|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
If we had more than one Mormon responding, things would be better. Maybe someday we will have more and things will be more fair and equitable in exchanges.
--------------------
♬♭ 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
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
What GCL just said! Look, I want to repeat the distinction between judging a person who happens to subscribe to the Morman religion and making a judgement on that religion as a whole. The LDS/Mormon Church is not part of the Christian Church Catholic by any stretch of anyone else's collective Christian reckoning. The magisterial authority of the RCC, Orthodox, Anglican Communion, Evangelical Lutheran Churches, and every Trinitarian protestant body cannot recognise the LDS as a body within the Una Sancta. They don't teach by any stretch of the imagination what the Church teaches about the nature of Creation, God, Redemption. This is not to deny the personal virtues of individual Mormons, or anything that is true in their faith, but they are to the Church Catholic in the same position as members of heretical derivatives such as Islam.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
...What I wonder is how does the church introduce their beliefs and concepts to the seeker?
Again, it's the "milk before meat" approach. They only share the less controversial elements. And if you tell the missionaries at your door, "Thank you, but I'm a Christian," the instant response is always (in my experience), "We're Christians, too -- just like you!"
Despite this being a culture built on a Christian foundation, an awful lot of people don't really know very much about what their churches believe and teach. That gives them an insufficient basis for fairly evaluating Mormonism's claims.
When I emerged from my personal season of being proselytized, I realized that I knew more about Mormonism than I did of Christianity in general and Anglicanism in particular. That inspired me to read and study, and to accept my faith anew from an informed perspective.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SemiFae
Shipmate
# 11972
|
Posted
Of the adults I knew in my teens the one who was most Christian in her lifestyle and attitude to others was a mormon. She continues to be an inspiration to me though I have not seen her for many years.
I grew up understanding 'Christian' to mean one who believed in Christ and by that definition recognised Mormons as Christians.
--------------------
"and even though it all went wrong, I'll stand before the Lord of song with nothing on my lips but Alleliua" -Leonard Cohen
Posts: 130 | From: Gloucestershire, UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
I am extremely confused (again; sigh).
How is it logically possible to uphold the prerogative of an individual Mormon (or any other kind of believer) to use the word `Christian' to describe himself, while denying that the religion he follows is entitled to that same designation?
It is logical -- perfectly logical -- to say: `I believe that your actions are compatible with a Christian life, but your creeds are not Christian'. And maybe that is what people who express the sentiment above really mean.
But if you believe that assent to some credal proposition is essential to the definition of `Christian', then you just can't use the word `Christian' to describe either an individual or a Church that rejects that proposition. This isn't a matter of doctrine, simply a matter of logic.
Or is it being proposed that individual Mormons hold beliefs that are different from the Mormon Church as a whole?
I just can't get my head around it.
If you hold that individual Mormons are entitled to describe themselves as Christians (as I, for one, certainly do), then I just don't see how you can deny that label to the Mormon Church in general. It's just illogical.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I am extremely confused (again; sigh).
How is it logically possible to uphold the prerogative of an individual Mormon (or any other kind of believer) to use the word `Christian' to describe himself, while denying that the religion he follows is entitled to that same designation?
Because Christian has a range of meanings and can be either a noun or an adjective. In some other languages these have different forms. The noun Christian (in Welsh Cristion) at its root means `follower of Christ' and I am not prepare to make a call on that about other people and do not want to get into `salvation by creed'. The adjective Christian (in Welsh Cristnogol) means (amongst other things) `of or pertaining to Christianity'. Now, I think that there are certain doctrines which are central to Christianity and are needed to make proper sense of who Christ is and what he has done for us. Therefore I retain Christian/Cristnogol when talking about groups/organisations to those who uphold the traditional creeds. Mormonism does not (and has various additional things to be believed) and therefore I think it misleading to call it Christian. It has its roots in Christianity but has gone further than that.
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 CrookedCucumber:
Or is it being proposed that individual Mormons hold beliefs that are different from the Mormon Church as a whole?
That is certainly the case. The LDS have been around for long enough that there are now large numbers of ex-Mormons, almost-but-not-quite-Mormons, people brought up as Mormons but who no longer practice, cultural Mormons who don't neccessarily believe and so on. Just like any other religion. There are even non-realist liberal Mormons whose beliefs are pretty much the same as some non-realist liberal Christians.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The noun Christian (in Welsh Cristion) at its root means `follower of Christ' and I am not prepare to make a call on that about other people and do not want to get into `salvation by creed'.
[...]
Now, I think that there are certain doctrines which are central to Christianity and are needed to make proper sense of who Christ is and what he has done for us. Therefore I retain Christian/Cristnogol when talking about groups/organisations to those who uphold the traditional creeds.
Sure, one can avoid the logical problem by assuming that Christian(-ity) means one thing when describing individuals, and another thing when describing movements or churches.
But since movements are made of individuals, I don't see why it is appropriate to make this distinction. If all the members of a movement are to be described as `Christians' (or followers of Jesus Christ), why can the movement itself not be so described?
I suppose it is (just about) logically possible for a movement to be made up exclusively of Christians and not, in itself, be Christian. If, for example, everybody in my local karate club were (coincidentally) a Christian, that would not make the karate club itself a Christian body (I guess). But a church (any church) defines itself by the views of its members, doesn't it? So I don't think that analogy works.
I say this with a certain amount of hesitation, but it seems to me that a bit of linguistic flummery is involved in this discussion, in order not to give offence. Of course, that's a laudable goal, but I wonder if it just muddies the waters?
As I said, I can't in all honesty describe Mormons as Christians while at the same time describing Mormonism as non-Christian. If I accept individual Mormons as Christians, as I do, then I feel I am compelled to accept Mormonism as a denomination (albeit a rather unconvential one) of Christianity. The only logical alternative is to deby `Christian' status both to individual Mormons and to the Mormon Church, and I'm just not in any kind of position to do that. It isn't my job.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SemiFae:
[snip]
I grew up understanding 'Christian' to mean one who believed in Christ and by that definition recognised Mormons as Christians.
