homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
...Mormons have different meanings for words ...

This is one of the reasons it is difficult to discuss the sameness or difference. We may use the same words, but we mean different things by it.

It gets rather confusing.

--------------------
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
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But I rather get the feeling that those you agree are Christians don't always mean the same thing when they speak either. Heck, just pick a fundangelical and a liberal from this very board and watch them talk past each other.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree with Gwai. After all, some say that the Monophysite controversy was only a matter of words... Others say that the RCC-Orthodoxy controversies are also a matter of words...

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They are matters of words. And what the words stand for. That's true of all controversies that don't involve real estate.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231

 - Posted      Profile for GoodCatholicLad     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For what it's worth, this is what I have heard about the LDS from
ex mormons and from the web. The founder Smith believed that
Christianity after Jesus had become corrupted, the RCC really messed it up, it was NOT what Jesus intended. They used that old fav " the scarlet whore of Babylon" or the other variations.

The Reformation muddied the water and made it worse, the Protestant churches were " the bastard children of the scarlet whore of Babylon" so you guys don't come off any better! So from their point of view Christianity simply didn't exist until Smith came along in the mid 19th century and had the truth revealed to him by the tablets. When he received the tablets or the golden plates Christianity, TRUE Christianity had been restored to how God wanted it in the first place.

It's interesting how that mirrors the founding of Islam. To create a new faith system a founder or founders have to "throw everything off the table" and start new. Everything before was wrong and we now have the truth, but past truths and tradtions need to be eliminated.

One other point, the LDS doesn't practice charity. Many churches,
Catholic, Protestant have charities, World Lutheran Federations and Catholic Charities come to mind. They operate many relief agencies, they don't ask if you are Lutheran or RC they just give.
In San Francisco the Franciscans operate a dining hall and feed thousands of people a month hot meals, the brothers don't ask if you are a believer or RC, they just feed, it's their charism.
From what I have seen and read Mormons help their own, that's not charity.

Another interesting tidbit, their temples which operate as their cathedrals don't allow any old slob in them, you have to have a certain pass that is based on what you give to the church, your social standing. Last time I checked anyone who ever you are can walk into St. Paul's in London.
So much for the idea that king or pauper, all are equal in the house of the Lord.

One last thing, my neice who was 19, met this boy and started dating, before long he had her baptized and she was attending services which are an eight hour commitment on Sundays. When the novelty wore off she started to backslide in her attendance. Services started at 10 am. If my neice wasn't there by 10:30 the phone started to ring, "sister Jill where are you? we miss you please pick up" Well by 11:30 the doorbell was ringing, "sister Jill we have come to pick you up we hope all is well". After several weeks of this my brother was getting annoyed. My brother thought when she joined it was just another denomination like
Church of Christ or Baptist until he started reading about their beliefs, he put a stop to it and by that time my neice was dating someone else and she didn't like the commitment anyways.

Time magazine a while back said that the LDS was worth over 400 billion dollars in CASH. They do pay income tax, Uncle Sam doesn't consider them a non profit tax exempt church. Anyone who can come up with a religion where there isn't any paid clergy or staff and the vast majority of the monies goes into the coffers at headquarters is pure freaking genius. The LDS fascinates me.

--------------------
All you have is right now.

Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A Mormon contacted me, wishing to remain anonymous and to stay away from this thread (they compared their participation here to "skinny-dipping with sharks"). They gave me permission to share this with you all, so I am.

I have taken the liberty of bolding what I think are the most relevant excerpts:

quote:
For a general overview about Mormon beliefs pertaining to the nature of God and our relationship to Him, here is a link to a sermon given by Boyd K. Packer, who Mormons believe is one of the modern-day apostles, and can therefore be accepted as an authority on interpreting Mormon doctrine. This talk was given in October 1984 at the Mormon church's semi-annual general conference (when church leaders address the church membership as a whole). It addresses the issue of "Mormons as polytheists".

Other References

On God once being a man:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)


On men and women becoming gods someday:

"And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them."

(Doctrine & Covenants 132:19-20)

The sermon by Packer is rather enlightening, as it helps to connect the ideas that God was once a man and that men will all become Gods (these two are really the same issue). The synopsis of his argument is that since even small children understand that baby chicks become chickens, and baby puppies become dogs, that if we are the children of God, of course we will become gods. That's the "pattern of our parentage," as he says. Thus, God the Father will always be our father, and there is only one God who is our father, but we are all his children, and one day we will all grow to become full grown children of God, and thus, gods in our own right.

I think that at best this serves to put Mormonism at odds with almost all other self-proclaimed Christian organizations. Whether or not that makes them not Christian is probably still debatable, but using "Christian" to describe them probably alters the meaning of the concept/word.

Lastly, I spoke with a conservative evangelical yesterday about whether Mormons are Christians, and her answers interested me. When I asked her the question directly, she responded, "What's written in a book or online about Mormonism, no one really believes. Everyone's theology is different and in their own heart. Do i think some people who call themselves Mormons will go to heaven? Yeah. Do I think some won't? Yes.
A better question then, for me, is 'Will most Mormons go to heaven?'"

