|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Re OP, Christ said he had other sheep besides the fold he organised. We've been disagreeing about who's in that fold ever since, but what we can't disagree on is that he says he has other sheep and he didn't specify who these were. They could be those calling themselves Christian or calling themselves something else entirely - we can't rule out anyone as not one of his if not specifically against him, and even then I can't see how we could actually be sure.
In my bookmark system I've got them under Anglicans...
That said. I've been trying to find the reference someone made to women being second class citizens for all eternity - was this stated as being Mormon teaching or not Mormon?
And, someone said the Hebrew connection was discredited. Does this mean this writing found in the US is something other than what is claimed? First Tongue: An Ancient Global Language
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
...I've been trying to find the reference someone made to women being second class citizens for all eternity - was this stated as being Mormon teaching or not Mormon?
It's Mormon -- it's definitely not Christian. Here's a link to an explanation of the doctrines. A woman must be "sealed" to a husband, and that husband must lift her veil for her to get to the best heaven; otherwise, she'll be a servant to some other Mormon for all eternity.
The husbands get a lot of different wives, with whom they are to produce "spirit children." Needless to say, this is also not Christian.
quote:
And, someone said the Hebrew connection was discredited. Does this mean this writing found in the US is something other than what is claimed? First Tongue: An Ancient Global Language
I'd look for another source than Brigham Young University for alleged connections to "proto-Canaanite" languages in the Americas. If this were legitimate, scholars would be exploring it. They're not.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Thanks, I thought it was presented as Mormon teaching - and I didn't think it was.
I've now found a reference that says "It is to be noted that the highest blessings therein [the temple] available are only conferred upon a man and woman jointly. Neither can receive them alone. In the Church of Christ woman is not an adjunct to but an equal partner with man [Widtsoe, p. 373]."
Which appears to me to be saying that if a man didn't call his wife he wouldn't be resurrected either. (Roles of LDS Women)
Re the Hebrew, some years ago I showed this to 'ivory tower Jews' on another forum in the hope that they would either debunk it or agree with it - I didn't get a response.
Maybe they're still thinking about it.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
I don't think the American petroglyphs look anything like Hebrew of any era, and not much like the other symbols presented. The "ivory tower" crowd may have thought you were winding them up.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I don't think the American petroglyphs look anything like Hebrew of any era, and not much like the other symbols presented. The "ivory tower" crowd may have thought you were winding them up.
Maybe they did think that, but I only use 'Hebrew' loosely, as a connection of language and place, they're supposed to be some kind of proto-Canaanite. 'Pre-Babel' perhaps since they've also been found in various parts of the world.
I've just remembered why I asked. I wondered if there was any connection between this and the Hopi tradition that they came to the Americas around 23 thousand years ago from the West arriving in what's now South America before moving up to where they are now. Just for interest.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Thanks, I thought it was presented as Mormon teaching - and I didn't think it was.
I've now found a reference that says "It is to be noted that the highest blessings therein [the temple] available are only conferred upon a man and woman jointly. Neither can receive them alone. In the Church of Christ woman is not an adjunct to but an equal partner with man [Widtsoe, p. 373]."
Which appears to me to be saying that if a man didn't call his wife he wouldn't be resurrected either. (Roles of LDS Women)
...
Myrrh
Bullseye. A man cannot have children; that's only for women. A man gets what we call the priesthood, I guess to sort of balance the scales a bit? Speculation. The fact is, in the early church, B. Young would send his wives out to give priesthood blessings to heal the sick. Women in the early church used priesthood as a right they had through their husband's priesthood. It isn't done that way now, one of the regrettable changes in the church, imho.
The doctrine of exaltation, however, is essentially the same. A man or woman cannot become a god or goddess without being married, period. That makes men and women totally equal partners in getting as high as we can go.
Also, if you know the history, and read D&C 132 in that light, you can see real evidence that Joseph Smith was "tempting" Emma with polyandry: sort of offering the goose what was good for the gander. But Emma didn't bite. Over half of Joseph Smith's first dozen wives were already married, most to other LDS men. And there was sexual relations involved, not just some spiritual wifery. D&C 132 offers (implies) that women and men in heaven will have husbands and wives.
I cannot begin to figure what was going on in Joseph Smith's imagination; the implications of such a system, carried out on earth!? Inconceivable. It was a good thing (or not, according to your perspective on Mormonism) that he died when he did, or else his evolving religion would have self-destructed with all the weird additions/alterations he was putting into it.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
I am surprised no one has mentioned planet Kolob, that's where God lives and the planets Olibish and Enish-go-on-dosh.
And what about the 'liahona" (sounds like a town in Hawai'i), it is an ancient GPS device used by the kolobians to navigate themselves when they came to earth. it was given to Lehi's father of Nephi by the Heavenly Father. Today it is stored in a mountain vault near Salt Lake City.
Mary lives on Kolob with Moses in a city named Kli-tin-ur-gash
[ 08. May 2007, 17:38: 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 Myrrh:
...'Pre-Babel' perhaps since they've also been found in various parts of the world.
I don't think "pre-Babel" is a useful term in archeological or linguistic terms. If you want to discuss different families of languages, that might be an interesting thread.
quote:
...I wondered if there was any connection between this and the Hopi tradition that they came to the Americas around 23 thousand years ago from the West arriving in what's now South America before moving up to where they are now.... [/QB]
The DNA and linguistic evidence would both seem to suggest otherwise. The American Indians' ancestors came from Asia.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...A man cannot have children; that's only for women. A man gets what we call the priesthood, I guess to sort of balance the scales a bit? ...
Straight from the missionaries' memorized lessons: "Sure, you can't have the priesthood and do any of the important stuff in church -- but YOU can have CHILDREN!" Spoken by someone who was never pregnant.
quote:
The doctrine of exaltation, however, is essentially the same. A man or woman cannot become a god or goddess without being married, period. That makes men and women totally equal partners in getting as high as we can go.
Nope, because a man can have many wives (and concubines), and the most his actual wife could hope for would to be the first among equals.
Only the man get to lift the veil on the wife and say whether she gets to join him in godhood. Otherwise, it's servanthood for her. She doesn't get the same power over him. There is no equality at all in Smith's system.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I've had that bit confirmed by Mormons. An unmarried woman, or a married woman not recognized and called by her husband after death will not achieve exaltation. She will, if worthy enough, be saved, but that's a steerage class heaven where you can spend eternity as the servant of Mormons who are exalted. A married man can be exalted if the conditions are met, and his exaltation does not depend upon his wife calling him after death.
--------------------
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
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Bullseye. A man cannot have children; that's only for women.
Well I'm a man and I've had children - short people running around making a lot of noise, right? I haven't given birth to them, but I've definitely got them, and I remember being involved in their creation.
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The DNA and linguistic evidence would both seem to suggest otherwise. The American Indians' ancestors came from Asia.
Ross
Well, the Hopi have been telling their story for rather a long time and this is about their gradual journey up from the South, a journey given them, as they describe it, as a sacred quest.
By Asia I think you're referring to the influx via the North, the Hopis remember the Navajo entering this way and say they taught them how to make pots for cooking. I'll stick with their story.
In one of today's papers I read they've now established the Australian Aborigines have also come from the same small tribe out of Africa which appears to connect us all. They did a more extensive study than previously and decided the cause of the confusion was these had no extra imput from other interminglings during the intervening centuries from their first settlement until now.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
One of the more recent – and scary – trends of the Mormons is to try to ally themselves with Christianity. This was not the case when the Mormon religion was devised. Joseph Smith rejected uttlerly the central tenets of Christianity and referred to Christians as a creation of Satan. As with other wacky aspects of Mormanism, the Mormons have adjusted their facade to appear less grusome and ridiculous than it really is.