You cannot simply invent definitions. Just about anyone with a basic education believes in the historical person of Jesus, but that does not make them Christian.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by SemiFae:
[snip]
I grew up understanding 'Christian' to mean one who believed in Christ and by that definition recognised Mormons as Christians.
You cannot simply invent definitions. Just about anyone with a basic education believes in the historical person of Jesus, but that does not make them Christian.
All definitions are `invented'. The meaning of the word `Christian' is not emblazoned on a mountainside in holy fire -- somebody invented it.
Where there is a really broad consensus about what something means, you'd be a bit silly to hold to a different meaning in the face of that consensus.
I dispute that the word `Christian' is in that linguistic category. That fact disputes like this freqently break out here is evidence of that.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
There may not be a precise definition of a word, particularly at the edges, but if something is so far from the basic definition of the word, the call is easy. I consider this to be the case with Mormonism.
While I cannot give a precise definition of "Anglican", if I were to come across a self-described Anglican church that rejects the creeds, the the sacraments, the three-fold order, and the historic episcopate, I would not consider it to be Anglican.
Also, roots prove nothing. The Unitarians have Christian roots.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
There's talk of Mormon theology on another thread, so I'm *bump*ing this one for people to visit if they'd like to add to the understanding/discussion of Mormon vs. Christian etc.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by SemiFae:
[snip]
I grew up understanding 'Christian' to mean one who believed in Christ and by that definition recognised Mormons as Christians.
You cannot simply invent definitions. Just about anyone with a basic education believes in the historical person of Jesus, but that does not make them Christian.
All definitions are `invented'. The meaning of the word `Christian' is not emblazoned on a mountainside in holy fire -- somebody invented it.
Where there is a really broad consensus about what something means, you'd be a bit silly to hold to a different meaning in the face of that consensus.
I dispute that the word `Christian' is in that linguistic category. That fact disputes like this freqently break out here is evidence of that.
Too late to go looking it up, and I'm too tired, after reading all four pages of this thread!
But, wasn't "christian" a derogatory title assigned (by orthodox Jews) to the heretical Jews of the early church? Wasn't Antioch the place where the term was first coined? And weren't the first "gentile" converts to "christianity" supposed to submit to circumcision, and follow all the Jewish eating restrictions, holy days, etc? But it was Paul who pushed for the relenquishing of strictly Jewish practices in the cases of gentile's converting to "christianity." Therefore, right from the getgo, you had at least TWO types of "christians": the Jewish heretics, and the gentile converts from Grecco-Roman paganism.
The term "christian" did not mean the same thing for all members in the primitive church. They associated together as if members of a single religious body (believers in Christ as their God and Savior): yet they did not practice all the same religious rituals/laws.
After 2,000 years, Christianity is a fragmented, diverse body of believers in Jesus Christ as God and Savior. All other sectarian tenets are of no consequence in defining who is a Christian: only an individual claim to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior, should be the deciding factor: even practice cannot decide that, for there are good and bad Christians. There are simply too many differences in tenets and doctrines to make a hard demarkation: "On this side, Christians, and on this side, professors only but not real Christians."
And even if theoretically you could draw such a demarkation, who in this world has the authority to do it? And who is going to recognize (agree) on the authority to draw such a hard line definition of who is and who is not a Christian?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
I noticed, reading through the above, that several of yous wanted Mormons to chime in. I am a Mormon, though classify myself as a practicing (for the sake of family unity) "cultural" Mormon. I am very well versed in church history and doctrine, if I do claim so myself.
So, if anyone has questions they would like a Mormon to respond to, ask away. (I do not have an agenda for or against the church, so I should be as close to an "informed, impartial insider" as you are likely to find.)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
I should be as close to an "informed, impartial insider" as you are likely to find.
I have several Mormon work acquaintances/friends who are kind caring individuals: 'good people'. I'd even say they're better than average in that regard. Based on the little I know Mormonism seems to be a bit heavy-handed theologically: my impression is you must assent to several rather esoteric doctrines to be in good standing.
Assuming that's not inaccurate (correct me as needed) is there much dissent in the rank and file? Or do these good people just consider it part of the baggage likely to be connected to any denomination or sect?
Is significant reform necessary? Brewing?
[tyop]
[ 04. May 2007, 11:35: Message edited by: 206 ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinTheMad:
But, wasn't "christian" a derogatory title assigned (by orthodox Jews) to the heretical Jews of the early church?
Yes, not only this, but I think I've heard the same said of the titles "Jew," "Mormon," and I know for a fact that it was the origin of the term "Methodist." All of these were labels generated externally by outsiders.
I think this is why some LDS folk of my acquaintance insist on being referred to as the "Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints" rather than to as "Mormon Church."
ETA:
quote:
Originally Posted by 206:
Is significant reform necessary? Brewing?
I know that the LDS church has changed a lot of their beliefs over the past century to become more mainstream, softening up on some of their more strict beliefs regarding patriarchy, race, polygamy, and other things. So in one sense, reform has been happening.
Of course, one must distinguish between the mainstream church of latter day saints and the fundamentalist church of latter day saints in this regard.
[ 04. May 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
A little historical background: The depiction of Mormons as outside the Christian faith did not come from Christians as much as from Mormons. The LDS began as a refutation of Protestant Christianity, and continues to be a reaction/rebuke to what Jo. Smith considered to be errors in orthodox Christianity. The early Mormon writings are ripe with some of the most scathing denunciations of Christians, as well as ritualistic mocking of Christian clergy.
That being said, the LDS is evolving. Trying to nail down their theology is extraordinarily difficult because, despite the existance of an autocratic patriarchial "prophet", there is no clear consensus on "who speaks for the church." There is tremendous diversity in their theology as understood by the laity, academics, their sacred writings, and their prophet's pronouncements. Some are, from an orthodox Chrisitan pov, quite disturbing, others not so far afield. The newly established dialogue between the LDS and evangelical Christians, and the LDS desire to be perceived as Christian may be considered either alarming/disturbing, or encouraging/hopeful, depending on your pov and speculation re: the motives behind it.
