|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Yes, that was the reply of the Orthodox, but BOTH the Orthodox and the heretics accepted as a truth beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Word was seen by the Prophets BEFORE the Incarnation, that the Incarnation did not change the revelation that was already whole in the Prophets!
This is where, as far as I can tell, Western Christianity differs from both the Orthodox and the heretics of the first few councils... You don't have as a tenet of your religion the fact that the Triad was worshiped before the Incarnation, and that the revelation of God takes place only through the Word in what the Orthodox called theosis or theopoiesis, and what the bible describes as glorification!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Andreas, I agree that the fullness of the triune Godhead was manifest in the OT theophanies, but I'm not convinced that the Jews understood the Trinitarian aspect of the manifestations. I was also not aware that it was a particular issue at Nicaea and Constantinople?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
This was the framework for both Nicea and Constantinople! The heretics and the Orthodox agreed that the Word before the Incarnation has revealed Himself directly to the Prophets... the one called the Angel of the Lord, the Lord of Glory, YAHWE... (by the way, we still have YAHWE as the name of Christ in all the Orthodox icons)
The Arians posed the question whether that Angel was created by God or not, and the Eunomians posed the question whether... anyways.
They both created a list of all the characteristics the scriptures apply to God, and those applied to the Angel... if the Orthodox were right, then the two lists should be identical. If even one characteristic was not on both lists, then the heretics were right.
But, Augustine in his de trinitate he was not aware of this theology (which, by the way was the theology of Ambrose*!)... and he said that the entire trinity revealed itself to the prophets through created beings that stopped existing after the revelation was over...
*Not only Ambrose... Even before that, Justin the Martyr tries to persuade the Jews that Christ is divine using the Old Testament!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Is there any hope, dear brother andreas, that you will not turn this into a thread about Orthodoxy? Is there a wisp of a chance that we will avoid cries of ITTTWAM? (I thought this thread was about Mormonism)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I replied to a question. Do you think that it is fair to exclude Mormons from Christianity because their Christology does not adhere to the ecumenical councils, while the one who does the excluding, his own denomination does not adhere to the same councils?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
OK, I stop talking ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
But, Augustine in his de trinitate he was not aware of this theology (which, by the way was the theology of Ambrose*!)... and he said that the entire trinity revealed itself to the prophets through created beings that stopped existing after the revelation was over..
Bollocks, Anderas. Just bollocks.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
From Professor Kirke:
quote:
I hope you get an answer from a Mormon, but in the meantime, suppose the answers were No and Yes in that order. Do those answers define the right to the title of Christian? I know of many Christians who don't even know what the ecumenical creeds are -- are they Christian?
The questions referred to were:
1. Has the Mormon church recognised the ecumenical creeds?
2. Do they as a regular practice take communion in other Christian churches, where this is permitted?
Like most people in this discussion, I am focusing mainly on whether the LDS as a religious organisation comes within the definition of a christian church, rather than whether individual LDS's can have a true relationship with God. I did assume that any LDS who came onto this board is likely to be able to give an answer.
It's clear that this is a question of definition. So as far as this board goes, we need a working definition of a christian denomination. And the one posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras seemed good to me, since these creeds are as close as you will get to "what all christians everywhere believe".
So if their answer is no, then I would not recognise the LDS as a christian sect. Which does not decide the status of individual Mormons.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
if a Greek was to tell me that he belongs to a Pentecostal Church, I would consider him a member of a sect (well, not as dreadful as what most of you mean when you say "sect", but you get my point...). Would I question his Christianity? No, but still... Now, I might think of them as heretical wackos, but I don't even envisage not calling them Christians. I wouldn't place the Mormons or the JW too far from them. To me, they are another Protestant denomination...