Her answer to her own question was, "It's really hard, I guess I feel like it's safer to say no they won't go to heaven, their theology is out of line with the Bible in major ways. But because I believe that part of the central part of their faith is accurate (belief in Jesus for salvation, etc.), I feel unable to answer."

It interested me mostly because her understanding of the meaning of "Christian" was "going to heaven" and I think that's different from most understandings of "Christian" here on this board.

[ 29. November 2006, 13:58: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The position of the Church of England is that it recognises other churches which subscribe to the Nicene Creed as Christian. Cantuar locuta est... hang on that can't be right. Anyway, it strikes me as being a reasonably good rule of thumb.

I think Terry Eagleton is on the money about Mormonism, personally. It is a religious manifestation of American exceptionalism which can't quite come to terms with the fact that the most important events in salvation history took place in Judea and Samaria and Old Europe and Egypt and Babylon and not in the US, as they should have done.

[ 29. November 2006, 14:14: Message edited by: Callan ]

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Prof. Kirke:

I'm awfully sorry that that shipmate felt unable to post something that uncontroversial here (that is, merely material confirming several key ways in which Mormon doctrine diverges from orthodox Christianity).

Again: I just don't get it. Mormonism is clearly different in key ways and Mormon teaching is that they've got it right and we've got it wrong, so why all the secrecy about that? It makes no sense, unless part of Mormon evangelism is to avoid bringing up these things in order to draw in converts from other Christian traditions, pretending that Mormonism is more "christian" in the orthodox sense that it is. But that seems dishonest. (Not saying that your correspondent is dishonest, I'm talking about the Mormons who come to my door and won't address those theological points).

I feel that people and faiths should be who they are, with feeling. If you're a Mormon, embrace the bizarro stuff with gusto and don't be shy about it. I'm not shy (if asked) about saying I believe mainline Christian stuff that my agnostic friends think is insane and regard me with gentle pity about.

--------------------
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      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It is a religious manifestation of American exceptionalism which can't quite come to terms with the fact that the most important events in salvation history took place in Judea and Samaria and Old Europe and Egypt and Babylon and not in the US, as they should have done.

Oh?

cue organ prelude
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of God
on England's pleasant pastures seen....?


Probably not! [Devil]

--------------------
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
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961

 - Posted      Profile for Mr Clingford   Email Mr Clingford   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But in our delusion, Laura, I don't think we invented a new religion/sect/whatever with a spanking 3rd Testament!

--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.

If only.

Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23

 - Posted      Profile for SteveTom   Author's homepage   Email SteveTom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
...one day we will all grow to become full grown children of God, and thus, gods in our own right.

I think that at best this serves to put Mormonism at odds with almost all other self-proclaimed Christian organizations.

It doesn't sound much different to theosis to me.

Unless you're including in that the doctrine that God was originally a human being, which simply does my head in. Where? When? Where did that man come from? Was he created by a God who was also previously a man? Is it turtles all the way down?

--------------------
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      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
It doesn't sound much different to theosis to me.

Unless you're including in that the doctrine that God was originally a human being, which simply does my head in. Where? When? Where did that man come from? Was he created by a God who was also previously a man? Is it turtles all the way down?

I think it is. [Big Grin] And that's why it's different from theosis.

--------------------
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
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23

 - Posted      Profile for SteveTom   Author's homepage   Email SteveTom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Oh?

cue organ prelude
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of God
on England's pleasant pastures seen....?


Probably not! [Devil]

Ha! Touché. It seems Blake genuinely believed that.

--------------------
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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of God
on England's pleasant pastures seen....?


... is a rhetorical question with the expected answer "no".

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Duh, ken. But that doesn't mean that there aren't English exceptionalists -- as Steve T points out, Blake reportedly believed it. But I never meant a sort of bon mot to derail the thread. A thousand apologies. [Big Grin]

--------------------
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      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
It doesn't sound much different to theosis to me.

After all, we do believe that Melchisedeck was without a father and without a mother and without a genealogy.... even though he was born the same way we are... because we affirm his theosis...

However, I do think that yes, the Mormon story probably is quite different from Orthodox theosis.

And the man walking in the garden was not God??? You mean the bible is not to be taken literally??? [Biased]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
andreas, that is a logically fallacious argument. Just because there are mythological and metaphorical elements in Judaism's ancient writings does not mean that we must accept as equally valid any representation of theological truth offered by anyone.

The most you can say is that having fantastic claims in scripture does not, in itself, render a religion clearly untrue. Nothing more. To say more, one needs to particularly consider each individual case.