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
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
There's a lot of PR involved, and it's all very carefully calculated.
The missionaries don't talk about the more outre doctrines, focussing on the conventional pro-family stuff instead. It's called "milk before meat," but they do it because if you start talking about Kolob, the real role of women, or Jesus's exact relationship to Satan, you're likely to lose some prospects.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
merechristian
Apprentice
# 6722
|
Posted
Living in Las Vegas, NV, I come in contact with a lot of LDS and missionaries, etc and once they asked me, while next to me in traffic, if I would be interested in talking to them and I said, "No thanks, I'm a Christian." Offended, they yelled back as I drove off, "We're the Church of JESUS CHRIST!!! of Latter Day Saints!"
I would think the biggest distinguishing factor between Christians and the LDS the issue of grace versus works salvation. In LDS theology, as you guys have been discussing, you have to do lots of works to get that exalted status, pay your tithes, do volunteer work, get married, have babies, etc. Otherwise you're stuck in lower heaven with the rest of us who don't directly hate God (those that do, go to the outer darkness). Christians rely on Christ wholly and solely for their salvation, and though good works are an indication of a change in heart, they are not prereq's to get into true heaven.
There are other major theological differences too, but as for distinguishing whether someone is Christian or not, I would look to this one point.
--------------------
Sometimes the place I'm at is at a loss for words.-Relient K
Posts: 39 | From: Las Vegas, NV | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
You're on to it – they reject Christ's salvation. Spencer Kimball of the LDS writes that "one of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation." He adds that “there is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God,”
One sure-fire to be damned is to reject polygamy. according to Brigham Young: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned."
They're bonkers, that's all there is to it. For all the railing that some Christians do against Islam, the Mormons pose a far greater danger.
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
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by merechristian:
...I said, "No thanks, I'm a Christian." Offended, they yelled back as I drove off, "We're the Church of JESUS CHRIST!!! of Latter Day Saints!"
That's some of the PR, and it works surprisingly well on those who don't investigate further. Of course, names don't mean anything in and of themselves. You can call yourself Elizabeth Windsor, but that doesn't mean the Queen's corgis will come when you whistle for them.
quote:
...the biggest distinguishing factor between Christians and the LDS the issue of grace versus works salvation. In LDS theology...you have to do lots of works to get that exalted status, pay your tithes, do volunteer work, get married, have babies, etc. Otherwise you're stuck in lower heaven with the rest of us who don't directly hate God (those that do, go to the outer darkness). Christians rely on Christ wholly and solely for their salvation, and though good works are an indication of a change in heart, they are not prereq's to get into true heaven. ...
Yes, the Mormon line is "We are saved after all we can do." Grace does not enter into it; as I understand it, it's a pure transaction, like buying or selling a house or a car.
Incidentally, I was told in high school that I would spend eternity in said Outer Darkness; at the behest of the missionaries, I read the Book of Mormon, went to meetings, prayed the Prayer of Moroni -- and got what they considered the "wrong" answer. They told me I had rejected the Truth, so outer darkness (do eternal flames enter into it too? it seems to me that they did) was my reward.
Ah, well....
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
...There is no equality at all in Smith's system.
Ross
The current "system" isn't Smith's, it is a successor. Smith's system was more weird. D&C 132 indicates polyandry creeping into it. given how late in the game 132 is, it seems an effort to give Emma what Joseph was taking for himself: she didn't bite.
So Smith's evolving view of the highest heaven seems to have been quite different: polygamy all around!
Btw, a man who doesn't have a wife (wives) to go through the veil with, is a servant too. You seem to not get that point of distinction: there are no unmarried gods, period. Singles are servants, male and female.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I've had that bit confirmed by Mormons. An unmarried woman, or a married woman not recognized and called by her husband after death will not achieve exaltation. She will, if worthy enough, be saved, but that's a steerage class heaven where you can spend eternity as the servant of Mormons who are exalted. A married man can be exalted if the conditions are met, and his exaltation does not depend upon his wife calling him after death.
Mistaken. Perhaps originally that dogmatic, but no longer. The doctrine practiced by Mormonism today is, that no single man or woman will be a god (goddess): only marrieds. And if a woman is rejected by a man, his salvation is in jeopardy if that rejection is unjustified. If they simply do not want each other, it is popularly believed that the woman will have another husband. No worthy woman will remain single in heaven. And no unworthy man will have even one wife.
[ 09. May 2007, 18:13: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
They're bonkers, that's all there is to it. For all the railing that some Christians do against Islam, the Mormons pose a far greater danger.
K.
Oh come now! They are allowed to be bonkers. How can anyone compare what SOME elements in Islam do to Mormons? I don't see Mormons hijacking planes and all the other calamity that I won't give a laudry list of since we all know it by now. Do I think their beliefs are a bit daffy? Sure yet if it works for them. It's "a free country" and they can believe what they want. I don't see them doing anyone harm, they seem to live clean and sober lives. Ooh whats the "greater danger" we will all be forced to eat more casseroles? I would say I am one of the more right of center (on some subjects) shipmates but even I think that's a little out there.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
One of the more recent – and scary – trends of the Mormons is to try to ally themselves with Christianity. This was not the case when the Mormon religion was devised. Joseph Smith rejected uttlerly the central tenets of Christianity and referred to Christians as a creation of Satan. As with other wacky aspects of Mormanism, the Mormons have adjusted their facade to appear less grusome and ridiculous than it really is.
K.
Scary, ridiculous, grusome, facade, satanic. that's quite a collection of deragotory terms you've used in one brief paragraph. I would like you to substantiate even ONE of them by reasonable sources. Something that simply sets Mormonism apart from Christianity in a uniquely aberrant way. As in, showing why they are scary; why they are grusome; how are they "satanic?" Not just throwing cheap epithets out there, but backing them up with some substance. For the good of humanity, of course. It is your duty, damit! your duty!
[ 09. May 2007, 19:33: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
There's a lot of PR involved, and it's all very carefully calculated.
The missionaries don't talk about the more outre doctrines, focussing on the conventional pro-family stuff instead. It's called "milk before meat," but they do it because if you start talking about Kolob, the real role of women, or Jesus's exact relationship to Satan, you're likely to lose some prospects.
Ross
Actually, it's tithing and no alcohol/tobacco/caffine, which puts most people off. The stuff which makes most people have to contemplate real life changes to the ways they have been living. In other words, personal, permanent, sacrifices.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by merechristian:
Living in Las Vegas, NV, I come in contact with a lot of LDS and missionaries, etc and once they asked me, while next to me in traffic, if I would be interested in talking to them and I said, "No thanks, I'm a Christian." Offended, they yelled back as I drove off, "We're the Church of JESUS CHRIST!!! of Latter Day Saints!"
I would think the biggest distinguishing factor between Christians and the LDS the issue of grace versus works salvation. In LDS theology, as you guys have been discussing, you have to do lots of works to get that exalted status, pay your tithes, do volunteer work, get married, have babies, etc. Otherwise you're stuck in lower heaven with the rest of us who don't directly hate God (those that do, go to the outer darkness). Christians rely on Christ wholly and solely for their salvation, and though good works are an indication of a change in heart, they are not prereq's to get into true heaven.
There are other major theological differences too, but as for distinguishing whether someone is Christian or not, I would look to this one point.
I can address that one point. (I don't think it's the biggie, but it is near the top of the list of differences.)
Mormons share in common with other Christians, who believe works are an indicator of your change of heart: your "rebirth" in Christ. It isn't Mormon doctrine to check off the boxes and present your list of accomplishments to God and then enter into your level of glory. We do not accept "cheap grace." The kind where you say "I have received Jesus Christ into my life and am saved!" A person can get to the closest relationship with God and still fall away. That's the Mormon view. You are not done until you are "safely dead." Complacency is the antithesis of Mormon theology.
