|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Where in the 10 commandments is wives following their husbands? Do not commit adultery is in there, but that's the only one concerning marriage. (Well, maybe Do not covet...)
The NT teachings of Paul about female subservience are not spun out of thin air. They are founded on the existing culture, which was predominantly Jewish. Any reading of the OT shows women taking the secondary role to men, starting with Mother Eve.
You said that the secondary role of women were in the OT including the 10 Commandments. I was asking where in the 10 Commandments you were reading that. Paul did not write the 10 Commandments, but was interpreting the OT for the Early Christians. And he didn't mention the 10 Commandments at all, as far as I know...
My reference to the 10 Commandments was to show that the "Law" was still in force: Christ did not dump it, he fulfilled it. Therefore, the cultural subservience of women was not changing. I didn't mean to claim that there is something mentioned about THAT in the 10 Commandments.
quote:
I'm not deciding anything. The RCC claims to be the original back to Peter. Other denominations take exception, of course. But Ross's denomination, and all Protestants, derive from the RCC. Therefore, they cannot be correct in their definition of who or what is "Christian", if the RCC is wrong: it was the RCC which gave us the Nicean Creed, etc.
I read somewhere, that the English church actually can show an apostolic succession independent of the Roman one, ergo, they do have a "legit" claim to independence which they have argued from since Henry VIII.
quote:
The RCC did not "give" us the Nicene Creed. The Early Church, before the split between East and West, did. The Ecumenical council of the church wrote the creed in order to define what was Christian and what was not.
Of course this is true, and I have been corrected by Doc Frog. The RCC, et al the other denominations, gave us the Creed; since, as you say, there had not been a split yet with the other patriarchies. It doesn't change what I meant to say, however: that early Christianity split along doctrinal differences, and that means that since then they have upheld different reasons for remaining separated. Which has included mutual excommunications and claims that the "other" is "antiChrist", etc. AntiChrist cannot be Christian.
I am aware, that the Anglican church considered itself "Catholic" in every particular, except following the Roman pope. But its subsequent behavior was clearly Protestant, and the 17th century saw Protestant influences to the CofE which changed its original character as "the Catholic Church in England." Papists completely lost control of the CofE in the process, and have remained ever since, RCC. I think the distinction between the Anglicans and other Protestants is a very fine line that probably only they recognize.
quote:
The Mormon temple endowment includes a "play" enacting the creation of the world, the planning before the world came to be, the relationship of the first man to God, the classic battle between good and evil in the beginning. The early prayer circle is replicated in the Mormon temple. Some of the sources showing this stuff existed at the time of early Christianity, and before are given and expounded upon in the works of Hugh Nibley: especially the FARMS collection of his works, in the two volumes entitled "Mormonism and Early Christianity", and, "Temple and Cosmos." Nibley covers the connections to and origins of such things as: the temple drama, the creation motif, the combat, the archaic background, work for the dead, the ancient significance of the veil, the early Christian prayer circle, and temple vestments, etc.
quote:
Considering how many sects claim that they know what happened in the Christian church at its founding, I would need someone other than a Mormon theologian to back up that claim. Just like I would need someone other than a Baptist theologian to back up that they come directly from the Early Christian church...
Well, Nibley's particular talent was researching the original documents mainly through the previous copious studies of the eminent doctors of theology in the 19th century: dudes that I have never personally read, but Nibley's quoting of them and referencing their work clearly shows that he is not simply some "Mormon theologian." You would need to check out those books yourself, in order to be able to tell if you can agree on Nibley's use of the original sources and the non Mormon scholars that he cites. He is, of course, a Mormon apologist. But I accept that most of his work doesn't need any apologetics itself: he was an honest man pursuing the truth.
quote:
I referenced the Cathars simply to show that "oddball" doctrines are capable of arising at any time, based on perceived legitimacy from the writings/traditions of early Christianity.
quote:
Yep. And I'm afraid that you will have to prove, just like any other sect, that you haven't made stuff up either.
You know, that was Hugh Nibley's life-long work: to prove exactly that.
[ 29. May 2007, 22:28: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Looks to me, like Judeo-Christianity should be insisting that wives not following their husbands is rank rebellion and apostasy.
Nope. You're mistaken: it's not in the Big 10.
quote:
A few things. Right. Like voting before American women could. ...
As ordered by their husbands.
quote:
Sorry. I got too oblique it seems. When you make such dogmatic claims prohibiting Mormons from being recognized as ANY sort of Christian, I make references to the earlier denominations of Christianity which have never been part of the RCC. I never heard you say that they are not Christians, which seems like a double standard to me. And you are saying that they ARE Christians. I want to know why. ...
What does the RCC have to do with anything? I'm not a Roman Catholic, and Orthodoxy is really the "original." Besides, they all subscribe to the Creeds. No double standard here.
quote:
...But that's the whole original schtick with Protestant sects: they originally broke away because the RCC was the antiChrist....
Nope. Please read some Church history.
quote:
Some. A lot of people I know say I know a lot. I don't think I know that much.
Nor do I think you know very much about it, I'm afraid.
quote:
...It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. ...
You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't stand up to the facts of history or the present day -- as I've already demonstrated. And Christians, of course, do not believe that there's ANYTHING that can place us "beyond the atoning blood of Christ."
quote:
And just what in heck is "a Classical world view", if not PAGAN? If Paul sums up with "so also is the resurrection of the dead", etc. He is NOT talking about an incorrect "classical world view."
I suggest you look it up: it's a view of how the universe is structured, not of gods. And Paul is using it as an example, not as a theology.
quote:
To what purpose? So that you can side-step the evidence that early Christianity is a lot like your denigrating view of Mormonism?
I'm sorry, but your statement makes no sense.
quote:
Enough to know that Mormonism a lot more LIKE than different from "it." Mormonism resembles early Christianity in ways that "orthodoxy" has drifted far from.
No, that's the Mormon organization attempting to rewrite history in order to mislead people. Mormonism is nothing like early Christianity -- or late Christianity, for that matter. We never did have murderers acting under orders from "prophets" (and Christians don't believe in "latter-day prophets"), either.
quote:
Similar rites to those of the Mormon temple, prayer circles, etc., are shown in the various apocryphal writings of the early Christian period. Polygamy would not have been admitted openly.
Polygamy was never practiced in orthodox Christian circles. That's just absurd. So is the rest of this fiction about "temple rites;" Masonry hadn't been invented then. You really need to show a legitimate, non-Mormon source for these outlandish statements -- but I very much doubt you'll find one.
quote:
...We can drop this.
Thank you.
quote:
You don't get it?...
No -- you don't. Please reread my post.
quote:
I don't hate it when you bring up history. I take exception to your bringing up what I know to be enemy-originated "history." ...Why do so many people (I was there, once) think that their "brand" is the ONE that God loves most?
You have not been able to disprove a single point that I have made about Mormon history; your best response is to tell me to "get with the modern program." People who publish the truth are not "enemies" of God.
And I've never claimed that God "loves (Christianity) most," although my testimony to you is that Jesus Christ is Lord, and the Book of Mormon is the work of a corrupt and foolish man. My theme throughout this discussion has simply been that Mormonism is not Christian. Period.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The NT teachings of Paul about female subservience are not spun out of thin air.
As already demonstrated, they are almost certainly interpolations into the original Pauline texts, or by later pseudo-Pauline authors. You want authentic Paul? Galatians 3:28 says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
quote:
...Some of the sources showing this stuff existed at the time of early Christianity, and before are given and expounded upon in the works of Hugh Nibley...