--------------------
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      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't disagree with what you just posted Laura. I did not claim that Mormonism is theologically true. I did however pointed out that they are not alone in making claims starting from literal readings of the bibles. There are some fundamentalist churches that do make claims (although different and less exotic ones, but false nevertheless) starting from literal readings of the bible.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
chicklegirl
Shipmate
# 11741

 - Posted      Profile for chicklegirl   Author's homepage   Email chicklegirl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Sigh) I'd better out myself, here. I was the one that sent Kirke the links. Diggory, sorry if it seemed as though I was trying to make you an errand boy; that was not my intent.

The reference about skinny-dipping with sharks was a joke, but apparently my delivery was too deadpan. [Disappointed] I'll have to work on that. My PMing Diggory in no way reflects an unwillingness to embrace my beliefs or stand up for them. As I commented on the Styx, it's rather entertaining to read what people think about my religion, and when they think I'm weird, I don't take it personally. After all, I think some of your beliefs are pretty weird, too, but I still enjoy the friendships I'm building here. I really like being a part of this community because I find that being friends with people who have different beliefs helps me to be more open-minded and compassionate. That, and the Knockout Quiz is a blast!

It is a joy to say that I believe I'm a Christian--despite popular opinion to the contrary--and I don't find my beliefs about the nature of God and being his child as described above to be at odds with my faith in Jesus Christ. I'm very comfortable in my religious skin; my faith, however much it embraces weird and "out there" theology, is my most prized possession. After having a large, hairy shirtless man brandish a shotgun at me while I was knocking on doors as a missionary in California, any ill-will on the Ship pales by comparison.

What I prefer to avoid (and hence my PM to Kirke instead of a post here) is engaging in a protracted and pointless defense of my beliefs. Purg is the place to argue, and any post here is an invitation to argument. The reason I've stayed silent is that I don't want to argue. I sent the links to Diggory because I trust his objectivity and I could tell that he was motivated by a genuine desire for accurate information rather than a drive to spar. I sent them, even knowing that they would probably put the nail in the coffin lid with regard to whether Diggory thinks Mormons are Christian. I wanted to be forthcoming, so that he could honestly make up his mind. Posting those beliefs here would have been different, because I think most of the rest here have already made up their minds, one way or the other. And while I do enjoy a healthy debate when I believe it serves a higher purpose, that does not apply here. No death or disaster will be averted if folks on the Ship change their minds about Mormons being Christian (at least, until you start feeding us to lions in the Circus). [Snigger]

After observing Purg for a while, it is my firm conviction that with rare exceptions, no one ever convinces anyone else here to change their POV, regardless of the topic. I don't have the conceit to think that I'm special enough to succeed where others have failed.

Trust me, if I was looking to convert anyone, I would have picked an easier crowd (maybe a coven of witches?) [Two face]

Apologies for the lengthy post; I'm aspiring to be more pithy but have far to go yet. Whatever you say about my church, I won't take it personally, so please carry on while I stay on the sidelines munching my popcorn and enjoying the show.

--------------------
If you want to be happy, be.
~ Henry David Thoreau

Posts: 916 | From: Sixth Circle of Hell | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
chicklegirl [Overused]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chicklegirl:

Thanks very much for the outing -- I pretty much knew it was you anyway, because of the tone of what Prof K posted -- reasonable and kind.

I think you should take from what myself and many have written that I wouldn't say you yourself are or are not Christian -- that's way above my pay grade, that sort of determination. IMV, the New Testament tells us whose job that is and what happens to those of us who go in for that sort of thing. [Help]

But anyway, I don't think this thread is about defending your beliefs. I think people are trying to figure out what Mormons believe, in order to compare/contrast these with orthodox Christian beliefs as expressed in assorted creeds and church councils. So it isn't about you personally. It's a, what.... educational opportunity? [Big Grin]

--------------------
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
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23

 - Posted      Profile for SteveTom   Author's homepage   Email SteveTom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chicklegirl, without wanting to draw you into debate, I'd be grateful if you can fill us in a bit more about what you and your church believe.

In particular:
quote:
the doctrine that God was originally a human being, which simply does my head in. Where? When? Where did that man come from? Was he created by a God who was also previously a man?


--------------------
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
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have a few questions that I think have not been directly answered in this thread. Does the CoJCotLDS consider other churches to be Christian?
If considered non-Christian, what is the nature of the apostasy or heresy? If Christian, are they nontheless defective or misguided in some matters of faith, and if so, what is the nature of these deficiencies?

Greta

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...Again: I just don't get it. Mormonism is clearly different in key ways and Mormon teaching is that they've got it right and we've got it wrong, so why all the secrecy about that? It makes no sense, unless part of Mormon evangelism is to avoid bringing up these things in order to draw in converts from other Christian traditions, pretending that Mormonism is more "christian" in the orthodox sense that it is. But that seems dishonest. ...

It is dishonest, but it is what the missionaries are taught to do, on the basis of "milk before meat:" babies are given easily digested milk for a long time before they can handle meat, and potential converts are in the same situation. They tend to wait until you're safely in the fold to share some of the more outre beliefs.

