Is the Book of Mormon legit?
- Thread starter laoshanlung
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Think what you want it really dosent bother me a bit in the world, but I'm non denominational I live for Christ and his love not for what one denomination or another believes.... An as of now I'm done replying to you, you seem more interested in just saying your right and trying to make me into something I'm not than you do actually debating the topic.
A Christian is a true follower of Christ and not a follower of a false religion or cult. First of all, to be a Christian, you must first know who Christ is. Biblically, He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9). He is the great "I AM" (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58). He is the Savior who was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), who died, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4), physically (John 2:19-21). He alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Only by the name of Jesus may a person be saved (Acts 4:12) and all who do not trust in Him alone for the forgiveness of their sins will be condemned (John 3:18). Jesus is both God and man (Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5; Phil. 2:5-8). He is our eternal intercessor (Heb. 7:25) who mediates our salvation to the Father (1 Tim. 2:5). To Him be the glory!
It is not merely some man who was wise (Secularism). He was not the product of sexual relations between a god and goddess from another world and did not evolve into becoming God (Mormonism). He is not a man in tune with the divine consciousness (Christian Science). He is not the first created thing in the universe (Jehovah's Witnesses). He is not the harmonious, really-neat-teacher (New Age). He is the creator of all things (Col. 1:16-17; Isaiah 44:24). He is Lord! (Romans 10:9).
John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. Salvation by works (as Mormonism teaches) is not the will of the Father. Mormonism is quite different than and is not compatible with Christianity, as you can see here. - https://carm.org/mormonism Mormonism is a cult. Dr Walter Martin made this quote - "Cults use Christian terminology, but redefine terms to suit their own belief and practices."
The Bible says that we can KNOW that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13) yet cults and false religions say that you can't know for sure because they believe salvation is based on works and you could never know for sure if you did enough works to merit salvation. Only genuine Christians trust exclusively in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation (Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; Ephesians 2:8,9).
Mormons spread a different Jesus and a different gospel. That is not truly spreading the word of God, even though words from the Bible are mixed in with unbiblical writings.
2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of Scripture--not tradition and not even His own divine power as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to Scripture. Should we do any less having seen His inspired and perfect example?
The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true Biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42, John 2:22, 1 Cor. 15:3-4, 1 Peter 1:10-12, 2:2, 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's Word for the test of truth.
Now show me where the Bible backs up the claim of Mormonism that many "plain and precious truths" have been removed from the Bible. Mormons make the claim the Bible was intentionally corrupted and major doctrines were removed. However, for the Mormon, what evidence is there that any "plain and precious truths" were removed? Where in any of the ancient manuscript copies of the Bible do we find the notion (1) that Jesus was the spirit brother of Satan, (2) God the Father was once a man who attained godhood, (3) God the Father was once possibly unholy and a sinner, (4) God the Father had a Father before Him, (5) humans are preexistent intelligences who can become gods of their own planet just like God the Father, (6) God the Father is just the God of this world, and there are other true gods for other people elsewhere to worship, (7) an ordained Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood authority.
There is virtually no textual evidence in any manuscript that supports the notion of any of these major doctrines of the Mormon Church. So for the Mormon to claim that these "plain and precious truths," whatever they are, were removed from the Bible, he bears the burden of proof.
It is not merely some man who was wise (Secularism). He was not the product of sexual relations between a god and goddess from another world and did not evolve into becoming God (Mormonism). He is not a man in tune with the divine consciousness (Christian Science). He is not the first created thing in the universe (Jehovah's Witnesses). He is not the harmonious, really-neat-teacher (New Age). He is the creator of all things (Col. 1:16-17; Isaiah 44:24). He is Lord! (Romans 10:9).
John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. Salvation by works (as Mormonism teaches) is not the will of the Father. Mormonism is quite different than and is not compatible with Christianity, as you can see here. - https://carm.org/mormonism Mormonism is a cult. Dr Walter Martin made this quote - "Cults use Christian terminology, but redefine terms to suit their own belief and practices."
The Bible says that we can KNOW that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13) yet cults and false religions say that you can't know for sure because they believe salvation is based on works and you could never know for sure if you did enough works to merit salvation. Only genuine Christians trust exclusively in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation (Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; Ephesians 2:8,9).
Mormons spread a different Jesus and a different gospel. That is not truly spreading the word of God, even though words from the Bible are mixed in with unbiblical writings.
2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of Scripture--not tradition and not even His own divine power as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to Scripture. Should we do any less having seen His inspired and perfect example?
The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true Biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42, John 2:22, 1 Cor. 15:3-4, 1 Peter 1:10-12, 2:2, 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's Word for the test of truth.