A holistic reading of the Bible will confirm that works are important. You can't get into heaven through doing them. But to claim that you believe, and then do not work as well as you can to make the world better as a Christian, is an empty belief.
Btw, Mormon "heaven" is far more generous than most Christians are taught to expect. As you mention, "outer darkness" (perdition) is where only those go who utterly reject God, after having first known him (as the Holy Ghost). All other sins are forgiven through the atonement of Christ. Unrepentant murderers, whoremongers, liars, etc., go to the lowest level of heaven (the telestial), which still beats the socks off the best this world has ever been: and will be ministered to by the Holy Ghost. Those who professed to believe in Christ, but were not valiant in their faith (see above) are terrestrial material; they will enjoy the presence of the Son and Holy Spirit: also terrestrials are the heathen races who did not accept Christ, and the "honorable men of the earth" who also did not accept Christ. Only those innocents who died before reaching the age of accountability (c. 8) and those baptized, who kept their covenants, enter into the celestial kingdom, and enjoy the full presence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The upper level of the celestial kingdom is where God's exalted children "go." Those who married for eternity become gods and goddesses, sharing in the full creative powers of the Father.
It is really quite a nice little theology, very Christian (that is to say, charitable to all), and there isn't a scrap of the "satanic" about it.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
You're on to it – they reject Christ's salvation. Spencer Kimball of the LDS writes that "one of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation." He adds that “there is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God,”
One sure-fire to be damned is to reject polygamy. according to Brigham Young: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned."
They're bonkers, that's all there is to it. For all the railing that some Christians do against Islam, the Mormons pose a far greater danger.
K.
You've got a couple of misconceptions there about the nomenclature within Mormon doctrine.
Saved by grace in Mormonism means having your repented-of sins forgiven by Christ's atonement, so that you won't have to suffer to pay for them yourself. Those sins not repented of must be paid for by YOU, before you get your eternal reward. Then, and only then, does the atonement of Christ come into effect and change you eternally. Also part of salvation is resurrection (literal and physical) for everyone who ever lived. That comes as part of Christ's atonement for the world.
Confessing Joseph Smith was a prophet is simply the Mormon way of insisting that the truth of their restored gospel comes through Joseph Smith, "the prophet of the restoration". Without admitting this salient fact, nobody in this dispensation can be saved, because they have not admitted the truth. So, before your ultimate salvation, you must admit that, and all other truth. You didn't come right out and say it, but I will deflect any subsequent claims that the LDS people believe that they are saved THROUGH Joseph Smith. Even Joseph Smith isn't saved without Jesus Christ: nobody is.
"Damned" to Mormons simply means, to cease progression. It doesn't mean hellfire like it does to most Christians. So, damned if you don't accept B. Young's polygamy meant to him, that you won't advance throughout eternity in the highest level of the celestial kingdom: not that you are going to the nether world of fire and screaming with the devil and his angels. Anyone who does not become exalted -- become a god or goddess -- is damned (ceases to progress), even though they live with Father for eternity: they are angels to the exalted gods and goddesses of God's children.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
....Yes, the Mormon line is "We are saved after all we can do." Grace does not enter into it; as I understand it, it's a pure transaction, like buying or selling a house or a car.
You don't understand it. The doctrine is: unrepented sins must still be paid for, by YOU. But once paid for, you still don't get anything -- no resurrection, no place in any level of heaven -- without the grace of Christ. That atonement saved the whole world. Without it, nothing would have survived the Fall. Mormons absolutely believe in Grace. Just not "cheap grace."
quote:
Incidentally, I was told in high school that I would spend eternity in said Outer Darkness; at the behest of the missionaries, I read the Book of Mormon, went to meetings, prayed the Prayer of Moroni -- and got what they considered the "wrong" answer. They told me I had rejected the Truth, so outer darkness (do eternal flames enter into it too? it seems to me that they did) was my reward.
Ah, well....
Ross
You were told wrong, then. Not the first or last time well meaning asses misrepresented the doctrine of their religion.
The doctrine of outer darkness (perdition) requires that you enter into your full covenants (temple stuff), know the Father and Son because of the unmistakable witness of the Holy Ghost, then SIN against the Holy Ghost by denying God. You have to have "your calling and election made sure", first, then toss all that aside. I don't know a single person who qualifies for that level of damnation.
And yes, perdition is, to Mormons, the closest thing to Christian hell. It is the only fate that is not a kingdom of glory at all: and seems to reside outside of creation.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon J:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Any suggestion that the Book of Mormon is - or is even a written record of - another Testament is an absolute nonsense.
Interestingly, that is what many Jews say about their Covenant and the claims of Christianity.
And, with TEC, I acknowledge that the Jews are right about that. Their testament is still in force, for them, or for those of them who hold to it. It was never meant to be a religion aimed at or available to everyone. However, Christianity is. "Preach the Gospel to all nations." There's no room, therefore, for a superstructure, at least a universal one. A supposed superstructure is most plausible by retreating from universality back into elitism, which is what this system does: it makes a distinct appeal to caucasian American men-- so conveniently, given the circumstances of its origin. The passage of time and its own success has since occasioned equally convenient prophetic backpedaling in this regard.
I, too, do admire some of the practical results. A young faculty family moving across the driveway from me one summer ca. 1982, into a small two-room duplex flat intended for married students, until they could find larger quarters, were effective exponents. This Mormon family had at least five children, making for a very cramped situation. I'd expect most children suddenly in these conditions to get in one another's way and bicker frequently, but I never saw the slightest sign of it. They were always polite and co-operative together.
My understanding is that LDS doctrine is not trinitarian, at least in acknowledging the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Their baptisms are not valid even in form, let alone their eucharistic rites. Re Mitt Romney, I can't bring myself to vote for high public office someone so credulous, and I'd be particularly afraid that the American exceptionalism that this faith breeds is liable to cloud his judgment.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
.... A supposed superstructure is most plausible by retreating from universality back into elitism, which is what this system does: it makes a distinct appeal to caucasian American men-- so conveniently, given the circumstances of its origin....
Mormonism is an appeal to caucasian American males? Is that why more Mormons in the world live outside the USA? The church is growing there much faster than it is in the USA.
quote:
The passage of time and its own success has since occasioned equally convenient prophetic backpedaling in this regard.
I don't understand this statement. Are you referring to earlier, "original" statements about Blacks? If so, we need to remember that all religions evolve. The earlier leaders of the LDS religion are not equal in prophetic value to the living ones. That IS Mormon doctrine and always has been.
quote:
....
My understanding is that LDS doctrine is not trinitarian, at least in acknowledging the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Not Trinitarian in the conventional sense. But Mormons believe in a Godhead of three Persons. The Holy Ghost is a distinct person.
Joseph Smith's original theology was very Trinitarian: the Book of Mormon teaches such a concept of God. Later, he evolved with his Godhead into the current God as a glorified man of physical body. The Holy ghost remains a Personage of Spirit only.
quote:
Their baptisms are not valid even in form, let alone their eucharistic rites.
I don't see why the form should be an oddity. Sacrament taking is similar to other Christian usages. So is the baptism by immersion.
The main reason why other Christians would not accept Mormon baptisms and sacraments as "valid" would probably stem from Mormons originally declaring that EVERY extant church teaches abominable creeds and has no authority, i.e. only Mormon baptism and all priesthood ordinances are valid before God, not any others. So the response has been: "We allow that there is an acceptable variation in valid ordinaces and sacraments, but the Mormons do not qualify as valid."
quote:
Re Mitt Romney, I can't bring myself to vote for high public office someone so credulous, and I'd be particularly afraid that the American exceptionalism that this faith breeds is liable to cloud his judgment.