I really believe the Mormon-vs-Christian question can be reduced to the very basic question of God versus gods:

If you believe that God is One, eternal, uncreated, maker of the Universe and all that is in it from nothingness and not a box mix, and that the One God is known to us in three Persons, also uncreated and eternal, you may be a Christian.

If you believe that the god of this world is just the local franchisee, and that he was once a man, and that Adam is now a god, and that other men are now gods "in embryo," you may be a good person, and you may well be Heaven-bound, but you are not a Christian by any understanding or definition common in the world for most of the last 2000 years. And those understandings and definitions ought to count for something.

Professor Kirke: I assume I'm one of the "sharks" you mention, and I'm also someone who has tried to support my statements with links. The problem with your objections to sites run by ex-Mormons is that you're throwing out the original documents along with the people who've posted them.

You may dismiss Sandra Tanner and utlm.org, but the site has a wealth of carefully researched and really invaluable source material. (In fact, I know Mormons who use it on occasion because of that.) If something's true, and presented in its original context, it ought to be admissable as evidence on a discussion board.

Greta: See this page for the Mormon view of Christian churches. Smith and his successors taught a "universal apostasy." From utlm.org:
quote:
...In the B. of M., an angel told Nephi, "Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil" (I Nephi 14:10). Therefore, members of all other churches must belong to the church of the devil! LDS Apostle Orson Pratt clearly taught that idea when he wrote:

But who in this generation have authority to baptize? None but those who have received authority in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives baptism or the Lord's Supper from their hands will highly offend God; for He looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people. Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornication and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act (The Seer, p. 255).

Joseph Smith also said, "Will everyone be damned, but Mormons? Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness" (T. of P.J.S., p. 119). ...

There, it seems to me, you have it: ecumenism is right out for the Mormons, because the rest of us are apostates and not Christian at all.

Ross

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Professor Kirke: I assume I'm one of the "sharks" you mention,

No, I don't think the comment was directed personally at anyone. Don't be so paranoid. It was a joke about how intimidating the 'angry majority' can seem. At least, that's why I included it in my repost of Chicklegirl's PM.

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I'm awfully sorry that that shipmate felt unable to post something that uncontroversial here

For what it's worth, I completely understood the desire to stay out of this thread. I won't speak for Chicklegirl, but as I see it, I don't think I'd want to feel like my identity was completely wrapped up in my being part of a particular minority viewpoint. I'd imagine that at some point you start getting a little tired of defending it.

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I'm also someone who has tried to support my statements with links. The problem with your objections to sites run by ex-Mormons is that you're throwing out the original documents along with the people who've posted them.

You may dismiss Sandra Tanner and utlm.org, but the site has a wealth of carefully researched and really invaluable source material. (In fact, I know Mormons who use it on occasion because of that.) If something's true, and presented in its original context, it ought to be admissable as evidence on a discussion board.

Of course it's admissable. And yes, for now I am throwing out the original documents with the people presenting them because I don't really trust the people presenting them.

I'm not extremely familiar with the Mormon texts, so I'd rather not try to base my opinions on them on someone who does know the text very well but has an obvious agenda. It's not that I think those sites are useless--it's just not where I want to start as I try to understand their religion.

quote:
quote:
Joseph Smith also said, "Will everyone be damned, but Mormons? Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness" (T. of P.J.S., p. 119). ...
There, it seems to me, you have it: ecumenism is right out for the Mormons, because the rest of us are apostates and not Christian at all.
I don't hear how this is any different from "Will everyone be damned, but Christians? Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent"...

It raises an interesting question though. If you believe you are the only Christian sect of all which is saved, does it make you cease to be Christian?

[Edited to tone it down and say what I actually mean.]

[ 29. November 2006, 23:22: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
And yes, for now I am throwing out the original documents with the people presenting them because I don't really trust the people presenting them.

With respect, this really doesn't make any sense, Prof Kirke. Seriously. As a scholar, I have to rely on original documents wherever they come from. Are you suggesting that quotes from Mormon scriptures are being somehow cooked up? Or is it not possible to you that Mormons might not themselves link to such documents such that it may be impossible to find such things on an Official Mormon site?

It's like early church documents that are not part of the canon. Certain Baptist sites won't provide links to them because they don't regard non-canonical books as reliable, but that doesn't mean you can't rely on them to support a viewpoint Baptists would oppose.

I genuinely don't understand your position. It's as if you are saying you will only accept offially approved Mormon-sponsored history here. That's no way to understand anything, any more than only reading negative sites would be a way to understand something.


[Confused]

--------------------
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
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
JAC: If the Tanners had altered the documents, trust me, you'd hear the screaming from here to Kingdom Come.

The real problem, from the Mormon point of view, is that things like Brigham Young's view of blacks -- "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110) from utlm.org's section on "Racism." -- is a terrible embarrassment.