One thing I would like to see within LDS in order to continue the evolution/dialogue is a move away from a pattern of historical revisionism and secrecy, including full financial disclosure.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
I should be as close to an "informed, impartial insider" as you are likely to find.
I have several Mormon work acquaintances/friends who are kind caring individuals: 'good people'. I'd even say they're better than average in that regard. Based on the little I know Mormonism seems to be a bit heavy-handed theologically: my impression is you must assent to several rather esoteric doctrines to be in good standing.
Assuming that's not inaccurate (correct me as needed) is there much dissent in the rank and file? Or do these good people just consider it part of the baggage likely to be connected to any denomination or sect?
Is significant reform necessary? Brewing?
[tyop]
I don't sense discontent from where I live. The discontented ones go away. Most only have a few parting comments to offer: few are militant enough to fight the church.
Reform is ongoing. If you compare the religon of today with Brigham Young's church, it is very different. Most of the controversial doctrines of then are no longer practiced or taught, or even referred to anymore. Only the well-read even know of them (except polygamy, of course, which itself is not understood as it was practiced).
The theology isn't any more heavy-handed than basic Christian theology. The Mormon "slant" on theology is different is significant ways; but those differences are mostly exaggerated beyond their final implications. I.e. people make too much of them: Mormons like to place their theology into "revealed" religion; outsiders look upon Mormon theology as so wildly divergent that we can't properly be called Christians. Both views are extreme and mistaken on that basis. Imho, Mormon theology is no more profound, revealed or correct, than any other theology. And also no less logical or less grounded in what seems reasonable/believable to the faithful.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I should probably say that although I still think Mormons are a wacko sect from a historical point of view, their anthropology makes a lot more sense having read the last few books in Orson Scott Card's Ender saga.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
A little historical background: The depiction of Mormons as outside the Christian faith did not come from Christians as much as from Mormons. The LDS began as a refutation of Protestant Christianity, and continues to be a reaction/rebuke to what Jo. Smith considered to be errors in orthodox Christianity. The early Mormon writings are ripe with some of the most scathing denunciations of Christians, as well as ritualistic mocking of Christian clergy.
I think there is enough name-calling to go around in that period of the 19th century. It is true JS tried to push the "Reset" button on Christianity, but that certainly wasn't unique to his movement in the 19th century in the US. That's why we have so many different types of Baptists in the US--some consisting of only a few small congregations. The attempt to "restore" the early church in the present day was endemic to the spiritual milieu of the time.
I think most Mormons consider themselves orthodox Christians--in the sense they would define those terms. Most Southern Baptists, most Seventh-Day Adventists, and most (fill-in-the-blank) members would also consider themselves to be orthodox and Christian--even if they would not describe each other as being so. In all the polemical writings of the time which I have seen, people were indeed scathing in their denunciations of whatever did not fit their version of Christianity.
Still, I don't know of any other group which had an "Extermination Order" from a state government directed at them.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As a former cultist I know right well that Christ + is always Christ -
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
A little historical background: The depiction of Mormons as outside the Christian faith did not come from Christians as much as from Mormons.
This needs qualifying: Mormons always preached the stance that they were enemies to nobody, and that they allowed all others to worship as they pleased and expected the same from them. They have never associated as part of the Christian body of extant religious sects, being a revealed (refreshened) fullness of original Christianity. It wasn't so much being "outside", as being the full Monty compared to the rest of Christianity. At no point, did Mormon teachers ever label any other religious sects as "not Christian" because of perceived shortcomings.
quote:
The LDS began as a refutation of Protestant Christianity, and continues to be a reaction/rebuke to what Jo. Smith considered to be errors in orthodox Christianity.
Again, that is an outsider perception of Mormon attitudes. And it doesn't help matters, when some Mormons (especially the early ones) get uppity and superior; a very common human failing in us all.
The reality, the official doctrine, is, that all people are children of God and have equal consideration and love from him: God plays no favorites and will grant ample opportunity to hear and accept the truth. (Thus, the Mormon doctrine of salvation for the dead in the temples; for those who died without getting a decent shot at converting in mortality.)
Joseph Smith did not so much refute existing Christianity, as remold it. He didn't go about attacking sectarians. He quoted Christ as saying their creeds were an abomination; and none of them were the "true" church. But Joseph Smith didn't typically use language like that himself.
quote:
The early Mormon writings are ripe with some of the most scathing denunciations of Christians, as well as ritualistic mocking of Christian clergy.
"Ripe" isn't the word I would use. Such language exists in the documents. But mainly, Joseph Smith's preaching was refutational, vis-a-vis his detractors' attacks upon him.
It is interesting, and ironic, that Joseph Smith backed up all his doctrines from the Bible, and almost never resorted to the Book of Mormon. Even when preaching to a Mormon congregation, he did not use the Book of Mormon or any of his "translations." He used the Bible, and preferred a German one above all others.
quote:
That being said, the LDS is evolving. Trying to nail down their theology is extraordinarily difficult because, despite the existance of an autocratic patriarchial "prophet", there is no clear consensus on "who speaks for the church."
Not exactly correct: the current "prophet" IS the "mouthpiece for the Lord." And his words trump any and all previous writings. That is the living doctrine of Mormonism.
The current "prophet", Gordon B. Hinckley, has been the most ecumenical of all the prophets of the LDS church. He is by far the most public and accessible to the media. And his statements have done much to distance us from our rather oddball origins and past.
quote:
There is tremendous diversity in their theology as understood by the laity, academics, their sacred writings, and their prophet's pronouncements. Some are, from an orthodox Chrisitan pov, quite disturbing, others not so far afield. The newly established dialogue between the LDS and evangelical Christians, and the LDS desire to be perceived as Christian may be considered either alarming/disturbing, or encouraging/hopeful, depending on your pov and speculation re: the motives behind it.