That is because you are very ignornt of Protestantism. Your posts on these boards show that you do not know very much anything about it at all. You assume that all Protestants sahre the heresies of an imaginary ancient theologian called Augustine whose name happens to sound a little like that of the perfectly Orthodox saint Augustine of Hippo about whom you seem to know nothing other than what you read in the Greek equivalent of Chick tracts.
quote:
But, and this is interesting, you who accept Protestantism as mainstream, and for whom Orthodoxy is off the radars, you have problems calling the Mormons Christians!
Because Mormon teaching really is nothing like Christian teaching at all. It is more like paganism in many ways. They are in effect polytheists.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Because Mormon teaching really is nothing like Christian teaching at all. It is more like paganism in many ways. They are in effect polytheists.
And much of Western Christianity is unitarian. So what? Why all this hardheartedness against the Mormons?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I suppose it's a question of how much similar liturgy/theology is required to make a church "Christian."
The Mormons are confusing because some of their rituals and worship practices still closely resemble those of the Protestant churches they arose in.
But that is really just superficial.
Its a matter of logical priority. God has to be at the centre of the teachings of the Church, just as God is logically prior to and cause of the created universe. God as revealed to us primarily in Jesus Christ. Other things are dependent on that, follow from that. Stuff like liturgy is in a sense an outer shell.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Uh....hi. Sorry -- I've been dealing with assorted family-related crises, and just saw this thread. I thought seriously about not participating, but, as Greta said, that wouldn't be any fun.
For general questions about Mormonism, this is an excellent site. Sandra Tanner is a direct descendent of Brigham Young; she and her late husband Jerrold have offered this ministry in the face of everything from shunning to multiple death threats, and there's no hint of hatred in her.
As for what is Christian and what isn't: Christians disagree on a great deal (understatement of the century), but I would submit that there are certain basic beliefs that we share. These include:
- One God, who created the universe, and all that is in it, from nothing. (Mormons believe in many gods, and they use the word "created" to mean "organized from existing materials")
- Jesus Christ as a co-equal Person of the Trinity, uncreated, "of one substance, power, and eternity" ( as the Articles of Religion, cited for convenience, put it). Mormons believe that Jesus was God's son in a literal sense, and that the Devil is his flesh-and-blood brother.
- One heaven for everyone who believes/is among the elect/pick the doctrine of your choice. Mormons believe in three "heavens," but the one where most of us would end up is not very nice, and only Mormon men and the wives they acknowledge end up in First Class. They also believe that men can become gods with their own planets and harems, producing "spirit children" through sexual intercourse to occupy those planets.
- The equality of all people in Jesus Christ: no male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free. There is no equality in Mormonism, even after you're dead. It's all based on what you did in this life; women are second-class citizens for eternity. Until the late 1970s, blacks were completely shunned as having sided with the Devil in the war in Heaven before their births.
- Christians believe that the Bible contains "all things necessary to salvation." Mormons have additional books that they consider scriptural, including the Book of Mormon. What is not as widely known is that Joseph Smith did a major rewrite of the Bible itself, so that it conformed to his ideas. This poses a further difficulty in terms of Mormon demands to be considered Christian: at least the rest of us are using reasonably standard texts.
- Salvation means different things to Christians and Mormons. Christians believe that Christ washed away our sins. We have different ideas on exactly how that works, but we are, I think, in essential agreement.
Mormons are not. They posit two different kinds of salvation: quote:
Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Salvation is twofold: General - that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ - and Individual - that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" (D. of S., Vol. I, p. 134).
Apostle James Talmage said, "The first effect (of the atonement) is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus, providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins. As these sins are the result of individual acts, it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements - obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" (A. of F., p. 87).
And they believe that we are saved only "after all we can do."
There's more, but that should be a start. (I've got a killer week here on several fronts, so if I don't respond quickly, I hope you'll understand.)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Oops -- missed the edit window. The quote is from utlm.org's section on "Salvation."
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sure, but what leads someone to think the fullness of Jesus isn't represented in the New Testament? More to the point, though, why would this happen? Did the early apostles and disciples really mess up so badly? Was there something defective about the revelation of God in Christ?
