Clarify these religions please

actually, i would never say anyone is definitely going to hell for any reason...God is infinitely merciful and full of Love....it not my place to speculate on who goes to hell.....i'm only offering my opinion...i believe it is critical to get this stuff right in our search for TRUTH....i wouldn't be surprised to see Mormons in heaven...God is just, but He is also forgiving and understanding....

perhaps some will 'get in' based on mental defiencies...

That's was one of the most sickeningly hateful posts i've ever read here which was not delivered in a full-tilt, lunatic rant. Good to see that your bigoted contempt for those who do not hold your beliefs is delivered in such a calm, assured manner, as opposed to being shouted at the top of your lungs.

what specifically did i say about hate?? where is 'hate' in my post??

You mean other than the entire text of it?

Here's the most blatantly hateful part of a breathtakingly bigoted post:



But you're so far gone, i doubt that you understand what is wrong with that.

First off, let me preface this with that I am getting dressed as I write to go teach at a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a Mormon church.) They have no professional clergy, and thus invite anyone to come speak at their churches. This avoids half the problems any other church have.

I used to tell everyone on the subject of Mormons, "if anything sounds really wrong about the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), I guarantee it's not one of their beliefs." Frankly, I have never heard anyone give an exception to that. The fact is, churches can get pretty capitalistic, and Mormons are just the recipients of incessant discriminatory campaigning, by those who would love to have their 12M members.



Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Thus divine. People sometimes have a problem that they pray to God, not Jesus, and don't consider God and Jesus the same person. But that's a debate between a lot of churches.



They believe that we never stop growing, and after a zillion years people will be given "god-like" duties on other earths... But they'll never stop being worshippers of God. I think a lot of people believe that, call it what you will. Isn't eternal progression really the central motif of most religions, even outside of Christianity?



Again, show me one and I'll bet you money it's not part of their beliefs, or it's no big deal and part of everyone's beliefs, or whatevah.

They believe that God is just an exalted man.

They believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

They believe we can become gods ourselves.

They believe that Mormon women are to be pregnant for eternity populating their own planets.

Absolutely no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon has been discovered (except for the part that was copied straight from the King James Bible).

Over 4000 changes have been made to the Book of Mormon since it was first published - a far cry from what Smith called "The most correct book on earth."

Wow, you're quoting some anti-Mormon stuff... Again, either none of it is true, or it's just phrased in a capitalistic way to slander the competition. You're quoting the party line, my friend.



Again, just an extension of the earlier comment. If Mormons believe that people don't quit learning and growing, some have back-engineered that therefore God was once a man on some planet. Not standard thought, but I personally have nothing against that...



Again, misquoted party line by the competition. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God, as do all Christian churches. In a sense, that makes Jesus and Satan brothers, but no more of brothers than Ghandi and Gary.



I already answered that one.



Again, garbage party line. You're obviously just quoting some book published by someone who knows he can get away with making stuff up. The idea that spirits have spirit children is a theory not unique to Mormons. Implications that gestation takes 9 months, or that there's no break time inbetween, or whatever, are all just horror-movie BS.



Go to any travel agent, and they'll hook you up with Book of Mormon tours just as much as Bible tours. No one knows specifically where each Book of Mormon city was in South America, but since I have a degree in Spanish and my father-in-law is an archaeologist, I can tell you that there are some pretty strong theories.



And you've counted? Unless you or whoever read that book has a 150 year old version, it's obviously a lie. The church website does say that various spelling and punctuation issues have been fixed to be more in line with the original. The printer made a lot of changes, which have been changed back to the original now that we have better ways of catching these changes...

I debated whether I should have answered any of these questions, because again they're obviously not written hoping for answers. They're party line from lawyers who are paid to spin for their company.

There are as many definitions of "Christian" as there are denominations.
But the most widely accepted definition I've heard is anyone who believes in the trinity. Sometimes they add that they must also believe in the bible as the word of God with all public divine relevation ending with the apostolic era of the 1st century.
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity (3 distinct persons in 1 nature as defined by the Nicene Creed).

From the Presbyterian Church (USA)... "Mormonism is a new and emerging religious tradition distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of the Christian Church, of which Presbyterians are a part...Latter-day Saints understand themselves to be separate from the continuous witness to Jesus Christ, from the apostles to the present, affirmed by churches of the "catholic" tradition. Latter-day Saints and the historic churches view the canon of scriptures and interpret shared scriptures in radically different ways. They use the same words with dissimilar meanings. When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks of the Trinity, Christ's death and resurrection, and salvation, the theology and practices related to these set it apart from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches."

All that it true, but a confusing way to go about showing it.

Mormons believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Mormons do not believe that the relationship of these three is in any way ambiguous or amorphous, but that these are three distinct individuals with a common purpose. Many Christian religions believe this.

Having counseled with many people from many religions, I have never heard Christianity defined as believing in the Trinity. No religions outside of Catholicism and her children believe in the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Crede, itself written or at least mandated by a Roman Emperor who history says conducted all the meetings dressed in full face-paint and costume as Sol Invictus, a non-Christian God. To say that to believe in the Trinity is Christianity is to say that there are no Christian churches outside of the Catholic church and its splinter groups. And I'd hazard that God's plan doesn't involve splinter-groups...

Still it's odd that you're using Presbyterian quotes to define Mormonism in terms of its catholicism.

Again, if Jesus Christ is the central figure of your worship, I'd call you a Christian. Churches always try to bat around the "you interpret the Bible incorrectly" argument. Well, sure, every Christian religion out there believes something slightly different about Christ. That's why there's more than one church. And no definition of Christianity has included a stopping point for revelation, outside of churches that needed to have added that in to survive. "Revelation ceased the moment our church started" argument. If revelation ceased at any time, where in the Bible does it say that? Wouldn't there need to be a revelation saying that revelation had ceased? Since our Bible was compiled in the 1500s, do we have any reason to believe where "the end" would be put since the books are not in chronological order?

While we're at it, I think reading the Bible is a great indicator of Christianity, and Mormons (being the group in question here) read the Bible as much as any other church out there. Still, I don't think the word "Christianity" means one who reads the Bible.

I'll tell you as one who teaches Ancient History that there is no evidence from the Apostolic Fathers or otherwise that any Christian religion had the Trinity concept before the Council of Nice. It was, in my opinion, a mandated Roman compromise. No church in my opinion goes back to the apostles, and I've met few Catholic priests who believe theirs does either. Presbyterianism, at best, is a splinter of that.

To be Christian is to believe in Christ. There are those on this list who worship him directly; others who worship the Father through him; others who worship the Father directly. There are those on this list who believe in a passive and uninterested God and others in an active and personal God. Some in revelation; some in cessation. Whatever! If you ask me, all are Christians that center their worship on Jesus Christ.

That would be point. Most believe that only Catholicism and her splinters are Christians.


I found their language odd too. It sounded like a Catholic condemnation of Protestantism. But it's a Protestant defense of the Catholic (or as they say "catholic" with in lower case) tradition.


It is the belief of most Christians (whatever you definition) that public divine revelation ended with the apostles.


Most Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and even many Protestant clergymen believe that. Which is why they refer to their church as apostolic.
The Trinitarian concept obviously had its roots prior to the Council of Nicea. It received the almost unanimous vote of the bishops present.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the root word of "catholic" is "doctrine," again, just meaning that "catholicism" was the first time people sat down to set forth, and write down (for once), the doctrine. So yes, non-Catholic churches can be catholic.


Yes, it is. I've never understood why. But yes, it is. Still not within the definition of Christian, if you ask me.


I never knew Protestants based so much of their beliefs on the validity of the Roman Catholic church. Maybe that's why the Pope always seems to have so many more adherents than his religion does... Interesting...

And one has to ask, and I don't mean to question things unnecessarily, what the scoop is about Nice getting a nearly unanimous vote. I mean, Constantine had ways of getting unanimous votes... "So let it be written, so let it be done that they are granted an offer they can't refuse! Hail Caesar, Amen."

Good talking to you, yello...

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


I was surprise the first time I heard this said/repeated as part of a protestant service. The line highlighted made me curious as to why a non-catholic church would say this.
I've heard it repeated in both Lutheran and Anglican churches. Is this a common prayer? in most churches, do some edit it and say only the parts they believe in?

catholic epistles: of James, Peter, John, and Jude; so called because they are addressed to Christians in general, and not to any church or person in particular.

{Old Catholic}, the name assumed in 1870 by members of the Roman Catholic church, who denied the ecumenical character of the Vatican Council, and rejected its decrees, esp.
that concerning the infallibility of the pope, as contrary to the ancient Catholic faith.

Methodist is apostolic also

OK, you're wrong:

Main Entry: cath·o·lic Pronunciation: 'kath-lik, 'ka-th&- Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole

"Catholic," in other words, means "universal." It has no relation to "doctrine."

Most take "catholic" to mean universal. I've even seen some Protestant versions edit it to say "universal" instead of "catholic."

Anglicans consider themselves just as apostolic as the Catholics and Orthodox. Catholics and Orthodox recognize each other's apostolicity but not that of Anglicans or others. Lutherans and the direct offshoots of the Anglican church (ie. Methodists) believe themselves to be apostolic too. They just believe that the Catholics and Orthodox take the apostolic thing too far.

ok, then - what does apostolic mean?

As understood by Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans...


As understood by many Protestants...

thank-you

Here's a mini history lesson Y there's so many denominations:

Christians were heavily persecuted during the early years of the church from the apostles' time to about 315 AD. About that time, the Roman Emporer Constantine(who was a pagan, later turned christian and baptized in 337) legalized Christianity, formed the orthodoxy, and chose which books went into the Bible. He was presented with 80 books of the Bible and only chose to put in the books that referred directly to Jesus's teachings.....all other books were banned as heresy. Also, it's interesting to note that yes the sabbath day is normally referred to sunday-the 7th day but at the time they named sunday the sabboth day because sunday was the pagans day to worship their sun god.

A few years later, another Roman Emporer made Christianity mandatory throughout the Roman Empire. Some people might expect this to have been a positive development for the cause of Christianity, but actually it was disastrous. Any knowledgable Christian is well aware that no one can make anyone else become a Christian. It is impossible to force anyone to believe something in their heart. Only God can open hearts.

So instead of making Christians out of everyone in the Roman Empire, the decree from the emperor simply resulted in all of the religions in the empire mixing together as one and calling themselves "Christian". Those who followed Christianity, those who followed Judaism, and those who followed any one of the many different Pagan religions were now suddenly all in the same assembly. Even though the church was said to be "Christian", only a minority of the members actually were Christians. Most of the church members were of some other religion the day before, but were now calling themselves "Christians". The doctrines of these many religions were combined, resulting in a "church" whose doctrine was part Christian, part Jewish, and part Pagan. This was the origin of the Catholic Church.

As one might expect, a church that is a blend of multiple religions would not have doctrine consistant with the Bible, despite having a state mandated Christian label. Those who looked to the Bible for guidance quickly found that the church was not in line with the scriptures. To fix this problem, the clergy declared that only they could interpret the scriptures and that the church members should stop reading the Bible. The Bible became contraband and during the dark ages from about 500 AD to about 1500 AD, the public was not permitted to have access to the Bible. Only the clergy could look upon the Word of God.

They then dispensed only tiny morsels to the masses, often twisting the meaning for their own financial or political gain. By the time the reformation began, virtually all Biblical truth had been lost or distorted. Finally around 1500-1600 AD, the reformers began to get Bibles back into the hands of the common man. Right away, people began to protest against some of the Catholic doctrines and tried to reconstruct the proper church doctrines which had been lost more than one thousand years before.

Of course this was very difficult because they had been steeped in all manner of real heresies for centuries. Different groups had varying degrees of success, correcting some areas of doctrine while failing to correct others. Some false doctrines were changed into new, different false doctrines. Despite all the doctrinal corrections that the many denominations made, not one of the hundreds of denominations or sects ever made it back to the pure doctrine of the early church. Perhaps I should not use the word "pure", since we can see from Galatians 3 and 1 Corinthians 5 that errant doctrine was creeping into some local churches even at that early date. There is a quote that I have heard many times, and I am not sure who first said it: "The only problem with the protestants is that they did not protest enough." Therefore, we must be diligent in studying God's Word to know His true will, rather than relying upon any denomination to tell us.

Also, interesting trivia - In 336, before the emporer bacame a christian- Christmas was first celebrated on December 25th. This is the same date as the first-century BCE Roman holiday for the sun god Mithra.

Thought someone may find this interesting