Here's my pov: Hinckley sees the "writing on the wall" and is making policy to meet the changes that the church must go through to survive the coming (growing) storm of contention, vis-a-vis the physical evidence that attacks (successfully, in my estimation) the church's early and present claims to exclusivity: priesthood authority, unique revelation from God, unique doctrines revealed by God (e.g. the Book of Mormon first and foremost). So many statements by earlier leaders (and echoed by many contemporaries), to the effect that if the Book of Mormon isn't literally true, then Joseph Smith lied, and this work is a fraud: and, if we don't have literal claim to the priesthood, then this church has no reason to exist, etc: such statements are too dogmatic and irreversible if adhered to.
Hinckley, I think, has been preparing the religion for a lot of waffling and back-peddling. Buying time. For instance, when challenged to comment on the well-worn Mormon couplet -- "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become" -- Hinckley said that he didn't know much about that, not did he know of anyone who did know much about that. He's said words to that effect more than once: and this about a statement of Joseph Smith's (albeit, not a canonized one, but nevertheless widely taught as doctrine), which is one of the points of contention most often raised by secularists (on this thread too). Hinckley's position evidently is: that is not doctrine, and it should be dropped: which flies in the face of countless uses of the couplet in earlier sermons by many, many leaders of this church.
Another contention is Joseph Smith's so-called "first vision". We know that there are nine extant versions of it, that the official one is actually one of the later versions. Hinckley has defended the first vision as literally true: and said, "If it is not, then this work is a fraud." The first vision is very easy to defend, on the basis of a metaphysical experience. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is not easy to defend. And Smith's later statements on Godhood can be dismissed as "not the whole story", without them being the be-all and end-all of defining who and what "God" is. That's why, imho, Hinckley does not teach that God was once a man.
(Btw, that doctrine raises way too many questions, far more than it purports to answer. Joseph Smith didn't live long enough after making that doctrine public, to mess up his theology even further: but there is evidence that he was leaning toward even more oddball doctrines, like reincarnation: of which, quite possibly, Brigham Young's "Adam-God theory" evolved from.)
quote:
One thing I would like to see within LDS in order to continue the evolution/dialogue is a move away from a pattern of historical revisionism and secrecy, including full financial disclosure.
Amen. Full financial disclosure is a beef of mine. I see no reason to be secretive about how the money is spent.
Historical revisionism is perhaps best said as "faith promoting history." It isn't so much a revisionism, as an incomplete telling of the history. The "nasty bits" are left out.
But detractors/critics of the religion do that too. E.g. a recent DVD put out by a cooperative sectarian organization affects to teach Mormons how we are mistaken about a great many things: in order to help us and save us from hell. In said-DVD, the church's current showcase movie "Joseph Smith, Prophet of the Restoration" is criticized as a fiction with no more basis in fact than the rest of what comes out of Hollywood. Then they proceed to tell the "real character" of Joseph Smith: but it is composed of nothing but his financial failures (frauds, they say) and his adulteries (polygamy). This is manifestly unfair: to concentrate on his perceived faults only, call that his "true character", and ignore all his other character traits which are frankly quite admirable and Christlike. This is fudging history from the other end.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Oops, that "t" is in a very bad spot: It should have said:
For instance, when challenged to comment on the well-worn Mormon couplet -- "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become" -- Hinckley said that he didn't know much about that, nor did he know of anyone who did know much about that.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
What do you suppose the motivation is for secrecy about finances?
quote:
This is manifestly unfair: to concentrate on his perceived faults only, call that his "true character", and ignore all his other character traits which are frankly quite admirable and Christlike. This is fudging history from the other end.
He must have been hugely charismatic.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
Merlin-
Thank you for your helpful insights. A few comments:
quote:
Joseph Smith did not so much refute existing Christianity, as remold it. He didn't go about attacking sectarians. He quoted Christ as saying their creeds were an abomination; and none of them were the "true" church. But Joseph Smith didn't typically use language like that himself.
There is NO verse in the OT or NT that says "your creeds are an abomination to me". Smith may claim he got it from Jesus, or Moroni, but it's certainly not in the Bible. And sorry, that statement alone IMHO qualifies as both a refutation and attack. Not that we (orthodox Christians) didn't give as good as we got, and more.
<i>The current "prophet", Gordon B. Hinckley, has been the most ecumenical of all the prophets of the LDS church. He is by far the most public and accessible to the media. And his statements have done much to distance us from our rather oddball origins and past.</i>
Oh, absolutely agree. The paranoids among us see sinister motives behind this, the optimists see this as a possible bridge to future reconciliation.
<i>
Historical revisionism is perhaps best said as "faith promoting history." It isn't so much a revisionism, as an incomplete telling of the history. The "nasty bits" are left out.
But detractors/critics of the religion do that too.</i>
Oh, absolutely agree. But then, secrecy and revisionism leaves one vulnerable to all sorts of conspiracy theory attacks by the whackos-- and there are definitely some whacko zealots in the anti-Mormon crowd. Look at Da Vinci Code-- Brown wouldn't have been able to get away with all those wild-eyed accusations re: Masons if they weren't so secretive.
IMHO, coming clean about the history, "nasty bits and all" will cut the wind out of the nastier anti-LDS sails and allow for a more honest and fruitful dialogue between the LDS and more reasonable orthodox Christians.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
Oh, I messed up the html. I get mixed up moving from one forum to another. Let me try that last bit again to avoid confusion:
quote:
The current "prophet", Gordon B. Hinckley, has been the most ecumenical of all the prophets of the LDS church. He is by far the most public and accessible to the media. And his statements have done much to distance us from our rather oddball origins and past.</i>
Oh, absolutely agree. The paranoids among us see sinister motives behind this, the optimists see this as a possible bridge to future reconciliation.
quote:
Historical revisionism is perhaps best said as "faith promoting history." It isn't so much a revisionism, as an incomplete telling of the history. The "nasty bits" are left out.
But detractors/critics of the religion do that too.