Snip...
They don't, though, at least, they don't believe that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures contain the full revelation, and Christians believe that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ was full and complete.
Ruth---I'm having trouble with this view, because:
First--the account we have of God's revelation in Christ (i.e., the Bible) is open to interpretation. Unless you are fundamentalist (which I know you aren't) it seems to me that "Did the early apostles and disciples mess up so badly?" is not really a relevant question.
To my way of thinking, the revelation cannot be considered "complete" because it is not clear to everyone. When every knee bows, and every tongue confesses, THEN the revelation will be complete...
Second--I believe (and I have a lot of company) that God continues to reveal God's will to us through the work of the Holy Spirit in the world (i.e.,ongoing revelation).
Does believing that mean I'm not Christian?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Why all this hardheartedness against the Mormons?
Just to be clear, I don't see any hard-heartedness toward Mormons at all. I see reasonable debate as to the reasons why Mormons are not Christians. If you'd like to debate whether or not Orthodox are in fact the only Christians, you are welcome to start a new thread (or several, as the case may be).
Digory Kirke, Shipmate (as in, I'm not acting in any kind of official capacity here)
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
If you'd like to debate whether or not Orthodox are in fact the only Christians, you are welcome to start a new thread
What was that for? I already said that I think that Mormons are Christians and that in my mind there is no doubt about that. You say you don't see any hardheartedness against them, well, I saw some. Perhaps I was mistaken, but it is also probable that you were mistaken when you saw none. I don't like talking about Mormons as if they were some sort of an exotic exhibit, not being willing to accept their Christianity...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And much of Western Christianity is unitarian.
Er, no it isn't. Hardly any is. A tiny fraction.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Urgh..... I don't want Laura or a host rightly yell at me again... Start a new thread
Unitarian not as "universal salvation", but as opposed to "trinitarian". By the way, I have checked about that with a few converts from Western denominations like Anglicanism to Orthodoxy... They said that this was the case with the vast majority of Western Christians...
[ 27. November 2006, 18:24: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Ross, thanks for joining in.
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[Christians generally agree about:]
One God, who created the universe, and all that is in it, from nothing. (Mormons believe in many gods, and they use the word "created" to mean "organized from existing materials")
Jesus Christ as a co-equal Person of the Trinity, uncreated, "of one substance, power, and eternity" ( as the Articles of Religion, cited for convenience, put it). Mormons believe that Jesus was God's son in a literal sense, and that the Devil is his flesh-and-blood brother.
Let me come back to these points.
quote:
One heaven for everyone who believes/is among the elect/pick the doctrine of your choice. Mormons believe in three "heavens," but the one where most of us would end up is not very nice, and only Mormon men and the wives they acknowledge end up in First Class.
I'd think this is a graceful version of Christian soteriology. Any of us can convert to Mormonism and thus end up in "First Class" heaven. That those of us who don't are still afforded any kind of heaven at all, rather than a fiery Hell, is a gracious understanding of life after death. It's not much different from a doctrine of Purgatory, come to think of it. This is not the strongest argument for Mormon != Christian.
quote:
The equality of all people in Jesus Christ: no male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free. There is no equality in Mormonism, even after you're dead. It's all based on what you did in this life; women are second-class citizens for eternity. Until the late 1970s, blacks were completely shunned as having sided with the Devil in the war in Heaven before their births.
And until some point, blacks were enslaved and then segregated and shunned for the Curse of Ham, Noah's son. Women aren't to speak in church at all, and they are certainly not to disagree with their husbands. That equality is better espoused by mainstream Christianity than Mormonism is, again, not the strongest argument.
quote:
Christians believe that the Bible contains "all things necessary to salvation." Mormons have additional books that they consider scriptural, including the Book of Mormon.