Mitt's crudulity is no zanier than any other truly believing religious person's. Come now, if you really look at what people profess to believe, it all looks and sounds like so much imaginative wishful thinking.
As for his judgment being clouded by religion, that is going to be a concern with any devoutly religious candidate, as it always has been. But it has rarely if ever shown itself to be a big problem.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
As for his judgment being clouded by religion, that is going to be a concern with any devoutly religious candidate, as it always has been. But it has rarely if ever shown itself to be a big problem. [/QB]
One might suspect that it is indeed a very real problem in respect to the current occupant of the Oval Office, among his other abiding afflictions.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Actually, it's tithing and no alcohol/tobacco/caffine, which puts most people off. The stuff which makes most people have to contemplate real life changes to the ways they have been living. In other words, personal, permanent, sacrifices.
Alcohol was good enough for Jesus, whose public ministry very conspicuously opened and closed with wine (and, for that matter, for Smith, who ran the only tavern in Nauvoo in his parlor), and it's good enough for me. These things are purely matters of personal choice and discipline.
No, I'm talking about the important stuff. For anyone who actually knows anything about Christianity, basic Mormon doctrine is likely to be pretty horrifying.
quote:
You don't understand it. ...Mormons absolutely believe in Grace. Just not "cheap grace."
And you don't understand the concept of grace, at least not as Christians do. You can't buy your way into heaven; you certainly cannot buy your way into godhood. Grace is a pure gift, given out the incomprehensible Love of God.
How many gods do you reckon there are in total, anyway? Has anyone ever offered an estimate?
quote:
I don't understand this statement. Are you referring to earlier, "original" statements about Blacks? If so, we need to remember that all religions evolve. The earlier leaders of the LDS religion are not equal in prophetic value to the living ones. That IS Mormon doctrine and always has been.
They don't evolve THAT much: The founders of Mormonism would disagree. Here's just one salient item:
quote:
After the Mormons moved west, Brigham Young, the second president of the church, became very adamant in his disapproval of blacks. Preaching in 1859, at the October Conference of the LDS Church, President Brigham Young declared:
Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. . . . How long is that race [blacks] to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
On another occasion Brigham Young declared:
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).
As to Mormon baptisms: they're not generally accepted by those who understand Mormon theology because Mormons are not Christian, but polytheists.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
Mitt's crudulity is no zanier than any other truly believing religious person's. Come now, if you really look at what people profess to believe, it all looks and sounds like so much imaginative wishful thinking.
As for his judgment being clouded by religion, that is going to be a concern with any devoutly religious candidate, as it always has been. But it has rarely if ever shown itself to be a big problem.
True enough. But there is a distinction between believing in something which can not be proven to be true, and believing in something which has been proven to be false. I would say most world religions fall into the first category, whereas the Mormon faith (e.g. reliance on B of M as an ancient, revealed document) comes quite close to falling into the 2nd.
quote:
One might suspect that it is indeed a very real problem in respect to the current occupant of the Oval Office, among his other abiding afflictions.
No argument there-- but that alone is reason to be concerned!
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
Exactly. We've just survived (sorta) 7 years of a president who is apparently able to handle the significant amount of cognitive dissonance/ lack of faith integration required to call oneself "Christian" and then act in a manner completely inconsistent with key Christian principles. Do we really wanna sign on for another 4 years with someone who has shown a similar tolerance for cognitive dissonance and disassociation, simply by virtue of having pursued a higher education w/o "connecting the dots" to the obvious conclusions re: BofM, etc.?
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
...there is a distinction between believing in something which can not be proven to be true, and believing in something which has been proven to be false. I would say most world religions fall into the first category, whereas the Mormon faith (e.g. reliance on B of M as an ancient, revealed document) comes quite close to falling into the 2nd. ...
There is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon which is demonstrably true, and quite a lot which is demonstrably false, from archeology to animals.
The Smithsonian Institution even has a form letter with attachments that it sends to those who ask about Mormonism and archeology. (So does the Oriental Institute of Chicago.) You can find the basic facts here.
As for Hopi legends, the cover letter from the Smithsonian has this to say:
quote:
The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ignatius' Acolyte
Shipmate
# 12426
|
Posted
Those of you who've been following developments in America might have heard about what Al Sharpton said about Mitt Romney.
And an opinion poll there suggests that there is a statistical tie between those who think Mormons are Christian and those who don't. Either Hinckley's propaganda is working or...
--------------------
Be a blessing.
Posts: 427 | From: Quezon City, the Philippines | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
There is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon which is demonstrably true, and quite a lot which is demonstrably false, from archeology to animals.
You got that that was my point, right?
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
You got that that was my point, right?
Yup -- just saying "ahhhh-men," and providing corroborative detail.
(What DID Al Sharpton say about Mitt "I Changed My Mind" Romney?)
Ross
[ 11. May 2007, 01:47: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
(What DID Al Sharpton say about Mitt "I Changed My Mind" Romney?)
This:
quote:
Sharpton, a Christian, made his comment during a debate Monday with Christopher Hitchens, an atheist author.
''As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation,'' Sharpton said Monday.
At a campaign stop later in the week, Romney responded sharply. ''It shows that bigotry still exists in some corners. I thought it was a most unfortunate comment to make.''
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Thanks, 206!
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
MerlintheMad:
You don't understand it. ...Mormons absolutely believe in Grace. Just not "cheap grace."
quote:
And you don't understand the concept of grace, at least not as Christians do. You can't buy your way into heaven; you certainly cannot buy your way into godhood. Grace is a pure gift, given out the incomprehensible Love of God.
And you make this sound as if all "Christians" have arrived finally at a consensus on what "Grace" is or means. That is not accurate.
Mormon definition of grace is simply that, Christ's atonement (suffering) paid for all sin, transgression, and fallen nature of the world. The world will resume its paradisical glory. But individuals who refuse to repent cannot be forgiven until the effects of their unrepentance are paid for. After that, then the grace of Christ redeems them from the Fall. Mormons do not "buy" their way anywhere. You are mistaken.
quote:
How many gods do you reckon there are in total, anyway? Has anyone ever offered an estimate?
Rhetorical questions are only amusing, not productive. As God is infinite and his worlds are infinite, and numbered only to him, it is pointless to assume we comprehend numbers of anything that God does. The Bible claims we are children of God, he is called Father: we are joint heirs with Christ. Taken holistically, the Bible supports the doctrine that we are supposed to become like our Father. He is God, and we are supposed to become gods and goddesses.
quote:
I don't understand this statement. Are you referring to earlier, "original" statements about Blacks? If so, we need to remember that all religions evolve. The earlier leaders of the LDS religion are not equal in prophetic value to the living ones. That IS Mormon doctrine and always has been.
quote:
They don't evolve THAT much: The founders of Mormonism would disagree. Here's just one salient item:
[QUOTE]After the Mormons moved west, Brigham Young, the second president of the church, became very adamant in his disapproval of blacks. Preaching in 1859, at the October Conference of the LDS Church, President Brigham Young declared:....
I don't get you. You said "they [doctrines?] don't evolve that much." Then you lay out some of B. Young's most often quoted attitudes toward Blacks. Yet the Mormon religion since 1978 has utterly and forever rejected Young's theology on Blacks. If that isn't doctrinal "evolution", at least it is admitting that Young was prejudiced toward Blacks, and mistaken, along with all others who tried to teach that Blacks are an eternally cursed race. There was always the variant teaching, that they would receive all equal priesthood privileges "in the due time of the Lord." B Young, et al, taught that it would never be while this world stands. But others said we don't know that: for instance, my family taught that, while at the same time, in 1978, a guy I "home taught", was adamant that the correct belief is that Blacks would NEVER hold priesthood, period. So both views were growing side by side in the church; until in 1978, the better one won out.
quote:
As to Mormon baptisms: they're not generally accepted by those who understand Mormon theology because Mormons are not Christian, but polytheists.