Oh, absolutely agree. But then, secrecy and revisionism leaves one vulnerable to all sorts of conspiracy theory attacks by the whackos-- and there are definitely some whacko zealots in the anti-Mormon crowd. Look at Da Vinci Code-- Brown wouldn't have been able to get away with all those wild-eyed accusations re: Masons if they weren't so secretive.
IMHO, coming clean about the history, "nasty bits and all" will cut the wind out of the nastier anti-LDS sails and allow for a more honest and fruitful dialogue between the LDS and more reasonable orthodox Christians.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
What do you suppose the motivation is for secrecy about finances?
quote:
This is manifestly unfair: to concentrate on his perceived faults only, call that his "true character", and ignore all his other character traits which are frankly quite admirable and Christlike. This is fudging history from the other end.
He must have been hugely charismatic.
I think that the church leaders fear that criticism will result if they publish a complete financial disclosure. Over the years, I have heard (rumors) that the church owns stock in beer companies, tobacco companies, etc. They are currently buying up whole blocks of downtown Salt Lake city, so they can renovate and control the atmosphere of the area around the church offices and Temple square. This has already received criticism. I know a lady who no longer associates as a member of the church over that one: she sees it as being blatantly commercial, and not in keeping with her image of what the church should be like.
Joseph Smith was absolutely one of the most charismatic people in history. His enemies on numerous occasions came upon him with full intent to kill him, only to be charmed into roughing him up a bit (if even that) and then letting him go. He had a capacity to sweet talk people into being his friends, when he was in their company. The mob that finally killed him evidently knew that letting Joe talk was not going to happen: they stormed the jail in a furious shooting mob and he died in a hail of bullets.
Brigham Young described his almost-worship of Joseph Smith this way: "I feel like shouting halleuja! every time I think that I ever knew the prophet Joseph Smith."
[ 05. May 2007, 00:12: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
IMHO, coming clean about the history, "nasty bits and all" will cut the wind out of the nastier anti-LDS sails and allow for a more honest and fruitful dialogue between the LDS and more reasonable orthodox Christians.
In the long run. But the church will definitely lose most of the wind in its sails, if it finally admits that the foundation upon which its exclusivity claims are based is sandy. This includes such nasty bits as Joseph Smith's polyandry with other LDS mens' wives (my personal straw that broke the back of my faith in the man as a genuine prophet); the behavior of B. Young et al in Utah territory, especially surrounding Mountain Meadows Massacre and the fallout later on; the absolute statements declaring "the practice" of polygamy as essential, without which the church would cease to be valid or even exist; the same kind of statements regarding priesthood authority: which becomes problematic, because the stories upon which such exclusive authority are founded can positively be shown to have evolved as Smith's views on priesthood evolved; the method by which Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon (face in his hat, seer stone inside it) is so out of step with the church's portrayal as to make its version make believe; and the Book of Mormon itself is under attack which will destroy it as a genuinely revealed scripture, a al the biblical kind (it is so evidently a product of the mid 19th century in America, that only those who have pulled away from the church can see this clearly; members are in a state of sustained, massive cognitive dissonance: and little wonder: if the Book of Mormon falls, so does Joseph Smith, once and for all, as a translator and prophet).
So it isn't easy for the church to reverse gears and start supporting ALL of the history. It is too volatile: the church's white-washed ("faith promoting") historical construct will be burned to ashes in such an admission of the fullest evidence.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
I came across this site that said the LDS is spending one billion dollars on two shopping malls in Salt Lake City but they only did 60 million is humanitarian aid. There is something not kosher about making everyone tithe at the first of the year their estimated gross earnings yet give no accounting on how it's spent but if people are that stupid....
My parish gives an annual report every February and the diocese sends one to every household on where the monies are being spent.
The LDS owns Benefical Financial Group and the Marriot Hotels, two companies that's common knowledge around by me. I heard from someone they also own the Alberston's supermarket chain that I am not sure of. I do know they own alot of tv and radio stations. Uncle Sam does not give them tax exempt status anymore because of the billions they have in for profit businesses. Mormon culture just fascinates me.
[ 05. May 2007, 00:45: Message edited by: GoodCatholicLad ]
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... Joseph Smith did not so much refute existing Christianity, as remold it. He didn't go about attacking sectarians. He quoted Christ as saying their creeds were an abomination; and none of them were the "true" church. But Joseph Smith didn't typically use language like that himself. ...
I have to disagree. He didn't "refute" it, but he did deny it. In Smith's version, Jesus lied to his disciples: the Holy Spirit departed, and his Church did not endure. The god of this world had to use Smith to "restore" the Church -- after centuries of leaving souls outside the fold.
Smith's version of Christianity is also far removed from either the authentic Early Church, or the Church as it evolved. Smith's ideas reflect an uneducated reading of the Bible combined with a heavy dose of sensationalism of the "British Israelite" variety. And the original Temple ceremony, which he flat out stole from the Masons and then embellished, severely trashes Christianity and Christian ministers.
Ross
PS GoodCatholicLad, I believe that the Marriott family still owns the business -- but they do tithe to the Mormon organization.
[ 05. May 2007, 03:49: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... Joseph Smith did not so much refute existing Christianity, as remold it. He didn't go about attacking sectarians. He quoted Christ as saying their creeds were an abomination; and none of them were the "true" church. But Joseph Smith didn't typically use language like that himself. ...
I have to disagree. He didn't "refute" it, but he did deny it. In Smith's version, Jesus lied to his disciples: the Holy Spirit departed, and his Church did not endure. The god of this world had to use Smith to "restore" the Church -- after centuries of leaving souls outside the fold.
That's in line with one interpretation of the NT passages which predict "ravening wolves" entering the flock, and a "falling away first" before the "times of refreshing" shall come from the Lord. And the bit about "an angel in the midst of heaven" having the everlasting gospel to preach to the world: i.e. a "great apostasy" can be supported by the scriptures. As I said, Joseph Smith's doctrine comes straight from the Bible. He didn't make anything up: he just spun a new concoction on the old scripture.
quote:
Smith's version of Christianity is also far removed from either the authentic Early Church, or the Church as it evolved.