This is questionable. The Book of Mormon is definitely more sacred than any extra-biblical book from a mainline tradition, but I wouldn't say that all Christians view the Bible as the only necessary text. Council So-and-So and Catechism Section Such-and-Such are probably quoted as much, if not more, than the Bible here in Purgatory (though perhaps only because of Kerygmania).
quote:
Salvation means different things to Christians and Mormons. Christians believe that Christ washed away our sins. We have different ideas on exactly how that works, but we are, I think, in essential agreement.
This is probably the weakest of the arguments you've presented. Christian sects differ most widely on issues of salvation, in my opinion.
HOWEVER, I do think that the differences in belief about the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, and belief in canonical extra-biblical texts can make a decent case for differentiating between LDS and traditional Christianity. After all, their creed's 13th article of faith apparently states that they believe in Mulder and Scully. If that's not proof of their evil-ness...
quote:
I've got a killer week here on several fronts, so if I don't respond quickly, I hope you'll understand.)
Ross
Completely understandable. I'm sure others will step in to argue the points in your stead until you return.
-PK
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura
Wise Drunkard
# 1066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Yes, there are significant things within Mormon theology that differ from "traditional" or "mainstream" Christianity, but I'm not sure they differ much more than most Christian groups differ from each other.
In general there are greater similarities between the Christian, Islamic and Jewish doctrine of God than with mormonism. That is beacause all the Abrahmic faiths view God as the uncreated source of everything, while God for the mormons was once "like us" and that we ourselves can transmute into being God by nature and create our own universes.
Best,
--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco
Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
My personal definition of "Christian" includes anyone one considers themself a follower of Jesus. Under this definition Mormons obviously qualify, as do Protestants, Copts, Arians, etc.
If you want a stricter definition, there is acceptance of the seven ecumenical councils accepted by RC and Orthodox, but that criterion would exclude the majority of Protestants, historically speaking - which will be no loss to some I imagine but more of a problem for others.
Carys suggested
quote:
Not having 'another testament'?
which seems doubtful to me. Surely all Christians have another testament. The post-apostolic church deemed it appropriate to extend the canon to include apostolic and sub-apostolic writings. Protestants have further revised the canon. The immutability of scripture seems to me a doctrine impossible for any Christian.
As for new covenants, there are not one but a number in the Hebrew scriptures, another in the NT. Again, immutability on this point would not seem to be an obvious essential for Christianity.
As for doing good, this to my mind is a far more important distinction between Christian and non-Christian, but also quite a different one. Defining "Christian" as "morally good" would of course rule out a significant number of Christian leaders, and rule in plenty of Muslims, Hindus, atheists. Making it less than useful.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I conclude that we should not try to stop anyone from saying they are Christians if they mean it sincerely.
I think to say any given individual is not a Christian is a dodgy business, I agree. Looking at Mormonism's sacred works and accepted beliefs to say Mormonism is not, strictly speaking, Christian is a different matter, and I think acceptable to judge on the merits.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Urgh..... I don't want Laura or a host rightly yell at me again... Start a new thread
I wasn't yelling, and certainly not as a Host. I'm just a thread participant here, and I was only expressing hope that this thread not end up as a debate on what is or is not Orthodox, rather than what is or is not Christian. To the extent what you were saying is relevant to that, I don't have a problem with it.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...Looking at Mormonism's sacred works and accepted beliefs to say Mormonism is not, strictly speaking, Christian is a different matter, and I think acceptable to judge on the merits.
In fact I think we are required to...
quote:
I John 4: 1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
There are at least as many false prophets in the world now as when John wrote these words.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Laura, peace.
sharkshooter, this does not give an answer to who is a Christian and who is not... For example, I think that in Orthodoxy the authentic gospel lies (under dusted papyri, mind you ), but this does not mean that I deny other denominations' Christianity... To put it differently, remember all these harsh words said between the first Reformers and the Roman Church? Well, I don't think that they are deprived of their Christianity simply because the one accused the other of being a false teacher!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think you're disagreeing with Laura, sharkshooter. ...
I wasn't meaning to disagree on the issue, just take it a step further.