Ross
That's circular reasoning. "Your baptisms are not acceptable, even though you invoke Father, Son and Holy Ghost while doing them. Because we say you are polytheists we don't believe you when you say you are Christians, so your baptisms are not recognized."
It is possible to be misunderstood. How many Prots accept RCC baptism? The RCC claims to accept many but not all Prot baptisms. So, no consensus here either. But you all can claim that Mormons are right out? Because we have a theology which rubs you the wrong way? Sort of a double standard, don't you think? You can disagree with each other, but, like the Arab pithy saying -- "the enemy of my enemy is still me friend" -- you unite against a religion which proselytizes amongst your flock. That's the real reason, not the theology. If the Mormon church ceased to grow, ceased to send out missionaries, then you wouldn't feel so adamant about trying to discredit it.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
....But there is a distinction between believing in something which can not be proven to be true, and believing in something which has been proven to be false. I would say most world religions fall into the first category, whereas the Mormon faith (e.g. reliance on B of M as an ancient, revealed document) comes quite close to falling into the 2nd.
I noticed that you (wisely) qualified that statement. Because there is plenty of false conjecture about the historicity of the biblical account: yet virtually all of Christianity is founded on the belief that the Bible is the revealed word of God, essentially perfect and without error in what it says. Much back-pedaling on that has been done by an increasing majority. Nowadays, it is popular to refer to the Bible as not literal history; and most of the OT as alegory and metaphor and not literal in any of it's more fantastic claims. Such a view less than 200 years ago would have met with resounding rejection. Today, Bible lieralists are an endangered species fighting for survival.
The Book of Mormon is not a literal history either. It will be possible to defend it in the light of Joseph Smith's own ignorance. Yes, Moses, Abraham, and the first prophet Adam, were all ignorant bronze-age barbarians compared to modern knowledge. So we allow them to be held up to a charitable light of ignorance. Smith's theology was based on ignorance too. The Book of Mormon, therefore, can teach truths without being literally grounded in historicity, just as the OT tales are not founded on literal historicity, but rather, were products of the time in which they were first written down (c. 7th century BCE).
quote:
One might suspect that it is indeed a very real problem in respect to the current occupant of the Oval Office, among his other abiding afflictions. No argument there-- but that alone is reason to be concerned!
I don't see why. Mitt seems like a very progressive sort of Mormon. If he were not, I doubt that is political career would have gotten this far. Fundie Mormons have inexhaustible ways and opportunities of giving themselves away. Mitt's religion seems, to me, very much compartmentalized away from his politics. That doesn't mean I will vote for him, however....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And you make this sound as if all "Christians" have arrived finally at a consensus on what "Grace" is or means. That is not accurate. ... Mormons do not "buy" their way anywhere. You are mistaken.
Ah, isn't it interesting how two people can look at the same evidence and come to two completely different understandings? No, not all Christians agree on every detail of how grace operates -- but any Christian's understanding is different from that of Mormonism. Our grace is a pure gift. Yours is, from everything I've read or heard, a retail operation.
You may not care for the sound of that, and I can't blame you;it's not conducive to good PR. Still, I think it's the most accurate way of putting things.
That's because your deal is that if you do X and Y and Z, you'll be put into Steerage Class Heaven -- which is really closer to most people's idea of something distinctly hellish, even if the missionaries prefer to represent it as something else. If you do A and B and C, you'll get into Economy Class Heaven, which is okay, although the meals are minimal and there's not enough legroom. And if you do A and B and C AND put a cherry on top AND give lots of money to the Mormon organization, you can go to First Class Heaven.
That's not a Christian concept. I think all genuine Christian denominations agree on this one: There's just one Heaven for everyone, period.
quote:
...Taken holistically, the Bible supports the doctrine that we are supposed to become like our Father. He is God, and we are supposed to become gods and goddesses.
No, if you really read the Bible, you'll find that is not a Christian (or Hebrew) concept: there is ONE God, period, for the entire Creation -- and God is certainly not our father in a sexual sense, as Mormonism would have him. One of my problems with Mormonism is the ways in which it limits its god to being nothing but a human being with a few superpowers and an exceptionally strong sex drive, even by Smith's impressive standards.
quote:
I don't get you. You said "they [doctrines?] don't evolve that much." Then you lay out some of B. Young's most often quoted attitudes toward Blacks. Yet the Mormon religion since 1978 has utterly and forever rejected Young's theology on Blacks. If that isn't doctrinal "evolution"...
Young said that would never change. Period. Yet they, 180 degrees, after everyone from the Federal government to the Boy Scouts came down on the men in SLC like a ton of bricks for an incredible and embarrassing level of institutional racism. The change was very convenient. However, by your own standards, Brigham Young was either a prophet who spoke your god's truth -- or he was a fraud and a liar:
quote:
Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. . . . How long is that race [blacks] to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
Which is it?
quote:
...Because we say you are polytheists we don't believe you when you say you are Christians, so your baptisms are not recognized."
It is possible to be misunderstood. How many Prots accept RCC baptism? The RCC claims to accept many but not all Prot baptisms. So, no consensus here either. But you all can claim that Mormons are right out? Because we have a theology which rubs you the wrong way? Sort of a double standard, don't you think? ...
Sorry, you're mistaken. Mormons ARE polytheists, by your own admission. Christians are not, and you do not appear to understand the difference. Your "trinity" -- the three identical albino fellows from the old Temple movie -- are simply not the same as the Three Persons of the Trinity, One God.
There are a few Protestant denominations which insist on baptism by immersion and don't accept infant baptisms, or baptism by pouring. The Roman Catholic Church, as far as I know, accepts all Christian baptisms.
That's because one is not baptized into a particular denomination, but into the Body of Christ. Furthermore, it's one baptism to a customer.
That's another area in which Mormonism differs from Christianity: there's a difference between not accepting another Christian body's order of baptism, and the Mormon system of having to get redone every time you annoy the hierarchy and then come back.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
Merlin--
quote:
Mitt's religion seems, to me, very much compartmentalized away from his politics.
Yes, that was precisely my point-- and the source of my concern. I think we have seen with the "current occupant" of the WH the same ability to "compartmentalize" faith, to ignore extreme cognitive dissonance, to simply choose not to struggle with the complexities. While we don't want a theocracy, there is also something equally disturbing about this strange ability to diassociate and compartmentalize that verges on sociopathology (speaking of the current occupant here, not Mitt). I really know very little about Mitt other than his religion, but I worry if that may be an indicator of that same disturbing ability to compartmentalize and disassociate. I want a leader who is more fully integrated, and able to think thru moral complexities.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Mr. Romney, who used to be on the more libertarian side of the Republican equation (social liberal/fiscal conservative), recently did an abrupt about-face and fell into line with the anti-libertarian political preferences of the geritocracy in Salt Lake City.
Either the libertarianism was a pose then, necessary to get elected in Massachusetts, or the extreme social conservatism is a pose now, to get the support of Mr. Bush's base. In either case, it's a pretty major switcheroo.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, says (from www.mormon.org):
quote:
"We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ."
He goes on to say that Mormons "accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior" and as "the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God." He even adds that Jesus is "our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life."
Not only that, but Mormons also "pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ." According to their doctrine, "The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement."
If this is not enough for a religion to be considered Christian, what specifics does the title require?
One key issue missing from the above is whether Jesus is God-and not just one of multiple gods for multiple worlds but the very same one and only God as God the Father
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
....No, not all Christians agree on every detail of how grace operates -- but any Christian's understanding is different from that of Mormonism. Our grace is a pure gift. Yours is, from everything I've read or heard, a retail operation.