I don't see enough knowledge remaining of the primitive church to make such a dogmatic claim as yours. Otherwise, we would have far less argument on what exactly the first Christians were doing.
quote:
Smith's ideas reflect an uneducated reading of the Bible combined with a heavy dose of sensationalism of the "British Israelite" variety.
Not uneducated in the American sense of the word. His gramatical education was weak, but there was nothing lacking in the ingenuity of his thinking: and he was a fast learner. His religious bent drew from his culture. As you say, the "Israelite" theories regarding origin of the Amerindians were widely popular at the time. Furthermore, his religious perspective partook of folk magic and superstitions common all around him. Any "sensationalism" he employed was expected: it was what people were looking for.
quote:
And the original Temple ceremony, which he flat out stole from the Masons and then embellished, severely trashes Christianity and Christian ministers.
I don't know if the sectarian "preacher dude" in the temple endowment "play" was part of Smith's original temple ceremony or not: personally, I have felt like attributing it to Brigham Young. (The preacher was my favorite character! And his concept of God made more sense to me than the Mormon "God was once a man" concept: I reckon it was all taken out, not to prove that we don't view our fellow Christians in such a disparaging light anymore, but rather, because the doctrine was making more and more sense to Mormon temple-goers.) The Masonic character was directly drawn by Smith from his Lodge experiences, no doubt about it. But I have seen it change in my lifetime: the penalties are gone since c. 1990. Recently, another change has allowed the garment to be worn during the "washing and anointing", and there is no physical touching of skin.
Ross
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's in line with one interpretation of the NT passages which predict "ravening wolves" entering the flock, and a "falling away first" before the "times of refreshing" shall come from the Lord. And the bit about "an angel in the midst of heaven" having the everlasting gospel to preach to the world: i.e. a "great apostasy" can be supported by the scriptures. As I said, Joseph Smith's doctrine comes straight from the Bible. He didn't make anything up: he just spun a new concoction on the old scripture.
Nope, no "great apostasy" can be supported if you read the New Testament as a whole instead of selectively choosing verses that support that view. This is an area in which Jesus seems to have been pretty unambiguous.
And if Smith's doctrine "comes straight from the Bible," why did he feel the need to rewrite Scripture? Why did he ignore all the "I and my Father are one" business and the whole of John to warp it into a polytheism that is completely at odds with the New Testament? If it "comes straight from the Bible," why is it so very flexible and hard to pin down?
quote:
I don't see enough knowledge remaining of the primitive church to make such a dogmatic claim as yours. Otherwise, we would have far less argument on what exactly the first Christians were doing.
Scholarship has advanced considerably since Smith's day, and we know quite a bit about it.
quote:
Not uneducated in the American sense of the word. His gramatical education was weak, but there was nothing lacking in the ingenuity of his thinking: and he was a fast learner....
I didn't say he was stupid -- he was quite intelligent -- I said he was uneducated, and he was. He was also a borrower of great talent.
In addition to stealing the Indians-were-Hebrews theory (already discredited in his lifetime), Smith also bought into the idea that some of the so-called "ten lost tribes" went to Britain, where they became the ancestors of right-thinking Anglo-Saxons like himself: Thus the business about assigning membership in the 12 tribes to Mormons.
quote:
I don't know if the sectarian "preacher dude" in the temple endowment "play" was part of Smith's original temple ceremony or not: personally, I have felt like attributing it to Brigham Young....
There are some interesting notes on the temple ceremony here.
The Temple endowment ceremony seems to have been unaltered from the time Smith came up with it (with a lot of help from the Masons) to the late 20th century. That means that Young gets a pass on this one.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Nope, no "great apostasy" can be supported if you read the New Testament as a whole instead of selectively choosing verses that support that view. This is an area in which Jesus seems to have been pretty unambiguous.
Really, unambiguous? Is that why there are so many sects of Christianity?
The Mormon view is as wholistic as any of the best. It is just different. Brilliantly different. But not immune to attack. No religious dogma is that. It comes down to your view and another view.
There isn't anything unambiguous about Christianity. In fact, its ambiguity is what bothered me for decades. Once J. Smith's role as "prophet of the restoration" was skuttled for me, so went Christianity. I could only make a serious effort to believe Christianity as the literally "true faith" so long as Smith's version of it was "revealed" again by God. Without that, there is nothing in 2,000 years of ambiguity to convince me that the religion is anything but a very successful, evolved one, made up by the hopes, beliefs, faith and manipulations of men.
quote:
And if Smith's doctrine "comes straight from the Bible," why did he feel the need to rewrite Scripture? Why did he ignore all the "I and my Father are one" business and the whole of John to warp it into a polytheism that is completely at odds with the New Testament? If it "comes straight from the Bible," why is it so very flexible and hard to pin down?
His theology is harder to pin down, because it altered over a 15 year period. In 1829, as the Book of Mormon was nearing publication, Smith's theology was clearly Trinity based: the theology on the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is almost exactly like mainstream Christianity's. But by 1835, you have a Father who is spirit and not flesh; you have the Son who is flesh: and the Holy Spirit is their combined influence: Smith's Godhead is still only two persons. By 1843, he is preaching three; Father and Son as spearate beings with bodies of flesh and bones "as tangible as man's", and the Spirit is without a fleshy tabernacle. In the following spring, Smith taught the "Man is as God once was" doctrine publically, and the rest is messy history.
The Book of Mormon, btw, is a targum of the Bible: there are enormous sections and quotations in the BofM that are straight out of an 18th century KJV Bible, including the errors.
quote:
Scholarship has advanced considerably since Smith's day, and we know quite a bit about it [primitive christianity].
Not nearly enough, still, though. One thing we do know, is that the writings of the NT came along for the first time long after the events they speak to. Had Smith attempted to start up a "restored" church today, he would have focused on different things, and probably would have failed to pull it off. Mormonism was indeed a case of time and place being right.
quote:
I didn't say he was stupid -- he was quite intelligent -- I said he was uneducated, and he was.