I could have been more clear. Sorry.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Just as a matter of interest, are non-Mormons welcome at Mormon services (or do they call them meetings)?
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Non-mormons and certain Mormons who haven't got special standing are not permitted at certain temple rites. I think the regular weekly services are open to all, tho'.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Non-mormons are welcome to the weekly services at their church buildings, though they look at you funny and sic their elders (young men*, in the LDS tradition) on you immediately after the service concludes.
The temple is off-limits to any non-Mormon at all times once it has been consecrated. Pre-consecration is the only time a non-Mormon is allowed in a Mormon Temple, which is why I dragged my wife along to the Manhattan temple a few years ago before it had been consecrated.
*Did I just make Sine want to become a Mormon?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Polite and tolerant as it may appear to be at first blush, I do not think that it is helpful to define as Christian any faith community that self-identifies as such since this approach could ultimately strip the word of any meaning. You can call a dog a cat, but if it doesn't purr like a cat or hiss like a cat or meow like a cat, it's not a cat.
At the very least, to be considered Christian a church should fairly closely adhere to the core beliefs that have been and continue to embraced by the vast majority of Christians.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Gwai, excellent point! Not to mention the situation when the Reformation started... Were the Reformers of the same faith with the majority of Christians before them?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
being in a religion that was started a few centuries ago seems equally weird to me!
AS it would to me. But then, I'm an Anglican so I don't actually know of any religions started a few centuries ago. I know of a couple of variations in Christianity (we call them denominations) that diverged from the main stream. But no new religions (in Engish as she is spoke, religion denominates a wholly new and separate thing -- Islam or Shinto. Subdivisions of Christianity don't qualify.) And nothing "started" as the word is used in normal English today.
Were you going to start that new thread so we can tangent together?
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I think to say any given individual is not a Christian is a dodgy business, I agree.
Which is why I've tried to be careful to say that Mormon teaching is not Christian, but the teaching of the mainstream Protestant churches is Christian.
God is gracious. I imagine that many people have encountered God in Jesus Christ through Mormonism. I imagine many people have through Islam. That's not at all the same thing as saying that the teachings of those religions are Christian.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Having been on the receiving end of "Your church isn't Christian because it doesn't agree with x or y theological point" has given me a lot more awareness of how hurtful it is to be called "not Christian" when you self-identify as Christian. Yes, there are significant things within Mormon theology that differ from "traditional" or "mainstream" Christianity, but I'm not sure they differ much more than most Christian groups differ from each other.
I was thinking about this last night as I went to sleep. Yes there are significant differences between and amongst denominations within `mainstream' Christianity, but on the whole there is a lot of overlap. A central bit on which will all agree and then various different bits of overlap within and amongst groups with not that much which is specific to one group and one group only. So Anglicans overlap with the RCs on some stuff but with the Presbyterians on other stuff and the Methodists on other stuff (and with all of them on other stuff). Whereas, whilst there is some overlap between Mormonism and `mainstream' Christianity, there's an awful lot that they believe that no mainstream Christian group does.
An example of the ways things overlap within the mainstream tradition: One thing which Methodism holds which is strange within Protestantism is the doctrine of Christian Perfection, but whilst this is strange for Protestantism (and maybe even for `Western' Christianity) it has close links to Orthodox ideas about Theosis (Wesley was a Greek scholar who read the Early Church Fathers).
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I conclude that we should not try to stop anyone from saying they are Christians if they mean it sincerely.
I think to say any given individual is not a Christian is a dodgy business, I agree. Looking at Mormonism's sacred works and accepted beliefs to say Mormonism is not, strictly speaking, Christian is a different matter, and I think acceptable to judge on the merits.