You may not care for the sound of that, and I can't blame you;it's not conducive to good PR. Still, I think it's the most accurate way of putting things.
You may have noticed already, that I am interested in accuracy, and could not care much less than I do now, whether Mormonism endures or not. So "PR" hasn't anything to do with my motives for engaging in this conversation/debate.
"Your grace is more of a retail operation", needs defining. It doesn't work as a glib stand-alone.
quote:
That's because your deal is that if you do X and Y and Z, you'll be put into Steerage Class Heaven -- which is really closer to most people's idea of something distinctly hellish, even if the missionaries prefer to represent it as something else.
HOW, is living with the Father "hellish"??? Keeping company with the Saints, Angels, all who have been redeemed as fully as God can effect it? The ONLY difference between this imaginary "steerage class" (of male and female singles) and fully realized exaltation (the marrieds), is in their godlike powers (specifically of procreation), not the living standards or the relationships to each other as people.
quote:
If you do A and B and C, you'll get into Economy Class Heaven, which is okay, although the meals are minimal and there's not enough legroom. And if you do A and B and C AND put a cherry on top AND give lots of money to the Mormon organization, you can go to First Class Heaven.
Ah, tithing bites the big one, yet again. Yeah, if you don't get into the temple, you are not going to get married "for eternity." Oh well, that's about it. As for the rest, I misunderstood you at first in my reply above. But even X, Y, and Z are not good things you obey if you are calling the telestial kingdom of heaven "steerage class." X, Y, and Z are bad things, and not even omissions: you have to be a liar, whoremonger, murderer, etc., in order to qualify for that! How is that anywhere near the "hellish" that you seem fixated on? "Perdition" is the only aspect of immortality which is hellish, and in Mormon theology, it is worse even than fire and brimstone.
quote:
That's not a Christian concept. I think all genuine Christian denominations agree on this one: There's just one Heaven for everyone, period.
Paul evidently saw things differently, as he spoke of levels of heaven. Not in enough detail to form a doctrinal consensus, however: thus, Joseph Smith's essential calling to "restore" the missing bits (if he had to say so himself).
I doubt very much, that ALL Christians see heaven the same way, or getting there the same way. Such has certainly not been my experience in talking with many different Christians.
quote:
...Taken holistically, the Bible supports the doctrine that we are supposed to become like our Father. He is God, and we are supposed to become gods and goddesses.
quote:
No, if you really read the Bible,...
I'd like to know what I have been doing all these years, if it isn't really reading "the" Bible: actually, I have three: the NIV, the NAB (Catholic study version) and of course the KJV.
quote:
...you'll find that is not a Christian (or Hebrew) concept: there is ONE God, period, for the entire Creation...
Of course, that's true. And Joseph Smith was talking about something else: implied if not specifically ironed out (he died, you recall, soon after making his last or latest statements on the Godhead). There can, of course, be only ONE God of all creation.
... quote:
-- and God is certainly not our father in a sexual sense, as Mormonism would have him.
Yes, and no. B. Young, iirc, is the one who said (words to the effect), "God the Father is the only God with which we have to do." Meaning, that there are other gods, but our Father is the only God we will ever have dealings with or concern about.
Not a satisfying statement, for yours truly: at an early age I had difficulty with it. Because it just turns away from any and all questioning: "Who (or WHAT) is the God that our Heavenly Father worships!?"
quote:
One of my problems with Mormonism is the ways in which it limits its god to being nothing but a human being with a few superpowers and an exceptionally strong sex drive, even by Smith's impressive standards.
I am with you on this, completely. The "god" who appeared to Joseph Smith could not possibly be THE God of all Creation. A manifestation of that ONE God, yes, but not, as he appeared, THE God. That opens up the question in two likely directions: if Joseph Smith did have a genuine, metaphysical experience (i.e. indeed saw and heard personages of glorious aspect), then the visitants are either genuine manifestations of God, and therefore speaking as if God is appearing as a man (or men, more than one manifestation at a time): or: the manifestation was that of advanced human beings having us on, and opening up the accusation of manipulation. It is, of course, possible, that such beings are not manipulative: but rather, glorified and exalted by their level of attainment, and have come into "God's" presence in a literal, reunion-like sense, and are helping us to also advance to be like them. If either of these latter two possibilities are the facts, then we are mistaken to disallow the Existence of advanced human beings calling themselves gods: and teaching that we are, like them, going to attain the same level of Existence if we advance.
quote:
...However, by your own standards, Brigham Young was either a prophet who spoke your god's truth -- or he was a fraud and a liar:
You are aware of Joseph Smith's definition (caveat) of a prophet? That a man speaks as a prophet only when God inspires him, and only as a man when not under the influence of the Holy Spirit. You can't hold Mormonism up to a different standard, not even if it holds itself up to a different standard. From your end, you must judge the religion on an equal standard with all others. So your picking on B. Young and saying the church is somehow wrong to have turned away from his manmade doctrines, is not being fair.
quote:
...Sort of a double standard, don't you think? ...
quote:
Sorry, you're mistaken. Mormons ARE polytheists, by your own admission.
As I explained above, it is possible to talk of other "gods" and still believe in the ONE God of all Creation. Joseph Smith's incomplete theology leaves Mormons wondering about who or what THE God of all Creation is; just like everybody else. You will not find any practicing, knowledgable Mormon, who says that they worship more than one God. It goes like this: the Father is who we pray to, in the name of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is how we communicate with each other. We pray ONLY to the Father, period. Even Christ prays to the same Father. It's just a different slant on things, not some radically different theology.
quote:
Christians are not, and you do not appear to understand the difference. Your "trinity" -- the three identical albino fellows from the old Temple movie -- are simply not the same as the Three Persons of the Trinity, One God.
You have made for yourself very hard conclusions, without getting all your facts straight. There are in fact only two "albino" dudes in the temple films. The HG remains invisible and is nowhere mentioned.
The Father, and Jehovah. Jehovah does all the manipulating of the matter in the Creation, along with Adam ("Michael"), who represents us. Mormons enjoy the affectation, that each of us who lives here had something to do with the creation process. But that's just speculation.
We do have a problem in a holistic comparison of the NT texts: Jesus praying to himself: a voice throwing itself to sound like two different people at his baptism; Stephen announcing at his martyrdom that he saw TWO beings, Jesus on the righthand of God, etc. It isn't nearly as clearcut as you want it to be.
quote:
There are a few Protestant denominations which insist on baptism by immersion and don't accept infant baptisms, or baptism by pouring. The Roman Catholic Church, as far as I know, accepts all Christian baptisms.
That's because one is not baptized into a particular denomination, but into the Body of Christ. Furthermore, it's one baptism to a customer.
That's another area in which Mormonism differs from Christianity: there's a difference between not accepting another Christian body's order of baptism, and the Mormon system of having to get redone every time you annoy the hierarchy and then come back.
Ross
Rebaptisms (recommitments) are common in Christian history. Only early Mormonism practiced rebaptism. Excommunication requires a reentry through baptism. I fail to see how this feature could disqualify a person from being Christian.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Pastorgirl: ....Mitt's religion seems, to me, very much compartmentalized away from his politics.[/b]
Yes, that was precisely my point-- and the source of my concern. I think we have seen with the "current occupant" of the WH the same ability to "compartmentalize" faith, to ignore extreme cognitive dissonance, to simply choose not to struggle with the complexities. While we don't want a theocracy, there is also something equally disturbing about this strange ability to diassociate and compartmentalize that verges on sociopathology (speaking of the current occupant here, not Mitt). I really know very little about Mitt other than his religion, but I worry if that may be an indicator of that same disturbing ability to compartmentalize and disassociate. I want a leader who is more fully integrated, and able to think thru moral complexities. [/QUOTE]
Some Christian more like Al Sharpton?