He admitted that about himself. In fact, used his lack of formal education to enhance the miraculous nature of his revelations: sort of like, "How could I, a simple uneducated boy, have come up with this?"
quote:
He was also a borrower of great talent.
In addition to stealing the Indians-were-Hebrews theory (already discredited in his lifetime),...
But hardly known to be discredited by the main mass of people.
quote:
...Smith also bought into the idea that some of the so-called "ten lost tribes" went to Britain, where they became the ancestors of right-thinking Anglo-Saxons like himself: Thus the business about assigning membership in the 12 tribes to Mormons.
Ephraim, mainly.
quote:
I don't know if the sectarian "preacher dude" in the temple endowment "play" was part of Smith's original temple ceremony or not: personally, I have felt like attributing it to Brigham Young....
quote:
There are some interesting notes on the temple ceremony here.
The Temple endowment ceremony seems to have been unaltered from the time Smith came up with it (with a lot of help from the Masons) to the late 20th century. That means that Young gets a pass on this one.
Ross
Not quite. B. Young inserted a lot of Adam-God content into the endowment, which did not survive his death. There was a sword brandished as part of the ceremony until c. 1941, iirc: read that in either Bagley's, or Brook's, book on the MMM.
Btw, the Masonic content wasn't wool that Smith pulled over anyone's eyes. He was quite open about it. The explanation was, that bits and pieces of the truth had survived down the ages, but "we" have all the revealed, restored version of the truth.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
One small offering to enhance debate
Wow! Thanks for that link. I am going to be busy for a while.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Really, unambiguous? Is that why there are so many sects of Christianity? ...there is nothing in 2,000 years of ambiguity to convince me that the religion is anything but a very successful, evolved one, made up by the hopes, beliefs, faith and manipulations of men. ...
It seems to me that perhaps you've spent too much time immersed in the manipulations and inventions of Smith and his successors.
Yes, Christians have many and grave differences, but that to me is part of the proof that it's not a purely man-made religion. It seems to me that religions that excommunicate for disagreeing with the religion's hierarchy over matters of politics (Sonia Johnson) or historic fact (Samuel W. Taylor) are far less likely to be divinely inspired.
That doesn't excuse the arguments between denominations, but I truly do believe that Jesus meant what he said about the Church and the Holy Spirit. My God is not a liar.
I believe that all Christians have the fundamentals of faith in common, as defined early on by the Church in the Creeds: ONE God, the Creator (not mere organizer) of all that is; that God is known to us in three Persons -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- that God was born as a human being in order to save us; that Jesus rose from the dead; that we are baptized into Christ's Body; and that we will live with God in heaven for eternity.
There's disagreement on details, to be sure -- but nothing like the fundamental and deep chasm of disagreement between Christianity and Mormonism.
quote:
His theology is harder to pin down, because it altered over a 15 year period. In 1829, as the Book of Mormon was nearing publication, Smith's theology was clearly Trinity based: the theology on the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is almost exactly like mainstream Christianity's. ...
The Book of Mormon, btw, is a targum of the Bible: there are enormous sections and quotations in the BofM that are straight out of an 18th century KJV Bible, including the errors.
Congratulations on being the first Mormon with whom I've discussed any of this who's noticed that Smith moved from standard Trinitarianism to polytheism. The chunks of Bible are no mystery; they were, of course, a straight steal from the KJV. The errors ought to be a tipoff as to the source.
quote:
He admitted that about himself. In fact, used his lack of formal education to enhance the miraculous nature of his revelations: sort of like, "How could I, a simple uneducated boy, have come up with this?"
Besides plagiarism and a vivid, self-aggrandizing imagination? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad: Really, unambiguous? Is that why there are so many sects of Christianity? ...there is nothing in 2,000 years of ambiguity to convince me that the religion is anything but a very successful, evolved one, made up by the hopes, beliefs, faith and manipulations of men. ...
quote:
It seems to me that perhaps you've spent too much time immersed in the manipulations and inventions of Smith and his successors.
It's a real eye-opener. You should try it sometime!
quote:
Yes, Christians have many and grave differences, but that to me is part of the proof that it's not a purely man-made religion. It seems to me that religions that excommunicate for disagreeing with the religion's hierarchy over matters of politics (Sonia Johnson) or historic fact (Samuel W. Taylor) are far less likely to be divinely inspired.
Well, I am certain that you can find numerous examples of unjust excommunications (membership revoking, whatever you want to call it) in any sect.
quote:
That doesn't excuse the arguments between denominations, but I truly do believe that Jesus meant what he said about the Church and the Holy Spirit. My God is not a liar.
Neither is mine. "S/He" is capable of lying, but chooses not to.
quote:
I believe that all Christians have the fundamentals of faith in common, as defined early on by the Church in the Creeds: ONE God, the Creator (not mere organizer) of all that is;...
I go along with that absolutely. That's where J. Smith's "God" is completely inadequate: it raises more questions that it answers. How many "turtles" are piled on top of each other before you get to THE "Turtle" who created Existence? Smith never went that far, and neither has Mormonism since him. I, on the other hand, have taken the tentative steps to go there on my own.
quote:
...that God is known to us in three Persons -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- that God was born as a human being in order to save us; that Jesus rose from the dead; that we are baptized into Christ's Body; and that we will live with God in heaven for eternity.
Yep. Straight-up Book of Mormon theology. If only Smith had stayed with that.
quote:
There's disagreement on details, to be sure -- but nothing like the fundamental and deep chasm of disagreement between Christianity and Mormonism.
You know that they say, hell is in the details.
There is only a fundamental chasym between you and Mormons because you are too dogmatic, both of you.
quote:
His theology is harder to pin down, because it altered over a 15 year period. In 1829, as the Book of Mormon was nearing publication, Smith's theology was clearly Trinity based: the theology on the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is almost exactly like mainstream Christianity's. ...
