people who just don't understand like jesses time.

[AlexFL93]

This person is creeping me out... the best they could refute with is "I'm right because I say so"

 

Can you explain to me why the Jews from the pre-Mosaic era spoke French?

 

http://www.cultwatch.com/mormon.html

 

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Mormons.html

 

http://worldcultwatch.org/2013/04/13/mormon/

Edited August 15, 2014 by AlexFL93

[RollTide]

Never ever heard of that. I don't know what your talking about, hence the reason not to do research on anti Mormon sites

[RollTide]

I'm a Mormon. . . . . Pretty sure we are Christians. Just because we believe the trinity are three separate beings (hence the word "tri"nity) does not makes us some other sect. Lots of people don't understand our doctrine, because they are so focused on what was said. And are not focusing on what's being said. As Christians you all believe in the bible and I assume have read it. So you all know that when someone wanted to listen to the word of god they had to listen to the prophet god called, you also might have noticed that the majority of people did not believe in the prophets god called for them, only the past prophets. I continue being amazed that people follow this same pattern. Believe in past prophets not in the ones god calls for them. It's blasphemous to say that god has already said everything through the bible and that that small book contains all the knowledge god has for his children.

[Lefebvre]

I'm a Mormon. . . . . Pretty sure we are Christians. Just because we believe the trinity are three separate beings (hence the word "tri"nity) does not makes us some other sect.

 

Yes, yes it actually does.

[Chris-M]

Why are there two of these topics?

 

edit: Sorry, three. Three of these topics.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Yves

[Zabby]

I merdged the two threads. Hopefully it's not too confusing for the people debating.

[Noel 1525]

Eh more or less a denomination, so yes i believe they are

[Lefebvre]

Eh more or less a denomination, so yes i believe they are

 

What does "more or less a denomination" mean?

[God-Sent]

I' It's blasphemous to say that god has already said everything through the bible and that that small book contains all the knowledge god has for his children.

Is that true? Your false prophet claims the Book of Mormon holds this:

 

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

 

I'm sorry, but the Holy Bible itself laid claim to this far before this man created another gospel. This book you claim to be so great contradicts the very words of God given in the Old and New Testament. This man who claimed to receive this message from God contradicts Scripture and God's precepts..

 

    “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”

           —Revelation 22:18-19

Joseph Smith:

 

Illegal Banking (found guilty). Numerous accounts of fraud and illegal banking within the state of Ohio, but he fled for Missouri.

Disorderly Charge

Disorderly Charge 

Banking Fraud

Threatens Judge

Charged with Treason

 

And the rest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system#Table_of_events

 

Being a Christian implies believing in prophets, so why don't you?

We do believe in prophets. We believe in the Prophet of Prophets, Jesus Christ. The one man claiming to be the way the truth and the life. This very man being God in the flesh who of old stated:

“If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22)

This same God who incarnated Himself in the Flesh reiterated this in his life on earth:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." -Matthew 7:15

We are told to reject those who claim to have another Gospel, attempting to add to God's Holy Word, who teach another Jesus other than that of the New Testament:

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." -2 Corinthians 11:4

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." -Galatians 1:8-9

 

Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and God the Father never has nor ever will be a man. God is Spirit and only the Logos alone was incarnate who is God also. These three are one and any and all who reject this are not Christian nor are they followers of the one true God. He is God alone and there are none besides Him.