I'm afraid that Hugh Nibley is a notorious liar. Here's just one citation; search the site for more evidence of Nibley's attempts to rewrite history.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Merlin, I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the Anglican church...
I'm a member of the TEC. A part of the Anglican communion that may (or may not) be thrown out in the next, er, year? (It all depends upon one's point of view)
I am not claiming and have never claimed to belong to the "correct" Christian church. I do believe that I belong to the sect that meets my spiritual needs. (My mother often comments that no other church would have me. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) I believe that there are many many sects that are well and truly Christian. They just aren't for me.
I believe that the sect I currently belong to is doing the best that it can to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. I don't believe that we do things exactly the way that the Early Christians did. And I'm not sure that would be the best way today.
What is good for one may not be good for all.
From what I can find on Nibley from what I would take as unbiased sources (of which I have found very few), it seems that he reads into "source" material what he wants to see. And when someone starts quoting the Gnostics as true Christians, I get very concerned.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I would also have some serious concerns about anyone who claims to research the early church through the studies of 19th century scholars. I mean, really. It's not that hard to learn Greek and Latin. I did it! Go to the original sources.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Merlin, I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the Anglican church
Because I know Ross is Anglican, and I am just trying to *slap* some sense into her (futile though it has been), by making comparisons between her persuasion and Mormonism. They are not that different: both dogmatic, with hardline views on what is and isn't bonafide Christianity. Members and leaders of both view the other askance.
.... quote:
I don't believe that we do things exactly the way that the Early Christians did. And I'm not sure that would be the best way today.
What is good for one may not be good for all.
This is a good attitude. I agree completely. One's choice of religious association is made according to personal needs. If it isn't, then we are bowing to family or social pressure, which is never a good thing.
quote:
From what I can find on Nibley from what I would take as unbiased sources (of which I have found very few), it seems that he reads into "source" material what he wants to see. And when someone starts quoting the Gnostics as true Christians, I get very concerned.
That's just it: Nibley was interested in reading anything he could get his teeth into. There is evidence in the Gnostic writings; and he pulled it out. Anyone looking for evidence is already looking to make a case. If the sources can make it, then good enough. Another will look at the very same material and come up with their case too. Thus, Ross sees that Nibley is a "notorious liar." (And Christ was a madman, in league with Satan, or was Beelzebub himself. Joseph Smith was a simple con artist; wave your hand, and it all goes away. End of discussion.)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um, Rossweisse is in the United States. Therefore NOT Anglican, if I understand correctly.
Now, if we can drag your attention away from Ross for just a moment...
"Anyone looking for evidence is already seeking to make a case."
If you mean by that,
"Anyone looking for evidence has already made up his mind, and is only looking for ways to shore up that preconceived notion,"
then I'm wasting my time here. (Y'all in the peanut gallery: I KNOW. I've just got a little free time on my hands, K?) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chicklegirl
Shipmate
# 11741
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um, Rossweisse is in the United States. Therefore NOT Anglican, if I understand correctly.
I’ve been sitting on my hands for the last few minutes in a futile attempt to stifle the urge to type something semi-snarky. But the small irony here is too delicious to pass by unremarked.
According to Ross’s profile, she is a “hardcore Anglican”.
So unless being Anglican is another one of those situations (like claiming to be Christian) in which one is not allowed to self-identify unless one lives in the “correct” country or believes in the “correct” Jesus, you may have to admit that Merlin is actually… correct. At least, about which church Ross belongs to...
--------------------
If you want to be happy, be.
~ Henry David Thoreau
Posts: 916 | From: Sixth Circle of Hell | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
(Says Lamb Chopped, mildly):
I've no problem with admitting I was wrong. Or that Merlin was right, for that matter. As I mentioned, I'm a Lutheran, and I don't know the ins and outs of the Anglican communion. So I'll chalk that up as something else learned today.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chicklegirl
Shipmate
# 11741
|
Posted
LC, you are truly lamb-like in your mildness. And I didn't mean that in a personal way; I just found it all rather amusing.
--------------------
If you want to be happy, be.
~ Henry David Thoreau
Posts: 916 | From: Sixth Circle of Hell | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
<anglican tangent>
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Merlin, I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the Anglican church
... They are not that different: both dogmatic, with hardline views on what is and isn't bonafide Christianity. Members and leaders of both view the other askance.
Based on what I have read on the Ship, the few Anglicans who have expressed hardline views on what is/isn't Christianity are mostly Anglicans in a particular diocese in a particular country. (That should be enough hints.) So I don't think that's a fair observation the Anglican church or its members as a whole (although this thread might lead one to think otherwise). OliviaG (not Anglican, as if it needed to be said)
</anglicans>
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Thanks. I've always wondered, in fact, what the differences were between Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc. etc. If it's anything like as complicated as the Lutheran situation, it'll take practically being born into it to comprehend!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Thanks. I've always wondered, in fact, what the differences were between Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc. etc. If it's anything like as complicated as the Lutheran situation, it'll take practically being born into it to comprehend!
The same is oh-so-true of Mormonism as well. That is perhaps the foundation of my annoyance with Ross's, et al. attitude toward Mormons, vis-a-vis "they are not Christians." She bases her decision on a brief brush with Mormon missionaries (and demonstrably ignorant ones at that), and a couple of prejudiced readings of the Book of Mormon ("soporific", I believe she called it: while accurate in a way, it is obvious she was not reading to learn about the book, but to confirm a judgment she already had about it), and continued "study" into why the religion is not going to pass muster as "Christian." She thinks of herself as expert enough in Mormonism to make these judgments from the outside.
In my life-long experience, I have not met even ONE person who studied the Mormon church who knew what they were talking about when they make critical observations about it. Because they are always judging what they see from the perspective of an outsider, with preconceptions and prejudices. It is inescapable.
Now that I am no longer "in" the church, that is to say, a believing member, I can view its doctrines, scripture, dogmatic claims to exclusive priesthood authority and revelation, and history, with complete neutrality. I take ALL religions as pieces of the same puzzle: none of them holding a candle over another. And that makes my view more trustworthy from the getgo than that of any apologist or critic of the church. I am very well informed about the church: both as a life-long member of it, and a student of it. But I have no axe to grind, and no motivation to justify the unjustifiable.
I will be the last person to say anything about living as a CofE member, or any other Christian denomination: because, in spite of any study I do, I have never lived within the culture and society of said-denomination. It takes that kind of intimacy, in order to be able to judge the attributes of religion.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Me: In my life-long experience, I have not met even ONE person who studied the Mormon church who knew what they were talking about when they make critical observations about it.
I mean, of course, no non Mormon who studies the church.
"Insiders" who are critical, as yours truly, can and do make accurate observations about the church. In the case of [url= http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insider's2.htm]Grant H. Palmer[/url] , you have a church educator who published his views on the origins of Mormonism in the most pragmatic and lucid manner. I can't think of a single item of origin history that he covered that I disagree with.
[ 30. May 2007, 21:09: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
That link is bad: because, apparently, you cannot link from the Ship to URL's with apostrophes in them!? So, copy and paste the URL, apostrophe and all, and you should be able to get to the page about Palmer and his book on "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ugh! Merlin, you're not making sense again. You HAVE passed judgement on Anglicans, you've made dogmatic (and wrong) statements about any number of Christian groups, and you've blithely ignored any number of uncomfortable questions. Such as mine, about why a supposedly notable scholar doesn't bother to access original sources in their original languages, and instead prefers to use bits and pieces filtered through 19th century theologians. Any grad student in my denom would fail for such a lazy practice. Surely you're not telling me LDS standards are lower?