The Book of Mormon, btw, is a targum of the Bible: there are enormous sections and quotations in the BofM that are straight out of an 18th century KJV Bible, including the errors.
quote:
Congratulations on being the first Mormon with whom I've discussed any of this who's noticed that Smith moved from standard Trinitarianism to polytheism. The chunks of Bible are no mystery; they were, of course, a straight steal from the KJV. The errors ought to be a tipoff as to the source.
Hooray, we agree. I like agreement. But this conversation will end soon if we agree on everything.
quote:
He admitted that about himself. In fact, used his lack of formal education to enhance the miraculous nature of his revelations: sort of like, "How could I, a simple uneducated boy, have come up with this?"
quote:
Besides plagiarism and a vivid, self-aggrandizing imagination?
Ross
Plagerism is such a loaded word in religion. Don't you think it odd that later sects can all be accused of the very same thing? The fault of Smith, is that he pulled off a big religious movement successfully, and there's nothing like success to arouse jealousy.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It's a real eye-opener. You should try it sometime!
I did once. I prefer the study of Christianity.
quote:
Well, I am certain that you can find numerous examples of unjust excommunications (membership revoking, whatever you want to call it) in any sect.
Nope, sorry, wrong. Try again. Certainly some of that goes on in certain Christian denominations (not "sects"), but in very few of them, and certainly not the way it does in Mormonism -- where rebaptism is required afterward.
quote:
Yep. Straight-up Book of Mormon theology. If only Smith had stayed with that.
Nope. Straight-up Christian theology, which Smith used in the BoM. If he'd stuck with that, who would have needed him?
quote:
...There is only a fundamental chasym between you and Mormons because you are too dogmatic, both of you.
Nope. Wrong again. Please don't put words on my keyboard.
quote:
Plagerism is such a loaded word in religion. Don't you think it odd that later sects can all be accused of the very same thing?...
What "later sects" are you speaking of? The many Mormon breakaway groups? No, because plagiarism consists of taking the words of another and claiming credit for it. Smith plagiarized the Old Testament, extensively. Who else did and claimed it was a new gospel?
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um, I really like the jealousy thing. I just don't know what to say but ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Merlin, my friend. I'm going to bed happy now. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Plagiarism is such a loaded word in religion. Don't you think it odd that later sects can all be accused of the very same thing?...
quote:
What "later sects" are you speaking of? The many Mormon breakaway groups? No, because plagiarism consists of taking the words of another and claiming credit for it. Smith plagiarized the Old Testament, extensively. Who else did and claimed it was a new gospel?
Ross
Smith, if guilty of plagiarism, reinvents the meaning of the word and it applies to every sect (denomination, whatever) that arose out of the RCC, and each other.
I wonder if you even comprehended the Book of Mormon, or ever read it carefully all the way through even once?
The book is not a plagiarism, because each and every targum is given biblical credit. Isaiah is still Isaiah. Malachi is Malachi. The Savior's words are ditto his words, repeated for Nephite benefit, not quite word for word out of Matthew. Similar language with Paul's by Mormon can be apologized for as Smith's own religious exposure coming out as the translator. The Books of Abraham and Moses purport to be more complete versions of the biblical writings. Nothing in any of this is plagiarism masquerading as something new: but rather, the old being restored. That's quite a different thing. You can call it fraud, but plagiarism in isn't.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um, I really like the jealousy thing. I just don't know what to say but
Merlin, my friend. I'm going to bed happy now.
So YOU aren't jealous of all that successful growth and money and savvyness? That pride of elitism? Good for you then! Neither am I. But others are, deny it though they will.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Pride of elitism? What the hell?
I'm in a struggling refugee church with no money, no facilities, and no power. Ain't much elitism here.
And frankly, if I was going to be jealous of anyone, it would probably be Bill Gates. Or anyone else who got their money and power in a, err... less hypocritical way.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Yes, Merlin, I've read the BoM all the way through -- twice, despite its undeniably soporific qualities -- once as a teenager and once as an adult. Alas, it is an obvious ripoff, if you prefer that term to "plagiarized."
However, there's plenty of evidence of plagiarism in Smith's "other gospel." This article has a section called "Plagiarism from John?" and this one has more details. These should provide you with a good starting point.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Pride of elitism? What the hell? ...
Oh, Merlin, if only you knew LC, and what she and her husband go through in their ministry....!
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Yes, Merlin, I've read the BoM all the way through -- twice, despite its undeniably soporific qualities -- once as a teenager and once as an adult. Alas, it is an obvious ripoff, if you prefer that term to "plagiarized."
However, there's plenty of evidence of plagiarism in Smith's "other gospel." This article has a section called "Plagiarism from John?" and this one has more details. These should provide you with a good starting point.
Ross
"Ripoff", hmmn, that works better. Not really, we're mincing words.
Any religion that departs on its own is a ripoff of earlier religious grounding. At least, the enemies of it will say so. The members of the Branch Davidians would hardly have called themselves members of a ripoff, though. And look what it got 'em.
The links are not a "start" to anything. I am way beyond that point. I've heard all of this a hundred times by now.
As I said, Smith's religion posited a "refreshing from the Lord", a "restitution of all things" through him as prophet. That meant that any similarity in language usage with the Bible was merely his personality showing through; not an evidence of plagiarism. If Smith had used totally unique lingo, separated from biblical usages, he would have been attacked as a fraud on that point too, so he couldn't win with everybody. You pick your battleground, I reckon.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Pride of elitism? What the hell? ...
Oh, Merlin, if only you knew LC, and what she and her husband go through in their ministry....!
Ross
That's irony you're reacting to there. I deplore religious elitism: a failing way too many of my coreligionists suffer from.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...Any religion that departs on its own is a ripoff of earlier religious grounding. At least, the enemies of it will say so. The members of the Branch Davidians would hardly have called themselves members of a ripoff, though. And look what it got 'em.
No, "ripoff" is the wrong word in this context.
quote:
The links are not a "start" to anything. I am way beyond that point. I've heard all of this a hundred times by now. ...
And you're not listening. That's okay. I was just trying to answer what I thought were legitimate points in a genuine discussion, not windups. My mistake. Ciao.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