Look the only "solution" for your concerns, is to forbid any blatantly religious person from running for the presidency. There is no way in America that we can legally do that.
[ 12. May 2007, 19:48: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, says (from www.mormon.org):
quote:
"We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ."
He goes on to say that Mormons "accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior" and as "the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God." He even adds that Jesus is "our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life."
Not only that, but Mormons also "pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ." According to their doctrine, "The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement."
If this is not enough for a religion to be considered Christian, what specifics does the title require?
One key issue missing from the above is whether Jesus is God-and not just one of multiple gods for multiple worlds but the very same one and only God as God the Father
Joseph Smith's theology evolved into complexity. If you take only the Book of Mormon, his earliest and largest religious writing, the Godhead is clearly Trinitarian, with Jesus as God made flesh, taking on himself a tabernacle of clay and becoming a man. Later, this simple, fundamental theology gets changed. The evidence is, Joseph Smith didn't know anymore about it than the best minds of the last 2,000 years.
As I tried to explain to Rossweisse, Mormons only pray to the Father, but in the name of Jesus Christ. Through working out the atonement, Jesus Christ sat down on the right hand of his Father. Stephen saw this as he died. The Father's voice was heard at Jesus' baptism. Jesus did not pray to himself. Mormonism reconciles all these NT "mysteries". And in the process, opens up (because of Joseph Smith's evolving, incomplete theology), the accusation that the God Mormons pray to is just one of many such gods. It can't be true. Because B. Young's theology insisted that the only God we deal with, ever, is our Heavenly Father.
He said other things as well, which can be held up in contradiction: so it boils down to "which B. Young do you believe?" The one who said rare things, or the one who verified the doctrine with many things that he said?
The point I want to make is: Mormons worship one God only. Jesus Christ is God of the visible world, including the universe, because he created it under his Father's direction. He is the "Word" in John. But Christ worships the same God we all do. Only when Christ is present do we worship him as our God: because he literally is the God of our salvation, having become the Father of salvation, and thus the Father and the Son.
But Joseph Smith said, "As man is God once was." And, "The Father has a body as tangible as man's, the Son also." And, "God was once a man as we are, but has attained his glory and sits enthroned in yonder heavens." This presents a dichotomy: how can the Being that appeared to Joseph Smith be THE One God of all Creation, and yet have once been a mortal? Not possible. Mormons don't examine it, they just accept what they don't know on faith.
Speaking for myself: I accept that the metaphysical Beings that interrelated with Joseph Smith are exalted (advanced) human beings: OR, they are manifestations directly sent by THE God of all Creation. Either way, it is their God, the ONE, that we all worship. If Mormons worship an intermediary God the Father, how is that significantly different than Christians worshipping a manifestation of God, an Intermediary, called Jesus Christ?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Ah, tithing bites the big one, yet again. Yeah, if you don't get into the temple, you are not going to get married "for eternity." Oh well, that's about it. ...
You misunderstand. I'm fine with tithing -- I tithe, although it doesn't all go to my church, and none of it goes to any organization that refuses to open up the books -- but I do object to putting a price tag on sacraments. Having to show the local Mormon honcho your tax returns to prove that you're giving what he thinks you should in order to be "sealed," or to do the various little jobs that your god expects human beings to do for him -- baptisms for the dead, and so on -- reminds me of having to exchange secular money for sacred money at the real Temple, in Jerusalem. We all know what Jesus thought of that.
quote:
Paul evidently saw things differently, as he spoke of levels of heaven. Not in enough detail to form a doctrinal consensus, however: thus, Joseph Smith's essential calling to "restore" the missing bits (if he had to say so himself).
The Bible is pretty clear on people who add things to Scripture. Besides, Smith didn't understand that Paul was simply talking about a classical conception of heaven. It's not a theological thing at all.
Of course Christians have different ideas about heaven, but the idea of different classes for different people is a non-starter.
quote:
I'd like to know what I have been doing all these years, if it isn't really reading "the" Bible: actually, I have three: the NIV, the NAB (Catholic study version) and of course the KJV.
That's nice, but if you imagine you can read it "holistically," then I have to question your conclusions. The Bible is made up of many books, written from many points of view.
quote:
...There can, of course, be only ONE God of all creation.
Then why all the business about men becoming gods? Talk about hubris!
quote:
You are aware of Joseph Smith's definition (caveat) of a prophet? That a man speaks as a prophet only when God inspires him, and only as a man when not under the influence of the Holy Spirit. You can't hold Mormonism up to a different standard, not even if it holds itself up to a different standard. From your end, you must judge the religion on an equal standard with all others. So your picking on B. Young and saying the church is somehow wrong to have turned away from his manmade doctrines, is not being fair.
Excuse me? Smith claimed to be "prophet, seer, and revelator," and so did Young, and so have all the men who succeeded them. Young wasn't giving an opinion on trouser styles in that one; he was clearly speaking in his supposedly divinely authorized role as God's spokesman. When he said "This shall always be so," he meant it.
And why would I judge a religion that I find clearly founded in fraud "on an equal standard"? Do you judge, say, Scientology as you would any other religion?
quote:
You will not find any practicing, knowledgable Mormon, who says that they worship more than one God. It goes like this: the Father is who we pray to, in the name of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is how we communicate with each other. We pray ONLY to the Father, period. Even Christ prays to the same Father. It's just a different slant on things, not some radically different theology.
No, that's sophistry. Mormons still believe in many gods, even if they technically only pray to one. They're still polytheists -- and polytheists are not, by definition, Christian.
quote:
Rebaptisms (recommitments) are common in Christian history. Only early Mormonism practiced rebaptism. Excommunication requires a reentry through baptism. I fail to see how this feature could disqualify a person from being Christian.
Renewals of vows are very different. You only get "done" once. I didn't say it was a "disqualification;" I said it was yet another area in which Mormonism differs from Christianity.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
You misunderstand. I'm fine with tithing -- I tithe, although it doesn't all go to my church, and none of it goes to any organization that refuses to open up the books -- but I do object to putting a price tag on sacraments. Having to show the local Mormon honcho your tax returns to prove that you're giving what he thinks you should in order to be "sealed,"...
? I have never heard of anyone having to disclose their tithing "worthiness" beyond their word.
quote:
...or to do the various little jobs that your god expects human beings to do for him -- baptisms for the dead, and so on -- reminds me of having to exchange secular money for sacred money at the real Temple, in Jerusalem. We all know what Jesus thought of that.
There are no "quotas" in Mormonism. Nobody is keeping a record of how many baptisms for dead people you do, or how many times you go to the temple at all. Oh, I have been subjected to reporting: the church is big on reporting statistics. Not so much now as formerly. Nobody I know likes it: reporting is a drag. It has nothing at all to do with your standing before God.
quote:
Paul evidently saw things differently, as he spoke of levels of heaven. Not in enough detail to form a doctrinal consensus, however: thus, Joseph Smith's essential calling to "restore" the missing bits (if he had to say so himself).
quote:
The Bible is pretty clear on people who add things to Scripture. Besides, Smith didn't understand that Paul was simply talking about a classical conception of heaven. It's not a theological thing at all.
Right. Another of many interpretations.
And how do you get around the way your bible was put together? What about all the other "gospels" left out? The missing bits referred to within the Bible itself? The controversy over Revelations: it only squeaked by and got canonized.
quote:
Of course Christians have different ideas about heaven, but the idea of different classes for different people is a non-starter.
"Not everyone who says before me, 'Lord, Lord', shall enter into heaven. But only he who shall do the will of my Father in heaven."
So it is a warning, that your ideas are judged by no man, but only God.