And to repeat again: I AM NOT ROSS. SHE IS NOT HERE. I AM.
Like, can we talk?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ugh! Merlin, you're not making sense again. You HAVE passed judgement on Anglicans, you've made dogmatic (and wrong) statements about any number of Christian groups, and you've blithely ignored any number of uncomfortable questions. Such as mine, about why a supposedly notable scholar doesn't bother to access original sources in their original languages, and instead prefers to use bits and pieces filtered through 19th century theologians. Any grad student in my denom would fail for such a lazy practice. Surely you're not telling me LDS standards are lower?
And to repeat again: I AM NOT ROSS. SHE IS NOT HERE. I AM.
Like, can we talk?
What judgment have I passed on Anglicans? I have said that their history isn't anything superior to Mormonism's, in terms of "sanctity" or for making a claim of legitimacy from. Both are palpably manmade institutions out to protect themselves from detractors.
What wrong statements (judgments) of other Christian groups? The most you can call me on is being too simplistic in my phraseology: e.g. saying the RCC gave us the Nicaean Creed (true enough, but not the whole truth: sufficient, I thought, for making the point, but obviously not, to judge by the reaction).
Nibley, as I said, knew the languages. His writing was for the common church audience. His peer reviewed stuff is different than the Mormon consumption stuff. You make it sound like Nibley was some quack masquerading as a bonafide scholar. That isn't true. He had a specific audience and wrote for it. And his purpose was to show from the ancient writers and archeology, that Mormon origins extend to the other "dispensations" that God has revealed his gospel to men: i.e. Mormonism is the revealed religion it claims to be. He demonstrated that; by going into the ancient evidence and finding the bits and pieces which survive that are the same or very similar to Mormon doctrines and ordinances.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Two of the big anti-Mormon themes here are the Mormon's denial of their nasty violent history and the subjugation of women which makes them non-Christian, these views coming from Christians with some of the bloodiest history of Christian persecution against those holding different doctrines and the still in its infancy women priesthood after 1900 years or so denying their capacity for this role because subservient to the male.
Do the posters here holding these particular anti-"Mormon are Christians" views also admit they are thus not Christians from their origins?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Two of the big anti-Mormon themes here are the Mormon's denial of their nasty violent history and the subjugation of women which makes them non-Christian, these views coming from Christians with some of the bloodiest history of Christian persecution against those holding different doctrines and the still in its infancy women priesthood after 1900 years or so denying their capacity for this role because subservient to the male.
Do the posters here holding these particular anti-"Mormon are Christians" views also admit they are thus not Christians from their origins?
Myrrh
Personally?
I don't care if they do odd things in their temple.
I don't care if woman aren't "equal" as I understand equality.
Yes, Christian history is violent in the extreme. We haven't always been what we should be, and I doubt we are what we should be now.
BUT...
When you add a whole book to the Bible, when I hold that the Bible to contain everything that is needed for salvation, and you don't seem to worship the same Triune God, then I think that you are a whole other religion entirely.
And, FYI, that also means that when the Eastern Orthodox church claim that the western Church isn't Christian, I can see their point. They don't hold that we exactly worship the same God due to the change in the Creed. Not that I agree with that POV, but it is legitimate.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Personally?
I don't care if they do odd things in their temple.
I don't care if woman aren't "equal" as I understand equality.
Yes, Christian history is violent in the extreme. We haven't always been what we should be, and I doubt we are what we should be now.
BUT...
When you add a whole book to the Bible, when I hold that the Bible to contain everything that is needed for salvation, and you don't seem to worship the same Triune God, then I think that you are a whole other religion entirely.
And, FYI, that also means that when the Eastern Orthodox church claim that the western Church isn't Christian, I can see their point. They don't hold that we exactly worship the same God due to the change in the Creed. Not that I agree with that POV, but it is legitimate.
Well sure, but in that case are you saying it's perfectly legitimate for the Orthodox to say that everyone not Orthodox is not a Christian which is the OP here.
So which Bible? For example most Protestant Christians have a Bible minus books that are still included in the RCC and Orthodox books, and didn't Luther want to get rid of James because of the "faith without works is dead"?
Seems to me you're adding another definition of what it is to be Christian that the Mormons need to prove that can't be said of you.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Personally?
I don't care if they do odd things in their temple.
I don't care if woman aren't "equal" as I understand equality.
Yes, Christian history is violent in the extreme. We haven't always been what we should be, and I doubt we are what we should be now.
BUT...
When you add a whole book to the Bible, when I hold that the Bible to contain everything that is needed for salvation, and you don't seem to worship the same Triune God, then I think that you are a whole other religion entirely.
And, FYI, that also means that when the Eastern Orthodox church claim that the western Church isn't Christian, I can see their point. They don't hold that we exactly worship the same God due to the change in the Creed. Not that I agree with that POV, but it is legitimate.
Well sure, but in that case are you saying it's perfectly legitimate for the Orthodox to say that everyone not Orthodox is not a Christian which is the OP here.
I would not have a problem with the Mormons saying that I am not a proper Christian. But that is not what is being said there. What they are claiming is that they are the same as us. Which just isn't the case as far as I can see.
quote:
So which Bible? For example most Protestant Christians have a Bible minus books that are still included in the RCC and Orthodox books, and didn't Luther want to get rid of James because of the "faith without works is dead"?
Seems to me you're adding another definition of what it is to be Christian that the Mormons need to prove that can't be said of you.
Myrrh
Admittedly, there are many "Bibles" in existance. I tend to believe in the NT (as there isn't much arguement there), and the OT as complied by the Jewish authorities.
If the BOM was accepted by the Jews as a legitamte scripture, then it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not.
And I'm not sure what added definition of Christianity that you are saying that I'm adding. That's my standard for ANY sect or church.
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
....BUT...
When you add a whole book to the Bible, when I hold that the Bible to contain everything that is needed for salvation, and you don't seem to worship the same Triune God, then I think that you are a whole other religion entirely.
When people justify their prejudice by saying such things as, "Words have meanings; you're not allowed to change the meanings of words to suit yourself," then they are simply showing that they are prejudiced. The reason why many words in the dictionary have multiple meanings and applications, is precisely because words change in how they are used.
"Christian" can only mean someone who believes in Jesus Christ. "Believes" means different levels of assumed belief: a Muslim believes Jesus of Nazareth lived and was a great prophet, second only to Muhammed: they even believe in the miraculous virgin birth! But, they are NOT "Christians", because they deny that Jesus of Nazareth was "the Christ": and they absolutely refuse to allow the "Son of God" appelation which Jesus Christ applied repeatedly to himself. Muslims claim that all such "Christian" stuff was added on by Jesus's later followers, i.e. they claim the NT is corrupt. They also claim a more truthful, albeit later, understanding of Jesus of Nazareth based on said-later sources.
Mormonism can be judged by a similar yardstick. All of its added scipture is blatantly biblical targumizing, with claims of modern-day revelations of previous doctrines and ordinances. In short, Mormons claim to have access to "the full monty" direct from God. In this respect, they are exactly like Muslims with their later "authority" to know the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
The significant difference is, Mormons accept that Jesus IS the Christ. They claim fresh revelation from Christ directly to a prophet. They claim exactly what Christendom as a whole claims: that without the atoning blood of Christ, all creation would be lost forever: but with the atoning blood of Christ, God saves his people. This is the core belief that defines a Christian.