If your point of view is simply, "Anyone who claims to be a Christian IS a Christian in my book," then that's one thing; there's probably no real point in talking about it. If you really do want to discuss it, then it seems to me that it's necessary to admit legitimate Mormon documents, no matter who happens to be making them available.

Ross

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the issue is that there are a lot of living Mormon's around and Professor Kirke would rather start with a friendly understanding of their religious beliefs than one that might be taken out of context etcetera.

[ 30. November 2006, 03:17: Message edited by: Gwai ]

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think the issue is that there are a lot of living Mormon's around and Professor Kirke would rather start with a friendly understanding of their religious beliefs than one that might be taken out of context etcetera.

Sorry, that still doesn't make any sense. The original documents are the original documents. It doesn't matter who posted them or why, unless you somehow think they've been cooked up. I see no evidence that any of the linked originals have been cooked up.

--------------------
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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Chicklegirl:

quote:
No death or disaster will be averted if folks on the Ship change their minds about Mormons being Christian (at least, until you start feeding us to lions in the Circus).
Exactly. There is an odd school of thought in Christianity which seems to think we can only be nice to people if they believe all the same things as us and therefore we will pretend that everyone believes the same things as us. I belong to the school which says that you can be perfectly nice to people who believe different things to you but that we ought to be honest about what people do believe.

Incidentally, quite apart from the myth of our Lord's visit to Glastonbury, King Alfred claimed descent from a close relation of Christ which means our own dear Queen is a blood relative of Jesus (and a direct descendant of Wotan, as it happens) and then there is the once fashionable phenomenon of British Israelitism which maintained that we Brits are the ten lost tribes of Israel. All of which stems from the fact that for most of the Biblical period Britain was as unknown as America.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23

 - Posted      Profile for SteveTom   Author's homepage   Email SteveTom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
And yes, for now I am throwing out the original documents with the people presenting them because I don't really trust the people presenting them.

With respect, this really doesn't make any sense, Prof Kirke. Seriously. As a scholar, I have to rely on original documents wherever they come from.
When Laura says "With respect..." my blood runs cold.

Isn't the point, Laura - with respect - that when say Richard Dawkins wants to discredit Christianity it's very easy to cherry pick bizarre and unpleasant verses form the Bible to prove that "Christianity says" that homosexuals should be executed and that God is a paranoid manipulative male psychopath.
And that if you want to know what a religion (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism) is, reading its texts is not enough, you need to hear from believers what they actually believe.

--------------------
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
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I cannot see how one can honestly not consider both the documents and Mormon practice. Neither is relevant with the other. My fairly considerable (family-related) experience with Mormonism suggests that Mormon practice falls into three broad categories: what one might call mainstream, which is not incompatible with how most churchgoers operate, with perhaps a greater degree of involvement in weekday activities (Relief Society etc); more intense, such as is practised by those who have served as missionaries; and the inner circle, who are involved in temple stuff.

The first category is what most of us have met and dealt with-- to them the LDS scriptures are (perhaps slightly quirky) add-ons to the NT and OT. The other two categories have a closer relationship to LDS-specific scriptures and that is where we need to take the LDS texts as serious interpretive documents. The Tanners, like them or not, provide us with many of the less accessible texts and their context. LDS activists are unhappy with this, as they use denial as a helpful mechanism to bridge LDS authorities' claims to literal and absolute authority, over against some seriously problematic texts.

Mainstream Xians are used to a (technical use of this word) critical reading of the OT and NT, and many find it useful. LDS are less accustomed to the linguistic and textual analysis, and are finding that it presents a real challenge to the documents' credibility. And if the documents' creds don't hold up, then... house of cards and all that...

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
When Laura says "With respect..." my blood runs cold.

Isn't the point, Laura - with respect - that when say Richard Dawkins wants to discredit Christianity it's very easy to cherry pick bizarre and unpleasant verses form the Bible to prove that "Christianity says" that homosexuals should be executed and that God is a paranoid manipulative male psychopath.
And that if you want to know what a religion (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism) is, reading its texts is not enough, you need to hear from believers what they actually believe.

Well, of course. But one mustn't say "I refuse to consider the thoughtful opposition" either, even just to look at documents they use in support of their arguments". I'm talking of a holistic scholarly approach.

--------------------
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
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But if PK gets most of his information from Rossweisse who has, I gather, already made up her mind, he will definitely have a biased view not a holistic view.

ETA: nothing personal intended towards Rossweisse at all. I only mean that people tend to support their own opinion.

[ 30. November 2006, 14:49: Message edited by: Gwai ]

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But the question wasn't about PK getting his information from Rossweisse. It was about source documents posted on the web.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
from someone who's already made up their mind and pointed out by Rossweisse.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, so if Rossweisse hands me a book of Mormon, that's somehow tainted evidence for what the Mormons believe? Too much.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
from someone who's already made up their mind and pointed out by Rossweisse.

By people who have made it their life's study to gather this information and make it available. And, yes, pointed out by me. What is wrong with that?