Mormons don't do the "different classes of heaven for different classes of people", thing. Mormon theology admits that people are different in their abilities and desires. Some are more righteous and some are wicked. They can't all wind up in the exact same place, subject to some divine "flattening" into cookie-cutter people. There is no evidence for this view of eternity.
quote:
I'd like to know what I have been doing all these years, if it isn't really reading "the" Bible: actually, I have three: the NIV, the NAB (Catholic study version) and of course the KJV.
quote:
That's nice, but if you imagine you can read it "holistically," then I have to question your conclusions. The Bible is made up of many books, written from many points of view.
But claimed to all be "authored" by God through the Spirit's revelation. How can any one anecdotal or peripheral part of the Bible be relegated to lesser status? No one has the authority to do that, or else everyone does.
quote:
...There can, of course, be only ONE God of all creation.
quote:
Then why all the business about men becoming gods? Talk about hubris!
Talk about scriptural! "Children?" "Joint heirs with Christ?" "When he appears we shall be like him?"
"Gods" doesn't mean becoming GOD.
quote:
You are aware of Joseph Smith's definition (caveat) of a prophet? That a man speaks as a prophet only when God inspires him, and only as a man when not under the influence of the Holy Spirit. You can't hold Mormonism up to a different standard, not even if it holds itself up to a different standard. From your end, you must judge the religion on an equal standard with all others. So your picking on B. Young and saying the church is somehow wrong to have turned away from his manmade doctrines, is not being fair.
quote:
Excuse me? Smith claimed to be "prophet, seer, and revelator," and so did Young, and so have all the men who succeeded them.
Not 24/7. That's the "out", you see. Not everything that proceeds from prophets is prophetic. It saves a lot of trouble as it causes more trouble. I didn't make the definition.
quote:
Young wasn't giving an opinion on trouser styles in that one; he was clearly speaking in his supposedly divinely authorized role as God's spokesman. When he said "This shall always be so," he meant it.
He meant it. And he wasn't perfect, and he was mistaken about a great many things. What does that say about the rest of the "lesser" human race?
quote:
And why would I judge a religion that I find clearly founded in fraud "on an equal standard"? Do you judge, say, Scientology as you would any other religion?
Absolutely.
quote:
You will not find any practicing, knowledgable Mormon, who says that they worship more than one God. It goes like this: the Father is who we pray to, in the name of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is how we communicate with each other. We pray ONLY to the Father, period. Even Christ prays to the same Father. It's just a different slant on things, not some radically different theology.
quote:
No, that's sophistry. Mormons still believe in many gods, even if they technically only pray to one. They're still polytheists -- and polytheists are not, by definition, Christian.
Your words can damn you. In the Mormon definition of the word: you have stopped trying to understand.
Polytheists PRAY TO and VENERATE GODS. We do not.
quote:
Rebaptisms (recommitments) are common in Christian history. Only early Mormonism practiced rebaptism. Excommunication requires a reentry through baptism. I fail to see how this feature could disqualify a person from being Christian.
quote:
Renewals of vows are very different. You only get "done" once. I didn't say it was a "disqualification;" I said it was yet another area in which Mormonism differs from Christianity.
Ross
So we can point to a legion of differences in the sects and denominations of Christianity. At what point do we decide, "oops, you're no longer Christian?" Recommitments or rebaptism (readmission) into the church after excommunication: what difference is there? If it isn't an issue defining what is "Christian", then it isn't needing addressing on this topic, is it?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
? I have never heard of anyone having to disclose their tithing "worthiness" beyond their word.
Really? I have -- obviously, or I wouldn't have mentioned it -- and on a number of occasions. I've also heard complaints about "quotas" (as you put it). Perhaps things are different in your neck of the woods.
quote:
Right. Another of many interpretations.
And how do you get around the way your bible was put together? What about all the other "gospels" left out? The missing bits referred to within the Bible itself? The controversy over Revelations: it only squeaked by and got canonized.
It's "Revelation," singular, and "was added to the canon." (Oddly enough, I just preached on this very subject this morning.)
Let's see. "Interpretations" properly use tradition and scholarly understanding as well as the texts themselves. If you ignore what we now know about, say, Paul's world, and instead go with some notion not findable anywhere else in the Bible, you're cutting yourself off from both important information and a better understanding.
The Bible was assembled by the votes of church councils that believed themselves guided by the Holy Spirit. They actually did pretty well; nonsense like The Da Vinci Code aside, the "other gospels" didn't belong in the canon, because they were (a) written much later than the canonical gospels, and (b) often written to advance specific points of view in a way that the accepted gospels do not.
The "missing bits" -- well, if we don't have them from the ancient manuscripts, we don't have them. That doesn't mean you get to make something up and insert it.
The Revelation of John is in fact problematic -- especially if you don't read it in the context of the very specific late 1st Century persecutions it addresses. That's an area where a lack of scholarship will really get you into trouble. But there's a lot of value in it -- poetry and symbolism, words of consolation -- when you do know the background.
quote:
So it is a warning, that your ideas are judged by no man, but only God. ...
Mormons don't do the "different classes of heaven for different classes of people", thing. Mormon theology admits that people are different in their abilities and desires. Some are more righteous and some are wicked. They can't all wind up in the exact same place, subject to some divine "flattening" into cookie-cutter people. There is no evidence for this view of eternity.
Thanks for the warning, but I'll trust God instead of you. And there is every evidence for "this view of eternity."
People who think they deserve better than other people often dislike the idea of grace. It's that whole Prodigal Son thing, isn't it? I've been good, and he's been bad, and what do you MEAN he's going to Heaven? It's not fair!
But we cannot fathom God (see Job), and we don't get to dictate, either. I think C.S. Lewis, in The Great Divorce, has a nice handle on this issue.
quote:
But claimed to all be "authored" by God through the Spirit's revelation. How can any one anecdotal or peripheral part of the Bible be relegated to lesser status? No one has the authority to do that, or else everyone does.
I don't take a fundamentalist view. My faith sits on the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. I think scholarship has much to offer us, particularly in understanding the many contradictory things contained in the Bible. I'm happy to discuss it, but that may be a subject for another thread.
quote:
... Talk about scriptural! "Children?" "Joint heirs with Christ?" "When he appears we shall be like him?"
Children, not equals. Made in God's spiritual image, but not identical. Joint heirs with Christ in God's kingdom -- not setting up as godlets in our own. (This whole Mormon thing about becoming gods is really just the ultimate male fantasy.)
quote:
Not 24/7. That's the "out", you see. Not everything that proceeds from prophets is prophetic. It saves a lot of trouble as it causes more trouble. I didn't make the definition.
That's why I mentioned the fashion advice; I don't think Young was speaking for eternity when he condemned "the new 'fornication'" trousers.
But when Young (whom I believe, based on my reading, to have been a very bad man indeed) talks about the curse of Ham and how the Negro race will never get the priesthood blessings until all white men have it, he is very clearly speaking in his self-appointed role as prophet. There's really no way around it, unless you just dismiss everything the modern Mormon organization finds inconvenient.
quote:
Your words can damn you. In the Mormon definition of the word: you have stopped trying to understand.
Oh, my -- two threats in a single post! (Do they have flashlights in the Outer Darkness? May I take a book?)
quote:
Polytheists PRAY TO and VENERATE GODS. We do not.
Sorry, but you don't understand how it works. Polytheists simply BELIEVE IN multiple gods -- which Mormons, as you admit, do. They don't have to pray to them to be polytheists.
In the ancient world, every little hill and hamlet had its own gods. Families had household gods.
Eventually, broader cults grew up, but the local gods remained. The polite (not to mention sensible) traveler always enquired as to the names and natures of the local deities, and sacrificed accordingly while in the neighborhood. That doesn't mean they worshipped those deities regularly, but they did believe in them.
Mormons believe in other deities. Christians don't. I think that's pretty simple.
Ross
[ 13. May 2007, 18:53: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