So your (repeated) claim, that Mormonism is "...whole other religion entirely" is utterly bogus. It can't be entirely non, or un, or anti Christian, because it follows the Bible (a Prot one anyway), professes Christ as Savior, and targumizes the daylights out of the Bible. "Different", yes, but still Christian.
quote:
And, FYI, that also means that when the Eastern Orthodox church claim that the western Church isn't Christian, I can see their point. They don't hold that we exactly worship the same God due to the change in the Creed. Not that I agree with that POV, but it is legitimate.
"Legitimate" division. Gotta love that one. That will get us far. How about, there is no such thing legitimate about any outsider judging the beliefs and faith of another religion? Mind your own business. And as long as another religion isn't miding yours, then everyone can travel together comfortably enough on the same Ship.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Merlin, you can say you are a Christian all you want.
It doesn't bother me.
But, if you want my opinion, then Mormons, in general, aren't.
I'm sorry that annoys you.
It annoys me that there are people that I truly believe are Christians, who think that I am some kind of witch.
But I don't rant and rail over it. That's they way humans are and will always be until Kingdom Come. It's not worth my time and effort. God will either help them to the truth, or me. Or both.
Apparently you believe that it is, and I wish you luck.
[ 31. May 2007, 14:59: Message edited by: PataLeBon ]
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Merlin, you can say you are a Christian all you want.
It doesn't bother me.
But, if you want my opinion, then Mormons, in general, aren't.
I'm sorry that annoys you.
It doesn't. You admit that you have an opinion which differs from mine. But you are not arguing to change my mind. Perhaps Ross and I are like incompatable agents in the same test tube: both too dogmatic by nature (and education?). I don't get "vibes" from you that I feel need addressing/correcting.
quote:
It annoys me that there are people that I truly believe are Christians, who think that I am some kind of witch.
I would enjoy knowing more about that ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
But I don't rant and rail over it. That's they way humans are and will always be until Kingdom Come.
I do know THAT much at least.
quote:
It's not worth my time and effort. God will either help them to the truth, or me. Or both.
I have plenty of time on my hands. I am currently a "shiftless bum." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) But I see the fascination of constant gab with faceless denizens of cyberspace wearing off, slowly, finally.....
quote:
Apparently you believe that it is, and I wish you luck.
Thank you. Same to you.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because I know Ross is Anglican, and I am just trying to *slap* some sense into her (futile though it has been), by making comparisons between her persuasion and Mormonism. They are not that different: both dogmatic, with hardline views on what is and isn't bonafide Christianity. Members and leaders of both view the other askance.
Gee, that's offensive, Merlin. Do you always *slap* women around?
I'm afraid you don't know anything about Christian Church historythat hasn't been filtered through Mormon authorities, and you certainly don't know squat about Anglicanism. I can't recall ever reading anything more ridiculous about the Church, and I've been reading the RC converts on the Ship for several years now.
.... quote:
That's just it: Nibley was interested in reading anything he could get his teeth into. ... Thus, Ross sees that Nibley is a "notorious liar." (And Christ was a madman, in league with Satan, or was Beelzebub himself. Joseph Smith was a simple con artist; wave your hand, and it all goes away. End of discussion.)
Nope. Nibley was just an apologist -- period. His whole professional purpose was to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon, and the rest of Smith's inventions, were true.
So you find some scratchings on rocks out in your part of the country -- like the ones Myrrh was so excited about -- and, gee, they look a little bit like some scratchings on rocks in the Middle East, and -- hey! that's proof that the Book of Mormon is really true! Ta-da!
Except, as you've already admitted, most of the BofM is pure fiction. Nibley lied for Mormonism and for his own personal profit. He pushed coincidence just as far as it would go, to the point where even the most devout Mormon should have said, "Hey....that doesn't make sense."
quote:
That is perhaps the foundation of my annoyance with Ross's, et al. attitude toward Mormons, vis-a-vis "they are not Christians." She bases her decision on a brief brush with Mormon missionaries (and demonstrably ignorant ones at that), and a couple of prejudiced readings of the Book of Mormon ("soporific", I believe she called it: while accurate in a way, it is obvious she was not reading to learn about the book, but to confirm a judgment she already had about it), and continued "study" into why the religion is not going to pass muster as "Christian." She thinks of herself as expert enough in Mormonism to make these judgments from the outside.
Boy, Merlin, you're on a roll, aren't you. When you're wrong, you're REALLY wrong....and personally insulting. The insults are getting pretty tiresome.
No, it wasn't a "brief brush" with "ignorant" Mormon missionaries. It was a prolonged encounter with Mormonism that involved going to meetings, reading all the slick brochures, reading the BofM and praying "the prayer of Moroni" (of which you have my testimony), and dealing with several levels of "elders" and their supervisors.
I read the Book of Mormon with an open mind, but I'm afraid that it makes the most turgid of the Russian novelists in a bad translation look scintillating. I read it again in my 30s, to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Well, I HAD missed a few of Smith's thefts from the Bible -- but it was still intensely soporific.
I have made a deep study of Mormonism, from its scriptures to its history to its theology to its missionaries' habit of preying on vulnerable adolescents.
You yourself have admitted that I know a lot about it. You just don't like my conclusions. Kindly have the decency to admit that, and stop the personal insults.
quote:
When people justify their prejudice by saying such things as, "Words have meanings; you're not allowed to change the meanings of words to suit yourself," then they are simply showing that they are prejudiced. The reason why many words in the dictionary have multiple meanings and applications, is precisely because words change in how they are used.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
No, when I say "Words have meanings," I'm speaking a simple truth. You can't just change those meanings to suit your purposes, or those of a particular religion. You can't just unilaterally redefine Christianity because the Mormon organization decided it could suck in more people (and more money) by claiming to be Christians.
Learn to read for comprehension, Merlin, lose the anti-intellectualism, and please stop lying about me.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrhh:
Two of the big anti-Mormon themes here are the Mormon's denial of their nasty violent history and the subjugation of women which makes them non-Christian, these views coming from Christians with some of the bloodiest history of Christian persecution against those holding different doctrines and the still in its infancy women priesthood after 1900 years or so denying their capacity for this role because subservient to the male.
Do the posters here holding these particular anti-"Mormon are Christians" views also admit they are thus not Christians from their origins?
Myrrh, thanks for coming out of the closet here.
The biggest problem with Mormonism's view of women is that it isn't content to see women as somehow second-class souls just on Earth; that view extends to the afterlife. I don't know of any other religion with a pretense to being Christian that does that. Do you even understand why it's so appalling a concept?
Yes, Christians have behaved abominably toward one another, and toward outsiders. But in its relatively short history, Mormonism has been absolutely horrific. Too bad they can't be honest about it.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because I know Ross is Anglican, and I am just trying to *slap* some sense into her (futile though it has been), by making comparisons between her persuasion and Mormonism. They are not that different: both dogmatic, with hardline views on what is and isn't bonafide Christianity. Members and leaders of both view the other askance.
quote:
Gee, that's offensive, Merlin. Do you always *slap* women around?
Only virtually
quote:
I'm afraid you don't know anything about Christian Church history that hasn't been filtered through Mormon authorities, and you certainly don't know squat about Anglicanism.
Oh, I think you are quite mistaken. But the same can be said of you. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say, "you don't know squat about Mormonism". You just have some weird (skewed) ideas about it.
quote:
I can't recall ever reading anything more ridiculous about the Church, and I've been reading the RC converts on the Ship for several years now.
"The church", being yours? And what exactly did I say that is ridiculous? I haven't said much about it, other than to make the obvious comparison about respective church history, yours and ours: how the pots and kettles should really be getting along, since neither has a leg to stand on.