I think this is a key point in discussions of this nature. I am exceedingly reluctant to judge whether a specific person is or is not a Christian. Who am I to do so? How can I know? If they are trying to follow Jesus then fine. But when it comes to Churches/Groups etc, then it is a different matter. Assent to creeds is key for me, and if a non-credal tradition than at least not being anti-credal. So I'm much more comfortable including the Quakers than the Unitarians because whilst the Quakers don't have a creed they do not disbelief in the Trinity. One also has to be open to the possibility one might be wrong and be prepared to discuss things even when we disagree about the definition of Christian.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Were the Reformers of the same faith with the majority of Christians before them?
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Urgh..... I don't want Laura or a host rightly yell at me again... Start a new thread
Have done.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Were you going to start that new thread so we can tangent together?
What new thread? I forgot. I started one, and ken started one... Is there another issue still open? By all means, feel free to start one.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I did not intend to suggest that he concept of a Christian church is simply than a matter of current majority vote. The core beliefs of churhes that are considered Christian have been with us for nearly two thousand years. There is historical continuity, whose origins go back to the early church. Mormon departures from these core beliefs are a relative novelty.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
And until some point, blacks were enslaved and then segregated and shunned for the Curse of Ham, Noah's son. Women aren't to speak in church at all, and they are certainly not to disagree with their husbands. That equality is better espoused by mainstream Christianity than Mormonism is, again, not the strongest argument.
I don't have time to take on all of your points right now (sorry!), but I'll try to hit the high points.
Even enslaved blacks had the hope of Heaven. Even abused women had the faith that, in the final day, they would stand before God and hear, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." That's simply not the case with Mormonism, particularly since its caste system extends even to Heaven.
One may believe in Purgatory or not; there is no Biblical support whatever for different levels of Heaven. (Smith seems to have based this one on a misunderstanding of classical views of the cosmos.)
quote:
This is questionable. The Book of Mormon is definitely more sacred than any extra-biblical book from a mainline tradition, but I wouldn't say that all Christians view the Bible as the only necessary text. Council So-and-So and Catechism Section Such-and-Such are probably quoted as much, if not more, than the Bible here in Purgatory (though perhaps only because of Kerygmania).
Well, "Scripture, Tradition, Reason" is my faith tradition, but I don't know of any Christian denomination that would deny the primacy of the Bible. I revere the Book of Common Prayer; others value catechisms and councils -- but we all know that, without that biblical foundation, the rest of it would be pointless.
There are other problems with Smith's oeuvre, which can be addressed further if there's interest.
quote:
This is probably the weakest of the arguments you've presented. Christian sects differ most widely on issues of salvation, in my opinion.
And I could have done better on that argument. This quote:
LDS: Believe Christ's death brought release from grave and universal resurrection. Salvation by grace is universal resurrection. Beyond this, man must earn his place in heaven. Saved by grace after all we can do. (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:23; Mormon Doctrine pp. 669-671)
BIBLE: Salvation is not limited to universal resurrection but gift of God to those who believe. (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 9:28; Eph. 2:8-9)
states it more clearly.
Mormons have different meanings for words like "redeemed" (according to utlm.org, "From mortal death only. Not same as Eternal Life. (Doctrine of Salvation, Vol. 2, pp. 10-15)"), "eternal life" ("Exaltation in Celestial Kingdom; godhood and ability to bear children in heaven. Must have a temple recommend and be sealed in Mormon temple. (D&C 131:1-4; 132:19-25, 30, 55)"), and "Kingdom of God" ("Means Celestial Kingdom. Only those in the Celestial Kingdom are in God's presence. Those in the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms are not in the presence of the Father. (D&C 76:50-88; 131:1-4; 132:16-17)")
quote:
HOWEVER, I do think that the differences in belief about the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, and belief in canonical extra-biblical texts can make a decent case for differentiating between LDS and traditional Christianity. After all, their creed's 13th article of faith apparently states that they believe in Mulder and Scully. If that's not proof of their evil-ness...