Yes, I have "made up my mind" that the Mormon religion is not Christian. I have done so based on a lot of reading and research. Utlm.org is one of the best sites out there, in my opinion.

If you're interested in the authentic history of the Mormon movement -- beyond martyrologies and one-sided accounts -- you're going to have to look beyond authorized Mormon sources. I recommend Nightfall at Nauvoo, a sympathetic but honest account of Smith's time in Missouri and Illinois, by Samuel W. Taylor.

Taylor was a Mormon in good standing when he wrote his history, but he was excommunicated after some in the hierarchy took exception to it. After you read it, you might find yourself wondering why.

Ross

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lots of churches have had nasty things said about them and reacted badly. To me, that says less about the LDS and more about institutions in general.

Though the book sounds like interesting reading. I'll keep an eye open for it.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Checking Amazon.com, it appears to be out of print, but available used from various vendors.

By the way, a couple of people have mentioned the "British Israelite" business. Smith was a subscriber to the idea that the Anglo-Saxons were the true Jews (along with the American Indians, the latter an idea that was floating around almost as early as Columbus), and that has been reflected in Mormonism ever since:
quote:
One aspect of the blessing is the designation of the person’s lineage. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, under EPHRAIM, states:

For Latter-day Saints, identification of a person's lineage in latter-day Covenant Israel is made under the hands of inspired Patriarchs through patriarchal blessings that declare lineage. Elder John A. Widtsoe, an Apostle, declared, "In giving a blessing the patriarch may declare our lineage—that is, that we are of Israel, therefore of the family of Abraham, and of a specific tribe of Jacob. In the great majority of cases, Latter-day Saints are of the tribe of Ephraim, the tribe to which has been committed the leadership of the Latter-day work. Whether this lineage is of blood or adoption it does not matter" (p. 73; cf. Abr. 2:10).

The patriarchal blessings of most Latter-day Saints indicate that they are literal, blood descendants of Abraham and of Israel. Those who are not literal descendants are adopted into the family of Abraham when they receive baptism and confirmation (see Law of Adoption). They are then entitled to all the rights and privileges of heirs (TPJS, pp. 149-50). This doctrine of adoption was understood by ancient prophets and apostles (e.g., Rom. 11; 1 Ne. 10:14; Jacob 5; cf. D&C 84:33-34). ...

(Full citation here.)

Ross

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are we allowed to target a question at ChickleGirl? I don't want to be agressive, but it really interests me and it is this:

Do you, and Mormons you know, want to be identified as basically of the same religion as Anglicans, Orthodox, URC, etc? I'm a "sort of" Anglican, and am quite happy to identify, in discussion with RCC or Orthodox. Currently, I have to say, not with LDS. But this is partly a reaction to the feeling that you wouldn't want to identify with us. Not as people, I can imagine you can separate your thoughts about a person and their church affiliation. I'm specifically asking if you view our Churches as essentially the ame religion as your own.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chicklegirl:
I'm very comfortable in my religious skin; my faith, however much it embraces weird and "out there" theology, is my most prized possession. After having a large, hairy shirtless man brandish a shotgun at me while I was knocking on doors as a missionary in California, any ill-will on the Ship pales by comparison....

I do hope it wasn't you I was rude to. Two Sisters from the LDS Church came to my door back in the late 90s, back when I was going through my very staunch bible-banging phase. I dumped a bunch of Mormon questions on them that were put as to be off-putting and they both ran away from me. I need to find a way to be kind yet to adhere to the verse that states "do not let anybody in your house who preaches a false doctrine" (at work, please forgive me at the moment for not remember where the said verse is).

I am so glad chicklegirl that you have not been scared away and choose to participate. It means a lot to me. [Smile] My chiropractor is Mormon and we are forever trying to convert each other to each other's faith...

Me being single and 39, I think if I were a Mormon, I would not be...fruitful. I think I am past my prime for them! Hehe. Sorry, lame joke...back to work now...

(hash out calls...argh)

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
chicklegirl
Shipmate
# 11741

 - Posted      Profile for chicklegirl   Author's homepage   Email chicklegirl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a student of history, I agree with Laura and Rossweisse on the importance of amassing as much relevant documentation as possible, from all sides of an issue. That said, a smart researcher will take into account not only the reliability of a given document based on the biases of the author, but also its weight in terms of significance. This is especially true when reading religious texts, whether they be scripture or commentary by religious leaders.

In the context of studying Mormon doctrine this holds true. In determining what Mormons affirm as their doctrine, the greatest weight must be given to our cannonized scripture (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price). Secondary in authority are addresses given by our prophets, apostles and seventy during general conference, when Mormon leaders address the general church membership to provide clarity and direction on specific points of doctrine. As these conferences have been held twice yearly for over a century, there's a large library of material to draw from for explanation about Mormon doctrine, much of it available on lds.org. Any other source including, but not limited to, Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, or other books containing unofficial writing by those same leaders is not cannonized and therefore cannot be relied upon as an authoritative source for official Mormon doctrine. Many Mormons do believe the things contained in Journal of Discourses and other historical or unofficial sources, and those writings certainly have their value, but they haven't been recognized by the Mormon church as scripture or doctrinally definitive. So, just because something is a "document", doesn't justify its validity or veracity (after all, the National Enquirer is a document). [Eek!]