.... quote:
That's just it: Nibley was interested in reading anything he could get his teeth into. ... Thus, Ross sees that Nibley is a "notorious liar." (And Christ was a madman, in league with Satan, or was Beelzebub himself. Joseph Smith was a simple con artist; wave your hand, and it all goes away. End of discussion.)
quote:
Nope. Nibley was just an apologist -- period. His whole professional purpose was to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon, and the rest of Smith's inventions, were true.
True! No denying that. However, that fact doesn't reduce his scholarship methods to nothing. He was very thorough, and honest! He had a preconceived testimony of the truth, and went about finding proof that it was genuine. He liked to encourage people to use their minds and not just their feelings. He expected the truth to have physical evidence. And he found plenty of it to satisfy himself and millions of others. Call it self-delusion or whatever: but Nibley's methods of research utilized non Mormon sources, turning it to Mormon advantage. He gets attacked personally (e.g. "liar") without any foundation or proof: and personal attacks are a sure sign that the "enemy" has been routed and resorts to guerrilla warfare, the only tactic remaining to them.
quote:
So you find some scratchings on rocks out in your part of the country -- like the ones Myrrh was so excited about -- and, gee, they look a little bit like some scratchings on rocks in the Middle East, and -- hey! that's proof that the Book of Mormon is really true! Ta-da!
"Scratchings on rocks, etc.", that doesn't signify anything specific to me.
Nibley was into examining the Old World stuff; especially the early Christian period and ancient evidence. I think he would have been the first to admit that the Kinderhook plates were a problem for Joseph Smith.
quote:
Except, as you've already admitted, most of the BofM is pure fiction. Nibley lied for Mormonism and for his own personal profit. He pushed coincidence just as far as it would go, to the point where even the most devout Mormon should have said, "Hey....that doesn't make sense."
My reasons for believing (accepting) the Book of Mormon as mostly fiction, do not disprove Nibley's facile collection of evidence and conclusions. That's the great secret of pushing physical evidence to prove your point: you can do that far more easily than you can prove a negative: i.e. disprove the use of the evidence to make a bogus conclusion. When you go that route, all you do is wind up lumping ALL religions into the same Ship: they all use physical evidence that can be taken wrong. I have been reading fundie evidence that the Bible is literally true history for most of my life. And it squares with Nibley's approach to a tee.
quote:
That is perhaps the foundation of my annoyance with Ross's, et al. attitude toward Mormons, vis-a-vis "they are not Christians." She bases her decision on a brief brush with Mormon missionaries (and demonstrably ignorant ones at that), and a couple of prejudiced readings of the Book of Mormon ("soporific", I believe she called it: while accurate in a way, it is obvious she was not reading to learn about the book, but to confirm a judgment she already had about it), and continued "study" into why the religion is not going to pass muster as "Christian." She thinks of herself as expert enough in Mormonism to make these judgments from the outside.
quote:
Boy, Merlin, you're on a roll, aren't you. When you're wrong, you're REALLY wrong....and personally insulting. The insults are getting pretty tiresome.
I haven't said anything that can be taken as insulting, unless I have touched on a nerve somewhere. That's for you to know and me to find out.
quote:
No, it wasn't a "brief brush" with "ignorant" Mormon missionaries. It was a prolonged encounter with Mormonism that involved going to meetings, reading all the slick brochures, reading the BofM and praying "the prayer of Moroni" (of which you have my testimony), and dealing with several levels of "elders" and their supervisors.
I read the Book of Mormon with an open mind, but I'm afraid that it makes the most turgid of the Russian novelists in a bad translation look scintillating. I read it again in my 30s, to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Well, I HAD missed a few of Smith's thefts from the Bible -- but it was still intensely soporific.
I have made a deep study of Mormonism, from its scriptures to its history to its theology to its missionaries' habit of preying on vulnerable adolescents.
You yourself have admitted that I know a lot about it. You just don't like my conclusions. Kindly have the decency to admit that, and stop the personal insults.
Again, not one personal insult have I made. I can be as mistaken in my ignorance of your life as you are "obviously" about mine. That's the trouble here.
Okay, so you've studied, to your satisfaction, and drawn "expert" conclusions about Mormonism. I have pointed out several, glaring mistaken notions that you have about it. Because in your reading, you have not been "equipped" to tell the difference between anti Mormon and pro Mormon, or even neutral, sources. You have imbibed the sewer with the elixir, and what a mixture that must turn into! I, on the other hand, CAN tell the difference between anti and pro and neutral.
And I suspect the same would be true if I made a study of Anglicanism. All I can tell from the outside, is that the Anglican church bears much the same human stamp as my own. But life within it is impossible to judge. And it is that life within which you lack utterly, so cannot judge reliably what sources are bogus and which genuinely approaching the truth about Mormonism.
quote:
When people justify their prejudice by saying such things as, "Words have meanings; you're not allowed to change the meanings of words to suit yourself," then they are simply showing that they are prejudiced. The reason why many words in the dictionary have multiple meanings and applications, is precisely because words change in how they are used.
quote:
No, when I say "Words have meanings," I'm speaking a simple truth. You can't just change those meanings to suit your purposes, or those of a particular religion. You can't just unilaterally redefine Christianity because the Mormon organization decided it could suck in more people (and more money) by claiming to be Christians.
Wrong on every point here (amazing): You have not shown that a "polytheistic" understanding of biblical passages (of which we have a fair amount) disqualifies a person from being Christian: "Orthodox Christian", certainly: but where have I EVER said Mormonism is to be defined as "Orthodox Christian?" I have put forward "Mormon Christian", or, "Christian Mormon", but that's not good enough for you. Leave "Christian" in any shape or form out of it, and that will satisfy you. And the church, from the getgo, was a Christian religion: Joseph Smith added the suffix "of [the] Latter-day Saints", to distinguish it from the "former-day Saints" of the Bible. That concept was up front right at the start: so the church doesn't "pretend/claim" to be Christian just so it can get more converts! It isn't "redefining Christianity", it's having a different understanding of what the word means.
quote:
Learn to read for comprehension, Merlin, lose the anti-intellectualism, and please stop lying about me.
"Anti-intellectualism?" That's interesting. Should we go away from this discussion, both convinced that we should stop studying and questing for the truth?
I have told no lies about you. To do that, I would have to deliberately misquote you, say things about you that I KNOW are untrue. You have defended your study into Mormonism. I have countered with, "That isn't good enough to judge the religion properly." That isn't saying a thing about you personally.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrhh:
Two of the big anti-Mormon themes here are the Mormon's denial of their nasty violent history and the subjugation of women which makes them non-Christian, these views coming from Christians with some of the bloodiest history of Christian persecution against those holding different doctrines and the still in its infancy women priesthood after 1900 years or so denying their capacity for this role because subservient to the male.
Do the posters here holding these particular anti-"Mormon are Christians" views also admit they are thus not Christians from their origins?
....
quote:
The biggest problem with Mormonism's view of women is that it isn't content to see women as somehow second-class souls just on Earth; that view extends to the afterlife. I don't know of any other religion with a pretense to being Christian that does that. Do you even understand why it's so appalling a concept?