I was going to say, "Nobody has ever said that they're 'evil,'" and then I clicked on the link:
quote:
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
It's a lovely sentiment, but it's one in which they easily fall just as short as do Christians. And while they "do good," they have been notorious for doing it only to their fellow Mormons for all but the very recent past, when they've extended some well-publicized charity to non-Mormons in extremis. As with grace, they believe that you have to earn the right to be treated with honesty, virtue and charity.
If "by their fruits you shall know them," you need to look at Mormon officialdom's penchant for excommunicating over relatively minor disagreements with policy (ERA supporter Sonia Johnson, Mormon historian Samuel Taylor, whose "Nightfall at Nauvoo" was overwhelmingly positive but, fatally, told some uncomfortable truths about Smith), and some Mormon history. (Beyond the Mountain Meadows Massacre and polygamy, check out Orrin Porter Rockwell, hitman to the prophets.)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
In fact, as a protestant I am in no place to object to people who break with the establishment.
Ahh -- I take issue with this. The protestant reformation was nothing like as big a break with RCC tradition and doctrine as the Mormon religion. The reformers (to the extent one can generalize) were concerned with specific ways in which they perceived that the Church had grown distant from scripture and from what Jesus and the Early Church had set forth (the sale of indulgences, for example). They were also occupied with political matters such as the extent to which the Church's involvement in assorted Earthly matters was corrupting it. They were not claiming that there was a new Gospel or dramatically changing any central understanding of the Triune God.
None of this means that Protestants are so far from the original Church that we are not in a position to make truth claims as against groups like the LDS. I accept virtually all teachings of the RCC except that I reject the pope's authority to make infallible pronouncements, and I disagree with the requirement for priestly celibacy and the rejection of women's calls to ordained ministry (and probably several other things as well). But that makes me essentially a next-door neighbor to the RCC. The Mormons live in the next town over theologically.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
I'd be willing to grant that Mormonism is clearly a religion that stands outside of the bounds of Christianity on the basis that they believe that God was a human who became our God, that we (men) will govern our own planets as gods someday, with our wives beside us to populate our new world, and that they have added to the canon in a significant manner (not just including or excluding different books but actually writing new books and canonizing them).
The third is demonstrable, but as far as I know, the first two are not. Can somebody point out where those two beliefs are claimed by the current Church of LDS? I'd prefer it if the source was not an "ex-Mormon" or otherwise negatively biased, and if the connection was direct and not implied. Otherwise, I find it hard to stand behind those claims/reasonings.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Kirke people have already referred you to quotes from D&C and Pearl. What more do you want?
A former co=worker of mine, a Mormon and not an ex-Mormon, affirmed that their hymnal has a hymn that starts, "If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye...". All about the wonders of the planet where God was a little boy. Google that line.
[ 28. November 2006, 04:24: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sure, but what leads someone to think the fullness of Jesus isn't represented in the New Testament? More to the point, though, why would this happen? Did the early apostles and disciples really mess up so badly? Was there something defective about the revelation of God in Christ?
Snip...
They don't, though, at least, they don't believe that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures contain the full revelation, and Christians believe that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ was full and complete.
Ruth---I'm having trouble with this view, because:
First--the account we have of God's revelation in Christ (i.e., the Bible) is open to interpretation. Unless you are fundamentalist (which I know you aren't) it seems to me that "Did the early apostles and disciples mess up so badly?" is not really a relevant question.
Yes, it is. Yes, the Bible is open to interpretation. But even a text as flexible, various and multivalent as the Bible will only support so and so many interpretations. Some things it just does not support, among them the notions that we have a pre-mortal existence, that women get to go to the highest heaven only if their husbands want them to, and that God was once a man -- all things the writers of the New Testament should have mentioned, if they're true.
More generally, the question of whether we can trust the testimony of the Bible is relevant because it's the closest thing we have to the testimony of the people who witnessed the key events upon which Christianity turns. If they messed up really, really bad, I will be pissed -- I could be sleeping in and going out to brunch on Sunday mornings.
quote:
To my way of thinking, the revelation cannot be considered "complete" because it is not clear to everyone. When every knee bows, and every tongue confesses, THEN the revelation will be complete...