Now show me where the Bible backs up the claim of Mormonism that many "plain and precious truths" have been removed from the Bible. Mormons make the claim the Bible was intentionally corrupted and major doctrines were removed. However, for the Mormon, what evidence is there that any "plain and precious truths" were removed? Where in any of the ancient manuscript copies of the Bible do we find the notion (1) that Jesus was the spirit brother of Satan, (2) God the Father was once a man who attained godhood, (3) God the Father was once possibly unholy and a sinner, (4) God the Father had a Father before Him, (5) humans are preexistent intelligences who can become gods of their own planet just like God the Father, (6) God the Father is just the God of this world, and there are other true gods for other people elsewhere to worship, (7) an ordained Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood authority.
There is virtually no textual evidence in any manuscript that supports the notion of any of these major doctrines of the Mormon Church. So for the Mormon to claim that these "plain and precious truths," whatever they are, were removed from the Bible, he bears the burden of proof.
U
Why do mormon temples also have masonic symbols in them? To say they believe the same as most Christians is completely ludicrous. They have the inverted star, all seeing eye,
Don't believe me see this link...
Masonic Symbols and the LDS Temple
Don't believe me see this link...
Masonic Symbols and the LDS Temple
Amen! DNA vs. The Book of Mormon
The title and introduction pages of the Book of Mormon state, respectively, “the Lamanites ... are a remnant of the house of Israel” and “the Lamanites ... are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” This explains why the LDS Church leaders have always taught that the Israelites are the principal ancestors of Native American Indians. But, are they?
The consensus of the scientific community that northern Asia — not Israel — is the place of origin of the Native American Indians. DNA vs. The Book of Mormon examines and compares genetic evidence identifying the DNA fingerprints of the Jewish populations and American Indian populations, and presents the testimony of several DNA experts in seeking to answer the question, “Are Israelites the principal ancestors of Native American Indians?”
Testing of the Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA are especially useful in genealogy. This is because the Y-chromosome DNA is passed on only by the father, the mitochondria DNA is passed on only by the mother, and neither of these two types of DNA engages in recombination. Thousands of Native American Indians along the western coast of the Americas (from Alaska to South America) have undergone this type of DNA testing. The DNA evidence is conclusive: 99.4% of Native American Indian DNA originated in northern Asia, the remaining 0.6% originated in either Europe or Africa and is found only in samples traced to the post-1492 colonial era (after Columbus arrived in the New World).
So, what are the DNA experts saying?
In excess of a hundred and fifty tribes have been tested now, these are scattered all over north and central and South America, even to Greenland. And from that survey, in excess of five and a half thousand individuals have been involved and have been tested, from those five and a half thousand, 99.4% of Native Americans have a mitochondrial DNA lineage that originated in Asia. There can be no question: 99.4%. The other 0.6% have either a European or an African mitochondrial lineage. The very tiny minority of European and African lineages that they do find came after Columbus. Currently on the available evidence there’s nothing to suggest a [Native American Indian] relationship whatsoever with Israelites.
(Dr. Simon Southerton, Molecular Biologist)
http://www.csiro.au/people/Simon.Southerton.html
There is no compelling evidence for a connection between Jewish populations and Native American populations based on genetics. Probably the most fundamental and the most definitive evidence for that has been based on mitochondrial and Y-chromosome data. If you look at genes in Native Americans, they came from their ancestors. They had to come from their ancestral populations, and those ancestors lived somewhere. You can look for those genes in Jewish populations, but you don’t find them. If you look at genes that are most commonly found in Native American populations and those that are most commonly found in Jewish populations, they don’t coincide at all.
(Dr. David Glenn Smith, Molecular Anthropologist, University of California-Davis)
Curriculum Vitae: http://www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/~dgsmith/dgs.html
I’ve been involved in a number of research projects that had examined DNA variations in ancient populations in the Americas. ... I don’t know of any data that suggests particular similarity of Native American populations to any population of the Middle East.
(Dr. Dennis O’Rourke, Molecular Anthropologist, University of Utah) http://www.anthro.utah.edu/people/faculty/dennis-h.-orourke.html)
I’ve been working as an anthropologist either as a graduate student or professional since the early 1980s. I personally have never seen any evidence of Hebrew origin of Native Americans. I don’t know of any of my colleagues in mainstream anthropology who are trying to prove a Hebrew origin for Native Americans.
(Dr. Stephen L. Whittington, Biological Anthropologist, University of Maine) http://www.umaine.edu/hudsonmuseum/imgexh/pages/imgcurator.html
All DNA testing of pre-1492 skeletal remains (i.e., ancient; before Columbus arrived in the New World) indicates only a northern Asia origin.