You STILL have it wrong, Ross! Women and men in mortality have different roles. Mormons routinely joke that men have the priesthood so that they will be compelled to do something; if the women had it, the men would just not amount to anything. Good men, of which the church predominates (but not to listen to your view of it), do not joke when they often claim that they "married above" themselves, i.e. they publically admit that their wives are better people than they themselves are. My own father talks like that each time I visit with him: he has nothing but praise for his wife, and says she is a far better person than he is. I know of countless examples of this, from the "general authorities" right through the entire church. American Mormons, at least, are not dominantly male superiority types. That hasn't always been the case: in former days, before female suffrage, men all over America tended to view women as second class in everything that was considered MALE role stuff. But in the Mormon afterlife (get it this time, please): men and women are EQUALS. There isn't anything in the doctrine, as taught and practiced today (call that improvement, lady) that puts men above women. They require each other to get as far as human destiny is intended. And there is lately not one whiff of polygamy or "harems" mentioned in any of the LDS teachings. (E.g. the latest Ensign has an article on P. P. Pratt: not a letter of a word about polygamy: not even when they say how he died!? "Murdered", but the reason is not given ![[Confused]](confused.gif) What utter bollocks, imho. Any LDS reader worth half his/her salt will wonder what the motive was, surely? And the first reading on the Internet will provide the answer: Pratt was murdered by the jealous husband of his last (sixth?) wife!!!! Put that in your rolled up Ensign and smoke it, boys and girls.)
So yes, the LDS church is far different than the one you keep harping on about: dependent on a historical flogging by taking the rarest words of B. Young, et al, and portraying that as the modern church's doctrine.
quote:
Yes, Christians have behaved abominably toward one another, and toward outsiders. But in its relatively short history, Mormonism has been absolutely horrific. Too bad they can't be honest about it.
Ross
Horrific? I don't know about that. You do use expressive lingo freely, Ross. Demonstrably mistaken, and even fanatical at times, yes. But "horrific" is certainly no worse than any other Christian history you might compare it to. And Mormonism stands up to that pretty well. In less than 200 years, it has gone from Millennialism/Zionist fear mongering, multiple wives, and collectivist/communistic community living, to living like any other mainstream religious people: the polygamy is gonzo (permanently, if you want my guess); the words of B. Young, et al, are only quoted in the main, not the weird, 19th century bits; and all the human development bits are retained and have received emphasis, e.g. the Word of Wisdom requirements in order to get into the temple. Women are more cherished in typical Mormon families than they are in many "Christian" communities that you don't mind attaching that title to.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Merlin, you are a bigot, a bully, and a liar; you roll right over the evidence and just keep going like a demented Energizer Bunny, without acknowledging what others have said and demonstrated. Others give scholarly links; you ignore them, and go on what you feel in your gut. You're on the wrong forum, sir.
For the record: Joe Smith was a lecher and a fraud.
Brigham Young was a lecher and a fraud.
They were both liars, and, through their use of hitmen, murderers.
Mormonism is not Christian, for the following reasons:
1) It's polytheistic, and Christians believe in only ONE God, in three Persons.
2) Smith's wretched "scriptures," cobbled together out of various novels and Bible bits, are demonstrable fictions.
3) Human beings can't become gods.
4) We're all equal in God's sight -- men, women, Jews, Gentiles (real Gentiles), gays, straights -- you name it. We all go to one heaven if we accept God's grace.
5) The bizarre Mormon Jesus isn't the same as the Christian Jesus.
6) I know more about Mormon history and theology than you do -- and it's pretty ugly stuff.
Goodbye.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
What was so wonderful about Luther?
(Martin Luther)
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Trying to lure me out again, Myrrh? Won't work here. If you start a new and separate thread, I'll see you there.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Trying to lure me out again, Myrrh? Won't work here. If you start a new and separate thread, I'll see you there.
I was really only asking in context of this discussion where the Mormons are bombarded with specific accusations to show they're far too uppity in daring to think themselves Christians, nasty murdering bigots from the beginning as it were is one these.
Luther the great reformer it seems didn't reform anything much except in whose control all the murdering bigotry was vested, himself v the established Church of his time. Even if you think the history of the Mormons as given here shows them falling well short of Christ's teaching on this all you can legitimately say is this makes them no different from those who take their beginning from Luther or Calvin or the RC Church they came out of which can't then be used as an argument to prove the Mormons aren't Christian, unless you admit that makes Lutherans and the rest non-Christians either.
There's an extremely low limbo pole given for the Mormons to get under to prove they're Christian and no pole at all for those arguing this.
The inequality of women has been another constant theme running through the thread, but Luther it seems gave only lip service to the equality of women, a great idea and change of direction but he couldn't quite bring himself to believe it himself. (The Less Noble Sex by Nancy Tuana). Is there anything in the doctrines as his brand of Christianity envisaged women that shows any different? Were they allowed to speak in Church?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Very interesting quotes from Luther's works in that page you linked us to Myrrh... http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/Martin%20Luther.htm
I would like to make a quote also, on Anthropomorphism, the idea that God is like man. Unlike what some people might think, this is a very ancient Christian heresy. In Saint Cassian's work Conferences, we read the story of Abbot Serapion, a very holy man, that didn't know that the Godhead is not like manhood, because he had been taught differently and worshipped as if the Godhead was similar to manhood... He realized his mistake, only when a learned man explained to him that the catholic churches in the East interpret the verse "Let us make man after our image and likeness" in a different way, and was presented with evidence from the scriptures that God is not like that.
http://www.osb.org/lectio/cassian/conf/book1/conf10.html#10.3
I find the last words of that chapter very touching, when the old man is stripped of the God he knew and does not know the God He addresses.
quote:
......and when we arose to give thanks, and were all together offering up our prayers to the Lord, the old man was so bewildered in mind during his prayer because he felt that the Anthropomorphic image of the Godhead which he used to set before himself in prayer, was banished from his heart, that on a sudden he burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groanings: "Alas! wretched man that I am! they have taken away my God from me, and I have now none to lay hold of; and whom to worship and address I know not." By which scene we were terribly disturbed......
[ 03. June 2007, 15:34: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Merlin, you are a bigot, a bully, and a liar; you roll right over the evidence and just keep going like a demented Energizer Bunny, without acknowledging what others have said and demonstrated. Others give scholarly links; you ignore them, and go on what you feel in your gut. You're on the wrong forum, sir.
I've given plenty of sources. I haven't ignored anything: as I said, I've already read that stuff before, and you are buying into anti Mormon spin.
Personal attacks are for HELL, as far as I understand how the Ship is ordered. So, sweetie, you are the one on the wrong forum.
quote:
For the record: Joe Smith was a lecher and a fraud.
"Joe" Smith was human, and never claimed to be perfect. But did claim that there was nothing untrue about the doctrines that he taught. He believed them and lived them himself. He also claimed that in his heart, he had never desired to do a wrong. He never claimed that he had not done any wrong, only that it was not premeditated.
quote:
Brigham Young was a lecher and a fraud.
Fraud is such a cheap shot. How do you prove that you are not beating your wife?
quote:
They were both liars,...
And lying makes everything you teach automatically invalid? Rahab and Abraham are going to hell with Joe and Brigham? Only perfect teachers have the right to set up a religion?
quote:
... and, through their use of hitmen, murderers.
Wrong, lady, simply wrong. You believe the lies that enemies of the church have always spread around. (Remember reading about the wild stuff that detractors of early Christianity spread around? And Muslims commonly once believed -- some probably still do -- that Christians EAT their God: transubstantiation misunderstood.)
quote:
Mormonism is not Christian, for the following reasons:
1) It's polytheistic, and Christians believe in only ONE God, in three Persons.
Wrong. ORTHODOXY requires the Trinity. There are other understandings within Christianity besides YOUR requirements.
quote:
2) Smith's wretched "scriptures," cobbled together out of various novels and Bible bits, are demonstrable fictions.