Perhaps "sufficient" would be a better word for the revelation as we have it in the Bible. But the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, however inadequately it has been understood by Christians throughout the ages, is, I think, a complete revelation of God. If it isn't, then Jesus wasn't fully God.
quote:
Second--I believe (and I have a lot of company) that God continues to reveal God's will to us through the work of the Holy Spirit in the world (i.e.,ongoing revelation).
Sure, me too. I don't think that negates my point about the complete revelation of God in Christ.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Polite and tolerant as it may appear to be at first blush, I do not think that it is helpful to define as Christian any faith community that self-identifies as such since this approach could ultimately strip the word of any meaning. You can call a dog a cat, but if it doesn't purr like a cat or hiss like a cat or meow like a cat, it's not a cat.
It's got nothing to do with being polite and tolerant, its about trying to get a definition of "Christian" that works, and many suggested on this thread, including your own, do not work because in trying to exclude Mormonism they exclude far more besides.
A cat without a voicebox is still a cat because it is not defined by the noises it makes but by its parentage and genetic make-up.
quote:
At the very least, to be considered Christian a church should fairly closely adhere to the core beliefs that have been and continue to embraced by the vast majority of Christians.
This seems as imprecise as the cats & dogs thing to me. The majority of Christians embrace e.g. the real presence, baptism (of infants), the importance of images, the primacy of the Pope, the filioque - which are rejected by a sizeable minority of those who are normally called Christians.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I have two questions of any Mormons on board:
1. Has the Mormon church recognised the ecumenical creeds?
2. Do they as a regular practice take communion in other Christian churches, where this is permitted?
I hope you get an answer from a Mormon, but in the meantime, suppose the answers were No and Yes in that order. Do those answers define the right to the title of Christian? I know of many Christians who don't even know what the ecumenical creeds are -- are they Christian?
I grew up in a little, non-denom church where the closest thing we had to a creed was John 3:16. Many churches don't use creeds.
Also, how does point #2 relate to whether or not Mormons are Christians? I'm no fan of closed communion--but some Christian churches allow only their own members to receive communion, and don't allow them to receive it elsewhere.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Theologically Islam and Christianity and Judaism are all much, much closer to each other than Mormonism is to Christianity.
Do you have a measure for `closeness' of religious doctrines? Presumably even to develop such a measure you have to decide on what the central points of doctrine are, and in doing that you've already prejudged the issue.
For example, the (admittedly few) Mormons I know all accept, as a central point of doctrine, the divine status of Jesus Christ, and the necessity of his death for human salvation. This is a point of doctrine shared by (at least these) Moslems, and just about every Christian I know; and most emphatically not shared by Jews and Moslems.
In short, you can only say that Mormons are `not Christian' by defining what it means to be `Christian' in such a way as to exclude Mormons. This seems, to me, to be a pointless exercise.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Presumably even to develop such a measure you have to decide on what the central points of doctrine are
As I said before I think you have to allow more importance to what is logically first - God. And come out in ever-increasing circles.
So the existence of God is at the centre of things. Then the nature of God, then the incarnation and Christology, then ideas of the Church and salvation and so on, with things like the language of liturgy relatively peripheral and who does the flower arrangments right at the outside.
The disagreement between Christian churches and the LDS is right at the centre of that logical structure. Its over the existence of God. They use the word "god" for a being who, if he existed, would not be God in the sense that Christians, Muslims and Jews use the word. Just as someone might use the word "god" for Odin or Jupiter. A local demiurge rather than the eternal omniscient and omnipotent God who is the first cause of all created things.
That short-circuits the rest of the argument.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
. In fact, as a protestant I am in no place to object to people who break with the establishment. In other words, while I agree that some Mormon teaching seem quite dodgy to me, I disagree that we can mark the denomination off on the grounds of a break in continuity.