A few of you had questions, and I'll do my best to answer them.

quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
I'd be grateful if you can fill us in a bit more about what you and your church believe.

In particular:
quote:
the doctrine that God was originally a human being, which simply does my head in. Where? When? Where did that man come from? Was he created by a God who was also previously a man?

This is a good question, and honestly, I don't know the answer. I'm quite curious about it myself, but my personal study has yielded little that I feel I can accept as authoritative. I do know that Mormon scripture has nothing overt to say--only the inference about God's origin in that we, as his children, can become like him (see the scripture reference I provided for Professor Kirke, from Doctrine & Covenants 132). Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow, who was a prophet in the late 1800s, both commented on God once being a man (see the quote from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith in my previous post). The idea is accepted as doctrine by Mormons, and has been mentioned in general conference talks, but there is little elaboration in the official doctrinal sources.

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Does the CoJCotLDS consider other churches to be Christian? If considered non-Christian, what is the nature of the apostasy or heresy? If Christian, are they nontheless defective or misguided in some matters of faith, and if so, what is the nature of these deficiencies?

Yes, Mormons believe that other churches who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ are Christian. We do not recognize the priesthood authority of those churches to perform the ordinances we believe are necessary for salvation, such as baptism. We believe that at the time that the last of Jesus' apostles died, the power of the priesthood (the authority to perform ordinances and act in the name of God) was taken from the earth, but was then restored to Joseph Smith by Peter, James and John, and John the Baptist in the spring of 1829. This link provides some basic information about that.

In Doctrine & Covenants 1:30, Mormons believe that God says we are "the only true and living church upon the face of the earth." This is strong language, but rather than a mean-spirited attempt to say "we're better than you because our priesthood/baptism/doctrine is better than yours" (although I've definitely met some of my fellow Mormons who act that way) we believe it's simply a direct statement from God that Mormons doctrine is more complete because we believe in a living prophet and apostles who provide current and continuing revelation, that we have other doctrines unique from the rest of Christianity, and that we believe our priesthood came directly from apostles who had the authority given to them by Christ. [Please note that this is not a personal attack; just a statement about doctrine.] We do absolutely believe that there are many good people outside our faith, both Christian and otherwise, and we believe in being "in the world but not of the world". Sadly, I think too many Mormons focus on being "not of the world" and forget the part about being in the world, and thus tend to be cloistered and judgemental of those outside their faith. (And yes, that last part is just my personal opinion, not Mormon doctrine.) [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Do you, and Mormons you know, want to be identified as basically of the same religion as Anglicans, Orthodox, URC, etc?

I can only answer for myself on this one, although I do know other Mormons who feel much the same as I do. Yes, I want to be identified as Christian, a believer in and (trying to be) a follower of Christ. I believe, as James said, that "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." I do have some ideas different from the rest of you about what that means and I'm not ashamed to be Mormon and embrace the differences that entails (weirdness and all!)

Oh, and Duchess, honey--don't sweat it. I'm sure you were a source of character-building experience (like my shirtless hairy gun-totin' dude). Clearly, you have repented. Just remember the phrase: "Thank you for your time, but I'm not interested." [Biased]

Hope this information is useful.

--------------------
If you want to be happy, be.
~ Henry David Thoreau

Posts: 916 | From: Sixth Circle of Hell | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chicklegirl,

Are you saying that according to the LDS view, my church (the ECUSA/TEC) may be Christian, but that I am be denied salvation until I am baptised by member of the Mormon priesthood? This makes no sense to me. If you accept the notion that the Episcopal Church "follows the teachings of Jesus Christ" (a very slippery criterion), how can you simultaneously believe that its members are all Hell-bound?

Will the CoJCofLDS permit me to drop by one of the temples for a quick no-questions-asked baptism without my leaving the Episcopal Church and my conversion to Mormonism?

Greta

[ 30. November 2006, 20:59: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]

Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, just catching up after a busy horrible day.

Of course, Laura, Ross and Mouse--if I really want to get an idea of what Mormons believe, I could locate a copy of each of their actual documents and read them for myself. I agree that this would be the most holistic, scholarly approach to the matter in general.

Instead, I'm here talking with people about whether Mormonism is a Christian religion (a better question than "are Mormons Christians" probably). I don't think that anyone should start their exploration of a religious belief system (or anything, for that matter) with a long list of negative horribles compiled by an angry dissenter with an axe to grind.

The original texts are the original texts, but if you're going to have someone point out which passages of the text are relevant to the discussion, I'd like to start out by hearing the defense make their presentation and then later consider the prosecution's charge, in light of the foundational understanding I've come to.