A sweeping statement. The NT is a targum itself of the OT in many parts. Jesus' own teachings were OT based, with a slant toward charity and "love your enemies", quite unique for the time. His own "golden rule" was not unique to him. He "cobbled" a lot of earlier stuff together and gave it a new "spin." (Or, we can accept the sage who said "there is nothing new under the sun".)
quote:
3) Human beings can't become gods.
You say it and therefore Jesus' own words are untrue. The Psalmist he quoted is wrong. Muslims are right: Christian teachings about us being the "children (sons)" of God are false doctrine, because the ONE God has no children. You should become Muslim, then, and eliminate all these inconsistencies (their God doesn't require a "son" to do his work of salvation for him; or volumes of rhetoric attempting to explain "the mystery" of the Triune God).
quote:
4) We're all equal in God's sight -- men, women, Jews, Gentiles (real Gentiles), gays, straights -- you name it. We all go to one heaven if we accept God's grace.
True statement. Why not cite the Book of Mormon references for that belief? (I did earlier.) Mormons teach that better than anyone else I know of. (you've left out "fake Gentiles", so I am assuming that there IS a category of self-deluded people that you are sure are hell-bound)
quote:
5) The bizarre Mormon Jesus isn't the same as the Christian Jesus.
But, it IS Jesus Christ being taught and believed. The only thing "bizarre" about the "Mormon Jesus" is, that he is our elder brother, period. Otherwise, everything Mormons believe about Jesus Christ's message and mission falls into place comfortably with mainstream Christianity.
quote:
6) I know more about Mormon history and theology than you do
How can you make a claim like this, when you cannot possibly know?
quote:
-- and it's pretty ugly stuff.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: the reverse is also true.
And, for the record, I think that dogmatic, organized religion across the board is pretty ugly stuff. It produces vituperative attitudes like yours.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
......and when we arose to give thanks, and were all together offering up our prayers to the Lord, the old man was so bewildered in mind during his prayer because he felt that the Anthropomorphic image of the Godhead which he used to set before himself in prayer, was banished from his heart, that on a sudden he burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groanings: "Alas! wretched man that I am! they have taken away my God from me, and I have now none to lay hold of; and whom to worship and address I know not." By which scene we were terribly disturbed......
Very interesting quote, andreas. I have had, quite recently (and by gentle degrees) "my anthropomorphic God" stripped away from me as well. I cannot pray comfortably "Our Heavenly Father", and end, "In Jesus Christ's name, Amen". Because the concept of "God" that I currently hold is not of any shape, size, dimension, or comprehension within space-time. I can pray toward a manifestation of "God" as anthropomorphic; but it feels one full step removed to me. I want my own "reunion" with THE One God of all creation. I don't want to worship some intermediary, no matter how much "they" know.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I understand mate, I understand. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[qb] Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE][qb]The biggest problem with Mormonism's view of women is that it isn't content to see women as somehow second-class souls just on Earth; that view extends to the afterlife. I don't know of any other religion with a pretense to being Christian that does that. Do you even understand why it's so appalling a concept?
You STILL have it wrong, Ross! Women and men in mortality have different roles. Mormons routinely joke that men have the priesthood so that they will be compelled to do something; if the women had it, the men would just not amount to anything. Good men, of which the church predominates (but not to listen to your view of it), do not joke when they often claim that they "married above" themselves, i.e. they publically admit that their wives are better people than they themselves are. My own father talks like that each time I visit with him: he has nothing but praise for his wife, and says she is a far better person than he is. I know of countless examples of this, from the "general authorities" right through the entire church.
Men throughout history have made statements like this about women, Merlin, usually while depring them of autonomy, authority, rights to control their own lives, income , property, and a place in society. The Victorian term was 'The Angel in the House', who had no rights other then those her husband allowed her. So that is what Mormonism is like if you are a woman? And I find it hard to take seriously any views on women from a man who will 'slap' them even virtually
G
G
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
As I said, Myrrh, if you want to discuss Luther, go ahead and start a thread. I'll happily join you there. But doing it here is a) a derailment, b) a tu quoque, and c) just weird.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tumphouse:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[qb] Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE][qb]The biggest problem with Mormonism's view of women is that it isn't content to see women as somehow second-class souls just on Earth; that view extends to the afterlife. I don't know of any other religion with a pretense to being Christian that does that. Do you even understand why it's so appalling a concept?
You STILL have it wrong, Ross! Women and men in mortality have different roles. Mormons routinely joke that men have the priesthood so that they will be compelled to do something; if the women had it, the men would just not amount to anything. Good men, of which the church predominates (but not to listen to your view of it), do not joke when they often claim that they "married above" themselves, i.e. they publically admit that their wives are better people than they themselves are. My own father talks like that each time I visit with him: he has nothing but praise for his wife, and says she is a far better person than he is. I know of countless examples of this, from the "general authorities" right through the entire church.
Men throughout history have made statements like this about women, Merlin, usually while depring them of autonomy, authority, rights to control their own lives, income , property, and a place in society. The Victorian term was 'The Angel in the House', who had no rights other then those her husband allowed her. So that is what Mormonism is like if you are a woman? And I find it hard to take seriously any views on women from a man who will 'slap' them even virtually
G
G
Mormon women have never been deprived of autonomy, income, property or their place in society. NEVER. Look up the history, read the diaries. The most Mormon women have had to complain about is feeling like men run THE CHURCH. In the polygamy days, a goodly number of women felt understandably deprived of the male companionship that they wanted and felt they deserved.
If you think Mormon society is abusive to females, as Ross does, than you are just as duped by inaccurate (malicious) "reporting" as she is.
I only "virtually" slap with words. Same as in physical company. And the way I write on this forum is a perfect example of the phraseology I employ. If you feel "slapped", then I'd say the problem is yours, not mine.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Errata: let me clarify something, before someone goes looking for anecdotal exceptions to my use of NEVER: I mean, that Mormon society never condoned prejudice against women. The law of the church and the state never allowed any abuse of women, vis-a-vis property, autonomy, etc. You will find cases where a woman was abused and deprived by her husband, and even her priesthood leaders. You will find such exceptions to the law and church doctrine, in any religious society.
But there is nothing in the preaching that is doctrine, that condones any such behavior toward their wives by husbands. And a ton of reprimand material (check out just about any general conference going back to the beginning) for husbands/men who treat women poorly, or feel that they have some superiority over women in the church.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
Merlin, you appear to have missed both points I was making.
First, women are most patronised, and told how deeply special and spiritual they are, in groups and societies in which they are most denied autonomy.
Second, I was not 'slapped' by you, but was horrified at the use of the term in your response to Ross. It was insulting and demeaning.
And I am intrigued that you have presumed I am a woman, simply because of my response to your postings. Interesting.
G
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chicklegirl
Shipmate
# 11741
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tumphouse:
The Victorian term was 'The Angel in the House', who had no rights other then those her husband allowed her. So that is what Mormonism is like if you are a woman?
Being a Morman woman, I may be in a better position to answer this than Merlin. No, that is not what Mormonism in general is like for a woman. Every denomination (including Mormonism) counts among its number some truly despicable men who marginalize, denigrate or abuse women. But Mormon doctrine (and when I say doctrine, I mean our official scriptures and church leaders when they are speaking in an official capacity--not when they're "off the clock") abhors and discourages such behavior and in my observation it is the exception rather than the rule in my church.
Despite the fact that Mormon women do not have the priesthood as men do, I've never felt that not having the priesthood made me a second-class citizen. I've never felt that the doctrine oppressed me, and trust me when I say that if I did, I would leave (I'm too opinionated and obnoxious to put up with that kind of garbage; just ask Mr. Chickle).
There are certain doctrines in Mormonism that at a superficial inspection may appear to be sexist; the one that keeps coming up on this thread is that at final judgement, in order for a woman to attain the highest possible level of glory, her husband has to call her name. I believe that, but I don't believe it's sexist in that while my husband will be the one to call me, he's not going anywhere without me--the doctrine is very clear that a man is also incapable of achieving that highest level without his wife. Whether or not you believe that doctrine (which I admit, must sound really bizarre to someone who isn't raised with it!), the one thing it isn't is sexist; Mormons believe that the salvation of husband and wife at that highest level are intertwined, dependent upon being a unit comprised of two equal partners. This makes complete sense to me in the context that the purpose of marriage is not only to have a family, but for a man and a woman to work in unity in keeping God's commandments and grow together in the Lord--to be equally yoked. The "name being called" is part of a priesthood ordinance (like baptism, for example) which must be performed with the proper priesthood authority, which the husband will have if he reaches that point.
I think Merlin attempted to explain in his own way why women in the Mormon church don't have the priesthood. My answer to that question is, I don't know why not, but I don't have a problem with it. I don't feel like I have to do all the same things a man does to be his equal. Frankly, I can do quite a few things that men can't. My faith in God, in the Bible, tells me that it is God's word, His will that men have the priesthood, and call it naive if you will, but that's good enough for me. (I know that many will disagree with that interpretation of the Bible. Don't worry; I'm not trying to convince anyone.) I'm married to a wonderful man who uses the priesthood to bless not only me and our son, but also other people both inside and outside our church. In the twelve years that we've been married, I've observed that having to use the priesthood to serve others has deepened his character and helped him to be be more humble. At the same time, I don't begrudge that or feel like I'm missing out because I don't have the priesthood; I have access to its blessings through him whenever I need them.
Sorry for such a lengthy post, but let me conclude by saying that I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right, nor do I want to engage in a lengthy point-by-point repartee; I'm merely attempting to explain why a rational woman (well, mostly rational when I'm not pregnant!) would be a member of such a church and feel that it had something to offer her. I don't have answers to all the hard questions about horrible things Mormon leaders have done, but as a student of history, I've seen that virtually every religion has systematically tried to eliminate/assimilate their competition, had leaders who beheaded insubordinate wives or practiced polygamy, or has engaged in other equally heinous crimes. I don't personally agree with whitewashing embarrassing incidents because somehow, it always comes back to bite you where it hurts the most. That said, I believe what I do: in living prophets; the truth of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price; a Godhead comprised of Father, Son and Holy Ghost as separate beings with a single purpose; and finally, that salvation comes only through obedience to and faith in Jesus Christ. I can't really explain or justify all these crazy beliefs in a way that will satisfy anyone but me. I like how C.S. Lewis said it: "I believe in Christ as I believe in the rising sun; not that I can see it, but that by it I can see everything." For me, Mormonism has been what puts life into context and distills in me a purpose to follow Christ, serve others, and do my utmost to be a better person.
--------------------
If you want to be happy, be.
~ Henry David Thoreau
Posts: 916 | From: Sixth Circle of Hell | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tumphouse:
Merlin, you appear to have missed both points I was making.
First, women are most patronised, and told how deeply special and spiritual they are, in groups and societies in which they are most denied autonomy.
Second, I was not 'slapped' by you, but was horrified at the use of the term in your response to Ross. It was insulting and demeaning.
And I am intrigued that you have presumed I am a woman, simply because of my response to your postings. Interesting.
G
I didn't presume you are a women. But you acted "slapped." I was answering text. I don't usually even think of "male or female" unless it is obvious.
I admit, my use of the term was uncalled for. As it has offended members of both genders, I apologize.
The original point: so, Mormon men can't be sincere in their public protestations of affection and admiration for their wives. Because this is proof that they are "beating their wives." Interesting....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
Again, Merlin, you miss my point. I no where suggest that these men are 'beating' their wives. I simply point out that in socieities where men make the type of public proclamations you describe, woman tend to lack autonomy. This does not mean that they are 'beaten'
G
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chicklegirl:
...There are certain doctrines in Mormonism that at a superficial inspection may appear to be sexist; the one that keeps coming up on this thread is that at final judgement, in order for a woman to attain the highest possible level of glory, her husband has to call her name. I believe that, but I don't believe it's sexist...
Oh, my. What would you call it, then? How can you justify such a vile doctrine? How can you pretend it's Christian? Have you really thought this one through?
It's bad enough that women are unequal in most societies (and the Mormon organization did an awful lot to keep the Equal Rights Amendment from becoming law, funding do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Phyllis Schlafly's know-nothing Eagle Forum, among others, for that purpose). But one of the wonderful things about Christianity -- as opposed to Mormonism -- is that women ARE equal in Christ and in eternity.
The whole idea that women are condemned to eternal servitude unless Hubby "lifts the veil" and whispers that oh-so-secret name is nothing short of disgusting. He can be "sealed" to a whole harem, if you buy into that theology -- but she's utterly dependent on him, no matter how else she has lived her life. It simply demonstrates the completely man-made nature of Mormonism.
It's sad that women are prevented from following their vocations just because of gender in most religions, including many Christian denominations. It's appalling that anyone could buy into the notion that we're nothing but second-class brood mares for all eternity.
My denomination has its faults, but at least it doesn't mistake the nastiest sort of male fantasy for God's will.
Ross // no doubt our resident Mormon male will be moved to *slap* me again for this one
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... I admit, my use of the term was uncalled for. As it has offended members of both genders, I apologize.
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
... Ross // no doubt our resident Mormon male will be moved to *slap* me again for this one
No doubt, you're unable to accept apologies from resident Mormon males.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tumphouse:
Again, Merlin, you miss my point. I no where suggest that these men are 'beating' their wives. I simply point out that in socieities where men make the type of public proclamations you describe, woman tend to lack autonomy. This does not mean that they are 'beaten'
G
"Beating their wives" was in quotes, to qualify it (had you heard my voice there would be no misunderstanding). It harks to the example of how a leading question can implicate you: e.g. "Why are you beating your wife?" This is unanswerable, because it is wrong from the getgo.
Similarly, making a point, that OTHER societies which are known to be discriminatory toward their women, yet laud them rhetorical praise, is portraying Mormonism the same way. I have called Ross on her understanding of Mormonism's male/female relations: she continues to insist that I am wrong, that she knows more about my church than I do. And it is impossible to get through to someone who won't see that their perception is skewed by too much reading of anti Mormon sources.
In Mormon society, women have ALWAYS been seen as equal to men, because without each other neither gets to the "highest heaven." And in that heaven, everyone is EQUAL. Especially in the modern church, where all teaching on polygamy has long ago disappeared (even to the point of rubbing all traces of it out in modern biographies of the early leaders who practiced it), there is no chance that "harems" and such are part of Mormon heaven. If that makes the church changeable, well, so what? Religion needs to minister to the needs of its people; not force them to accept what they simply refuse to accept. That's why everyone's religions these days continue to change. (E.g. RCC's recent statement on unbaptised babies in "limbo", overturned completely: a centuries-long teaching rendered finally as "not doctrine".)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
No doubt, you're unable to accept apologies from resident Mormon males.
No, but I should have read all the way through the thread. I'm sorry for that.
On the other hand, he's apologized in the past for putting words on my keyboard -- and then turned right around and done it again, and again, and again...
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
A modest suggestion to all - shall we move on?
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
A modest suggestion to all - shall we move on?
Yes, I think the main points about Mormonism have all been made -- in most cases, several times. Thank you for your patience, Duo.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