First we identify pre-historic populations where skeletal material has been discovered. We take fairly small skeletal samples, usually a fragment of a rib, and it’s a simple chemical process to release the nucleic acids, or the DNA, that is contained within that bony matrix. ... Well there was clearly substantial admixture between European colonists and many Native American populations at the time of initial European contact, and subsequently. All of our ancient samples predate that contact, so there’s no evidence of admixture in our ancient samples.
(Dr. Dennis O’Rourke, Molecular Anthropologist, University of Utah)
What we find on ancient human remains from the new world is DNA that is related to DNA in populations in north Asia.
(Dr. Stephen L. Whittington, Biological Anthropologist, University of Maine)
Although Hebrew DNA has been found in a number of specific people groups from other parts of the world, no Hebrew DNA has ever been found in the DNA of Native American Indians.
Thomas Murphy, (anthropologist, Mormon scholar, and DNA researcher), acknowledges the problem that the DNA evidence presents for the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. “We [i.e., Mormons] are in a dilemma now, the genetic evidence shows clearly that American Indians are not Hebrews, they are not Israelites. The Book of Mormon is not true.”
The title and introduction pages of the Book of Mormon state, respectively, “the Lamanites ... are a remnant of the house of Israel” and “the Lamanites ... are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” This explains why the LDS Church leaders have always taught that the Israelites are the principal ancestors of Native American Indians. But, are they?
The consensus of the scientific community that northern Asia — not Israel — is the place of origin of the Native American Indians. DNA vs. The Book of Mormon examines and compares genetic evidence identifying the DNA fingerprints of the Jewish populations and American Indian populations, and presents the testimony of several DNA experts in seeking to answer the question, “Are Israelites the principal ancestors of Native American Indians?”
Testing of the Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA are especially useful in genealogy. This is because the Y-chromosome DNA is passed on only by the father, the mitochondria DNA is passed on only by the mother, and neither of these two types of DNA engages in recombination. Thousands of Native American Indians along the western coast of the Americas (from Alaska to South America) have undergone this type of DNA testing. The DNA evidence is conclusive: 99.4% of Native American Indian DNA originated in northern Asia, the remaining 0.6% originated in either Europe or Africa and is found only in samples traced to the post-1492 colonial era (after Columbus arrived in the New World).
So, what are the DNA experts saying?
In excess of a hundred and fifty tribes have been tested now, these are scattered all over north and central and South America, even to Greenland. And from that survey, in excess of five and a half thousand individuals have been involved and have been tested, from those five and a half thousand, 99.4% of Native Americans have a mitochondrial DNA lineage that originated in Asia. There can be no question: 99.4%. The other 0.6% have either a European or an African mitochondrial lineage. The very tiny minority of European and African lineages that they do find came after Columbus. Currently on the available evidence there’s nothing to suggest a [Native American Indian] relationship whatsoever with Israelites.
(Dr. Simon Southerton, Molecular Biologist)
http://www.csiro.au/people/Simon.Southerton.html
There is no compelling evidence for a connection between Jewish populations and Native American populations based on genetics. Probably the most fundamental and the most definitive evidence for that has been based on mitochondrial and Y-chromosome data. If you look at genes in Native Americans, they came from their ancestors. They had to come from their ancestral populations, and those ancestors lived somewhere. You can look for those genes in Jewish populations, but you don’t find them. If you look at genes that are most commonly found in Native American populations and those that are most commonly found in Jewish populations, they don’t coincide at all.
(Dr. David Glenn Smith, Molecular Anthropologist, University of California-Davis)
Curriculum Vitae: http://www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/~dgsmith/dgs.html
I’ve been involved in a number of research projects that had examined DNA variations in ancient populations in the Americas. ... I don’t know of any data that suggests particular similarity of Native American populations to any population of the Middle East.
(Dr. Dennis O’Rourke, Molecular Anthropologist, University of Utah) http://www.anthro.utah.edu/people/faculty/dennis-h.-orourke.html)
I’ve been working as an anthropologist either as a graduate student or professional since the early 1980s. I personally have never seen any evidence of Hebrew origin of Native Americans. I don’t know of any of my colleagues in mainstream anthropology who are trying to prove a Hebrew origin for Native Americans.
(Dr. Stephen L. Whittington, Biological Anthropologist, University of Maine) http://www.umaine.edu/hudsonmuseum/imgexh/pages/imgcurator.html
All DNA testing of pre-1492 skeletal remains (i.e., ancient; before Columbus arrived in the New World) indicates only a northern Asia origin.
First we identify pre-historic populations where skeletal material has been discovered. We take fairly small skeletal samples, usually a fragment of a rib, and it’s a simple chemical process to release the nucleic acids, or the DNA, that is contained within that bony matrix. ... Well there was clearly substantial admixture between European colonists and many Native American populations at the time of initial European contact, and subsequently. All of our ancient samples predate that contact, so there’s no evidence of admixture in our ancient samples.
(Dr. Dennis O’Rourke, Molecular Anthropologist, University of Utah)
What we find on ancient human remains from the new world is DNA that is related to DNA in populations in north Asia.
(Dr. Stephen L. Whittington, Biological Anthropologist, University of Maine)
Although Hebrew DNA has been found in a number of specific people groups from other parts of the world, no Hebrew DNA has ever been found in the DNA of Native American Indians.
Thomas Murphy, (anthropologist, Mormon scholar, and DNA researcher), acknowledges the problem that the DNA evidence presents for the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. “We [i.e., Mormons] are in a dilemma now, the genetic evidence shows clearly that American Indians are not Hebrews, they are not Israelites. The Book of Mormon is not true.”
As far as the major doctrines of the Mormon Church you talked about, there are no Mormons I know that believe any of that so maybe the wikepedia article about them is a little biased or maybe some of the bigger Mormon churches talk about that stuff so that's what people think there all like. We see stuff like that in other christian churches people watch your big reach TV pastors and think what they say is a representation of all Christian beliefs but as we should all be aware the ideas of the most extreme of a group does not reflect the whole group.... And as far as your masonic symbols so what. My grandfather and old baptist preacher an one of the most christian people I know was a free mason you know what they did held fund raisers for people in need had food banks and feed the homeless etc etc....... Just because some conspiracy therosit believe free masons are some illuminati like thing that perform demonic rituals and are a evil cult means nothing again some people who call themselves masons may be into some weird stuff but that's not a reflection on the organization as a whole.
U
He may be a lower level initiate, the boys at the top (higher degrees) only water it down for low level masons, telling them they will be enlightened, but the guys at the top 33* are hardcore satanists.....you can't be a Christian and a mason, they are fundamentally opposites in so many ways....i mean their motto...order out of chaos.....hmmm ....doesn't sound too Christian......
Last edited:
Order out of choas is the motto of a sect of the masons but not the motto for all masons in fact generally each lodge will pick there own motto... Are there some higher up masons who are Satan worshipers idk maybe but even if there are that's dosent make the whole organization bad.... Some of the people on here are the worst about you can't be this an be a Christian you can't believe that an be a christian y'all really don't understand the essence of what being a Christian really is.
K
The Bible says....
Matt 5 -Again you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let you statement be ‘Yes, yes’, or ‘No, no’: and anything beyond these is of evil.
James 5-But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no, no; so that you may not fall under judgment.
Lev 5-Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these.
So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.
He shall also bring his guilt offering to the Lord for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin. (Leviticus 5:4-6)
Here are the oaths the Masons take at various degrees...
To all of which I do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, without any hesitation, mental reservation, or secret evasion of mind in me whatsoever; binding myself under no less a penalty than that of having….
Entered Apprentice Degree: "..my throat cut across, my tongue torn out, and with my body buried in the sands of the sea at low-water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly or willfully violate this, my solemn Obligation of an Entered Apprentice."
Fellow Craft Degree: "..my left breast torn open, my heart and vitals taken thence, and with my body given as a prey to the vultures of the air, should I ever knowingly, or willfully, violate this, my solemn Obligation of a Fellow Craft.";
Master Mason Degree: "..my body severed in twain, my bowels taken thence, and with my body burned to ashes, and the ashes thereof scattered to the four winds of Heaven, that there might remain neither track, trace nor remembrance among man or Masons of so vile and perjured a wretch as I should be, should I ever knowingly or willfully violate this, my solemn Obligation of a Master Mason."
And the ending for each of these obligations is:
And the ending for each of these obligations is:
"So help me, God, and make me steadfast to keep and perform the same."
The head of the lodge is called "worshipful master" the Bible tells us to worship only God. I'm not saying your grandfather wasn't a Christian but apparently he didn't understand what he was taking part in. The essence of being a Christian is to read Gods Word and do what He tells us to do. No Christian should ever be a part of the Masons. The Bible is very clear about that.
The head of the lodge is called "worshipful master" the Bible tells us to worship only God. I'm not saying your grandfather wasn't a Christian but apparently he didn't understand what he was taking part in. The essence of being a Christian is to read Gods Word and do what He tells us to do. No Christian should ever be a part of the Masons. The Bible is very clear about that.
I have to swear an oath to be in law enforcement, to up hold the law protect the innocent all that good stuff. So are all cops bad or part of a cult because they swear an oath...... As far as the book you are talking about I've never read it but again one book does not reflect on the whole organization and I'm not defending masonary just as o wasn't defending mormonism I'm defending the good christian people who may belong to those organizations.
U
If you have time read the book although it is written by Albert Pike a33rdmason and is their masonic handbook so to speak....also check this video out...Doc Marquis is excellent to learn about the true roots of freemasonry.....the book (morals and dogmas) is very dull but I think you should definately watch this video...you may be shocked but you'll learn about them....
[video=youtube;p61twatsCL8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p61twatsCL8[/video]
[video=youtube;p61twatsCL8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p61twatsCL8[/video]
H
Being a nice "good" Mormon doesn't mean the doctrine isn't false. There are "nice" folks from all walks of life, but the ONLY way to the Father is through Jesus.
Mormonism is absolutely, unequivocally, 100% a cult. So is scientology. So was heaven's gate. So was people's temple. Being a nice person doesn't mean anything.
Mormonism is absolutely, unequivocally, 100% a cult. So is scientology. So was heaven's gate. So was people's temple. Being a nice person doesn't mean anything.
E
Do you take Mormonism to be a denomination of Christianity, or another religion altogether?
Also, yes, unbelievers can be saved if they accept Jesus, or course. All I'm saying is, if Mormons are not actual believers in the Gospel as the Spirit proclaimed it, then whether or not they are nice or even respect Jesus won't save them a dime if they don't accept the Gospel on God's terms rather than on their own. People must come to God on His terms to be saved, not their own. If we made the rules for God then yes, Mormonism could be considered very loosely to be Christianity. As it stands, it is still another Gospel and therefore is not God's Christianity, but a man-made spin-off. Why respect second rate when you've already got the best?
Also, yes, unbelievers can be saved if they accept Jesus, or course. All I'm saying is, if Mormons are not actual believers in the Gospel as the Spirit proclaimed it, then whether or not they are nice or even respect Jesus won't save them a dime if they don't accept the Gospel on God's terms rather than on their own. People must come to God on His terms to be saved, not their own. If we made the rules for God then yes, Mormonism could be considered very loosely to be Christianity. As it stands, it is still another Gospel and therefore is not God's Christianity, but a man-made spin-off. Why respect second rate when you've already got the best?
E
People must come to God on His terms to be saved, not human terms. If we made the rules for God then yes, Mormonism could be considered very loosely to be Christianity. As it stands, though, it is still another Gospel and therefore is not God's Christianity, but a man-made hybrid of Gospel truth and heresy. Essentially spin-off, by even the most respectful terminology.
According to the practice of Sociology, a Cult is defined as any new religious movement which incorporates elements of older religions into it's framework as a means to support it's new ideals. According to the same general data, a Cult will oftentimes attempt to incorporate itself as part of the larger organized religion on which it is based in order to lose the stigma of being "Cultish" and to gain new members from said religion. In that manner, Mormonism and Islam are not actually that different, since Islam does the same thing by asserting that they worship the same God and respect the same Jesus as Christians. However, ancient studies reveal that Allah (Islamic God) is really just an ancient Moon deity and idol who was a favorite of Muhammad family before his supposed revelation. By definition, Mormonism (while at the same time presenting a heretical gospel) would fall under that same umbrella by proclaiming a secondary Jesus (i.e. Joseph Smith - many Mormon hymns cite him as a Savior of Souls). By both the standards of God and Science, therefore, Mormonism would qualify as a Cult.
According to the practice of Sociology, a Cult is defined as any new religious movement which incorporates elements of older religions into it's framework as a means to support it's new ideals. According to the same general data, a Cult will oftentimes attempt to incorporate itself as part of the larger organized religion on which it is based in order to lose the stigma of being "Cultish" and to gain new members from said religion. In that manner, Mormonism and Islam are not actually that different, since Islam does the same thing by asserting that they worship the same God and respect the same Jesus as Christians. However, ancient studies reveal that Allah (Islamic God) is really just an ancient Moon deity and idol who was a favorite of Muhammad family before his supposed revelation. By definition, Mormonism (while at the same time presenting a heretical gospel) would fall under that same umbrella by proclaiming a secondary Jesus (i.e. Joseph Smith - many Mormon hymns cite him as a Savior of Souls). By both the standards of God and Science, therefore, Mormonism would qualify as a Cult.