Sites like the one Ruth linked to earlier in the thread are much more helpful in forming an initial understanding because of how they try to remain somewhat neutral.

This is especially true when trying to understand a specific charge brought against a religion. If you heard that John Smith allegedly stole $10,000, it will probably be best for your investigation to avoid the neighbor's house who has a giant "I Hate John Smith" banner hung on his house and who maintains johnsmithisadumbliar.com in their spare time. Their testimony isn't invalidated on account of their emotion but the evidence it produces is weaker, in my opinion.

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chicklegirl:
...just because something is a "document", doesn't justify its validity or veracity (after all, the National Enquirer is a document).

Chicklegirl, I hope you're not really comparing the words of Mormon apostles like Bruce McConkie -- author of the standard reference Mormon Doctrine, and widely cited by Mormon apologists -- to the contents of a notorious tabloid!

quote:
the doctrine that God was originally a human being, which simply does my head in. Where? When? Where did that man come from? Was he created by a God who was also previously a man?
quote:
This is a good question, and honestly, I don't know the answer. I'm quite curious about it myself, but my personal study has yielded little that I feel I can accept as authoritative. I do know that Mormon scripture has nothing overt to say...
The Adam-God Doctrine came from Brigham Young, as even McConkie, who long denied it, finally admitted. The notion that God was once a man apparently originated with Smith.

quote:
Yes, Mormons believe that other churches who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ are Christian. ...
In Doctrine & Covenants 1:30, Mormons believe that God says we are "the only true and living church upon the face of the earth." This is strong language, but rather than a mean-spirited attempt to say "we're better than you because our priesthood/baptism/doctrine is better than yours"...

Pearl of Great Price says differently, as does the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
quote:
...The Mormon church definitely teaches that all other churches are in a state of apostasy. More than fifty pages of the introduction to the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are devoted to proving that all churches except the Mormon church are in apostasy. The following, for example, is found on page XL: "Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Mormons claim that in 1820 God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ visited Joseph Smith and told him that he "must join none" of the churches, "for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an
abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof'" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:18-19). ... (utlm.org)

Chicklegirl, I believe you're sincere -- not just friendshipping us -- and a good person. I've enjoyed your posts on other boards, and I appreciate the difficulty of your position here, having to defend your religion singlehandedly! But I think your ideas do not entirely mesh with those of the hierarchy of that religion. "Complete apostasy" means that the Christian churches are not really Christian churches, in the opinion of every Mormon official from Smith on down.

quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
...Instead, I'm here talking with people about whether Mormonism is a Christian religion (a better question than "are Mormons Christians" probably). I don't think that anyone should start their exploration of a religious belief system (or anything, for that matter) with a long list of negative horribles compiled by an angry dissenter with an axe to grind. ...

I'm sorry, PK, but I don't think you're really interested in a discussion. If all you want is the official Mormon point of view, I'm sure there are plenty of eager young missionaries ready to come out to your house and provide it.

If you genuinely want to investigate the background of the issue and the reasons that many educated, reasonable and theologically liberal people might deny Mormonism a place in Christianity, you can't do it without reading things that the missionaries won't provide. I think it's intellectually dishonest of you to pose the question and then object to the evidence presented you.

You asked for "credible links." Well, you've got them: links that quote the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and other acknowledged Mormon sources. If you find excuses for dismissing them, it seems to me, it's because you're looking for excuses to dismiss them. Please pardon me if I've mistaken you in this.

Ross

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
chicklegirl
Shipmate
# 11741

 - Posted      Profile for chicklegirl   Author's homepage   Email chicklegirl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Since I'm seeing the sign for "exchange of useful information" in my rearview mirror, I'm catching the next exit.

Have a nice weekend, all! [Cool]

--------------------
If you want to be happy, be.
~ Henry David Thoreau

Posts: 916 | From: Sixth Circle of Hell | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it no longer "useful information" when the actual words of the "prophets, seers and revelators" are cited and linked to, Chicklegirl? It seems to me that this has been an unusually polite, respectful, and useful exchange. I am truly sorry that you have chosen to withdraw.

Ross

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This discussion Is interesting to me but when it's one against so many--I probably wouldn't stay either.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231

 - Posted      Profile for GoodCatholicLad     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find this whole discussion fascinating. When I brought up a Mormon funeral ceremony I attended in Ecc'les, I was admonished that it was verboten to even consider the idea that the LDS wasn't xtian. The PC police were ready to kick my backside!

What I wonder is how does the church introduce their beliefs and concepts to the seeker? Even the most unchurched have a basic idea of xtianity just by being a citizen of a western country. Talking about many gods and universes and having the opportunity to become a god is not one of them! I would imagine it would sound pretty radical to a seeker even if that person's knowledge of xtianity only went as far as few sunday school visits when they were 10.

Only in America could someone come up with a religion that says play your cards right and you too can become a god!

Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools