|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
....Perhaps things are different in your neck of the woods.
Perhaps. Right under the noses of church headquarters. I have heard stories (they are rather common), of bishops asking unauthorized questions during temple recommend interviews. It happens that those who take it upon themselves to defend the church can exceed their authority rather easily. Invariably this causes offense.
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.
quote:
It's "Revelation," singular, and "was added to the canon." (Oddly enough, I just preached on this very subject this morning.)
Oops, my bad. Slip of the fingers.
quote:
....
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.
Unless your claim that God is revealing "the plain and precious truths" that have been "removed" (lost) to you, is legitimate. That's the thing about religious creation: it is so open to free claim and expression. And all you have to substantiate is believability. If your religion holds together, it will gain a following.
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.
quote:
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!
So the message of the Prodigal son is that both go to heaven: even the upset, jealous, faithful son: but, there is no mention that they are equal. On the contrary, the faithful son inherits ALL his father's property. The prodigal is merely accepted back again, all forgiven. But his station is not the same as his brother's. That's what it says.
quote:
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.
I haven't read it.
quote:
... Talk about scriptural! "Children?" "Joint heirs with Christ?" "When he appears we shall be like him?"
quote:
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.)
Leaving out all the women, don't you think? Polygamy has NO part in modern, mainstream Mormonism; and I don't know anybody who wants it back.
Nowhere did anyone even hint, that our exaltation makes us "equals" with God. What a concept! Where did you get that? It can't be a telling point, that God remains different from us, even though we are called "children." And, finally, "setting up" in our own kingdoms (mansions?) does not imply that we get independent of God; all that we ever do or are is just part of his eternally increasing glory.
quote:
But when Young (whom I believe, based on my reading, to have been a very bad man indeed)....
Very human, I'd put it. Not an icon of perfection, no sir. But he was great in the ways that leaders need to be. Greater than you or me, that's for sure.
quote:
...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.
Well, that's what dogmatic, organized religions do best, isn't it? They control the doctrine. And superceding anything Young, et al. from the past has said, the modern prophets SPEAK (not spoke once upon a time) for God. And their pronouncements trump anything said in earlier times. Funny, how you can't seem to wrap your mind around that important fact.
quote:
Your words can damn you. In the Mormon definition of the word: you have stopped trying to understand.
quote:
Oh, my -- two threats in a single post! (Do they have flashlights in the Outer Darkness? May I take a book?)
When did I say you were heading for "outer darkness?" And "damned" doesn't imply divine wrath.
quote:
Polytheists PRAY TO and VENERATE GODS. We do not.
quote:
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.
Okay, granted that your definition may have more traditional clout than the Mormon one. Words can have nuances, most do. Your insistence on Mormons being polytheists is unfair on two counts: we believe in the Godhead of three Gods one in purpose: that's a slant that is just as valid as the more venerable three Gods, but one God, Trinity. Second, these "gods" you insist on us believing in, they are US! Children of the Father whose destiny is to be like him. There isn't anything remotely paganistic about it. And nobody who becomes a god or goddess is going to be equal with their Father, ever, not in eternity, worlds without end.
quote:
In the ancient world, every little hill and hamlet had its own gods. Families had household gods.
You think this compares to Mormon beliefs??
quote:
Mormons believe in other deities. Christians don't. I think that's pretty simple.
Ross
Which "other deities"? I don't know of them.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Okay, granted that your definition may have more traditional clout than the Mormon one. Words can have nuances, most do. Your insistence on Mormons being polytheists is unfair on two counts: we believe in the Godhead of three Gods one in purpose: that's a slant that is just as valid as the more venerable three Gods, but one God, Trinity.
It might or might not be "just as valid", in the sense that being Hindu (and venerating multiple gods) is "just as valid". Her point is that it is polytheism, which it is. There's a big difference between the view that God's essence was present in Jesus Christ, and that God's spirit acting in the world is another aspect of God. To teach that there are three Gods is different, whether their purpose is one or many.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Second, these "gods" you insist on us believing in, they are US! Children of the Father whose destiny is to be like him. There isn't anything remotely paganistic about it. And nobody who becomes a god or goddess is going to be equal with their Father, ever, not in eternity, worlds without end.
Um, that's a big "wow" on the polytheism scale, fyi. If the exalted are gods, then you've got a lot more than three, but untold millions.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Which "other deities"? I don't know of them.
Your famous "plurality of gods." So what if you don't actually pray to them? You believe in them. That makes you polytheists. Very simple.
There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that there is more than one heaven for different people, and nothing in Christian tradition. The Prodigal Son isn't talking about heaven; I was giving that as an example of how self-righteous people can be when someone is treated well.
(The Great Divorce is a lovely little book -- short, and filled with lots to think about.)
If you're going to make stuff up and stick it into Scripture, with no documentary support whatever, you've got to expect that it's going to be rejected by most people.
Polygamy is still a part of Mormon doctrine; it's just not practiced at the moment. Men are still "sealed" to multiple women in Temple ceremonies. And here's a great quote from Brigham Young. (Note what he says about his sermon content.)
quote:
President Brigham Young also said, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter polygamy" (J. of D., Vol. XI, p. 269). Later Young also said, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call it scripture" (J. of D., Vol. XIII, p. 95).
There's more interesting information here.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
.... Her point is that it is polytheism, which it is. There's a big difference between the view that God's essence was present in Jesus Christ, and that God's spirit acting in the world is another aspect of God. To teach that there are three Gods is different, whether their purpose is one or many.
If that is polytheism, then the standard Christian apologetic response to my counter accusation is, "it's a mystery!" To whit: Jesus' baptism; his prayer in Gethsemene; St Stephen's vision of Jesus AND the Father. Question: is God a trickster? If not, then how to explain the Father manifesting separately from the Son, Jesus praying to himself, and Stephen seeing TWO Gods?
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
....Um, that's a big "wow" on the polytheism scale, fyi. If the exalted are gods, then you've got a lot more than three, but untold millions.
Yes, countless gods and goddesses. Shouldn't that signify that our perspective on this is slightly different than someone's who claims that we are polytheists? There is a definite distinction between assuming the existence of multiple deities with powers and jobs, and the destiny of the human race to attain to godlike powers. Mormons do not worship or venerate or acknowledge "gods" in any sort of pantheon: there is God, the Creator of the worlds, whom we worship, and then there is everyone else.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Which "other deities"? I don't know of them.
quote:
Your famous "plurality of gods." So what if you don't actually pray to them? You believe in them. That makes you polytheists. Very simple.
They don't have names. They don't occupy any pantheon. They don't have jobs. If they exist in Mormon theology, we have no information whatsoever to ID them.
The trouble you are having here is, Mormons take the meaning of the NT references to "children of God," joint heirs", etc., literally. And you apply some mystical, amorphous meaning. Mormons are not polytheists, they are more like biblical literalists, like Joseph Smith himself was.
You are confusing "gods" with godlike. In the sense that when we become gods in the hereafter, we share in and learn creation. But none of us become THE God of all creation that everyone acknowledges and worships.
quote:
There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that there is more than one heaven for different people, and nothing in Christian tradition.
Just Paul's phraseology: "caught up to the third heaven."
quote:
The Prodigal Son isn't talking about heaven; I was giving that as an example of how self-righteous people can be when someone is treated well.
The father is a type of God; the two sons types of his children. The relationship is definitely analogous of heavenly reward. Showing that God's love and judgment can be illustrated by earthly types.
quote:
Polygamy is still a part of Mormon doctrine; it's just not practiced at the moment. Men are still "sealed" to multiple women in Temple ceremonies.
So are women nowadays. We have a sort of "let God sort it out" attitude anymore. Trying to explain why some people could get sealed to subsequent spouses and not others produced too many problems.
quote:
And here's a great quote from Brigham Young. (Note what he says about his sermon content.)
quote:
President Brigham Young also said, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter polygamy" (J. of D., Vol. XI, p. 269). Later Young also said, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call it scripture" (J. of D., Vol. XIII, p. 95).
There's more interesting information here.
Ross
Yes. And I have told you what the FINAL word today is regarding any pronouncements of earlier prophets of the church: God's word to the current prophet trumps anything said in the past. And if you care to call that bogus, on the grounds that God does not contradict God, then the Bible is crammed with examples of "Do today, don't do tomorrow" type stuff. The key word is, "Obedience." Unquestioning obedience of God's prophet is a sign of discipleship. If Mormons obey B. Young and not G B. Hinckley, the scripture says that this generation is no better than the ancient Jews, who claimed descent from Abraham and slew Jesus.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]And I have told you what the FINAL word today is regarding any pronouncements of earlier prophets of the church: God's word to the current prophet trumps anything said in the past.
How convenient!
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
I'm not "confusing" anything, Merlin. Believing in multiple gods makes you polytheists. Here's a definition for you: Pol´y`the`ist: n. 1. One who believes in, or maintains the doctrine of, a plurality of gods.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
I've explained Paul's statement about "heavens" already. If this were something to build upon theologically as such a major doctrine, you can be sure it would be dealt with elsewhere in the NT -- but it's not. It's just another case of someone picking up on a phrase out of context and spinning a theology on it. In this case, it's a theology that's directly opposed to 2,000 years of Christian teaching.
quote:
And I have told you what the FINAL word today is regarding any pronouncements of earlier prophets of the church...the Bible is crammed with examples of "Do today, don't do tomorrow" type stuff. The key word is, "Obedience." Unquestioning obedience of God's prophet is a sign of discipleship. If Mormons obey B. Young and not G B. Hinckley, the scripture says that this generation is no better than the ancient Jews, who claimed descent from Abraham and slew Jesus.
As Komensky said...
As for your take on the Bible: I've already explained that I'm not a fundamentalist, and that sort of argument doesn't impress me.
Yes, the Bible's full of contradictions. If you're interested in scholarship on the subject, I can recommend a standard textbook: Bernhard Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament. Otherwise, this is probably not the right thread for discussing Biblical criticism.
Finally, the Jews did not slay Jesus. That would be the Romans -- you know, the guys with all the power and weapons and authority.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]And I have told you what the FINAL word today is regarding any pronouncements of earlier prophets of the church: God's word to the current prophet trumps anything said in the past.
How convenient!
K.
Yes, I agree. But how is that any different from the RCC's pope, or any other dogmatic org which makes pronouncements on what is "truth"?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
...I've explained Paul's statement about "heavens" already. If this were something to build upon theologically as such a major doctrine, you can be sure it would be dealt with elsewhere in the NT -- but it's not. It's just another case of someone picking up on a phrase out of context and spinning a theology on it. In this case, it's a theology that's directly opposed to 2,000 years of Christian teaching.
Who said defining heaven was a major doctrine? It is a minor one, imho. The only major doctrines of Christianity are a fundamental acceptance of Christ as Savior and redeemer: without whom we would never live after death in the presence of God. And our inability to comprehend the mind and full purposes of God. And the requirement that we forgive one another, always, in our hearts and not just with our mouths. There are a few others, I suppose: but these form the basis of Christianity. Mormons believe all that and live by it, btw, just in case you had not noticed or you'd forgotten somehow.
And as has been correctly observed many times, majority and venerability of a belief does not automatically prove it to be correct. If that were the case, then the earth would still be flat, wouldn't it?
Your reasoning about pantheism is perfectly correct, definitionally: yet misses the point entirely: which is, that Mormons do not have a pantheon, and their view of the Christian Godhead is not different enough to rub them off the roster of Christians.
....
quote:
As for your take on the Bible: I've already explained that I'm not a fundamentalist, and that sort of argument doesn't impress me.
It might impress fundamentalists, who might wonder how any non literalist can call themselves "Christian".
I only made the comparison with biblical prophecy to point out that current religious orgs have the perfect right to change their doctrine if they find it out of step with current needs of society. That is why so many denominations and sects have come along, after all. But that doesn't mean that the mass of them can't be called "Christian" altogether.
....
quote:
Finally, the Jews did not slay Jesus. That would be the Romans -- you know, the guys with all the power and weapons and authority.
Ross
So the Romans were the physical means, so what? It was Jewish law Jesus was found guilty of breaking; they had him killed.
Don't pick on technicalities. It only muddies what is being discussed and leads us off-topic. (I am adequately aware of my shortcomings in how I write: if you need to point out where I err, it would be more polite and less show-offy, if you PM'd me.)
[ 14. May 2007, 19:27: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
....Your reasoning about pantheism is perfectly correct, definitionally: yet misses the point entirely: which is, that Mormons do not have a pantheon, and their view of the Christian Godhead is not different enough to rub them off the roster of Christians.
Sorry, I meant "polytheism", of course, I don't know how that happened. Anyway, proper polytheism requires a structure of deities. Mormons don't have any such beliefs.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Who said defining heaven was a major doctrine? It is a minor one, imho....
I think it's pretty major to consign people into different heavens; our universal equality in Jesus Christ is certainly a defining doctrine of Christianity.
My point still stands.
quote:
The only major doctrines of Christianity....
I think you should consider doing more reading about Christianity from Christian viewpoints, and less as filtered through the Mormon propaganda machine.
You're also forgetting one of the foundations of Judaism and Christianity, the Sh'ma: Sh'ma, Yisroel, Adonoi elohenu, Adonoi echod. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Polytheism absolutely does not fit with that.
quote:
And as has been correctly observed many times, majority and venerability of a belief does not automatically prove it to be correct. ...
True -- except that tradition and long usage of doctrines and belief do give them an authority that no religion-come-lately can imitate or manufacture on demand. All the doctrines of ancient Christianity can be supported by Scripture; they've been put to the test. You don't appear to understand the process.
quote:
Mormons do not have a pantheon, and their view of the Christian Godhead is not different enough to rub them off the roster of Christians.
I never said you had a "pantheon," and I'm sorry, but just insisting doesn't make it so. I've given you plenty of reasons, with plenty of support, to demonstrate why Mormons aren't Christian.
quote:
It might impress fundamentalists, who might wonder how any non literalist can call themselves "Christian".
I don't think I know any quite so ignorant or intolerant.
quote:
So the Romans were the physical means, so what? It was Jewish law Jesus was found guilty of breaking; they had him killed. ...
Jesus was found guilty, under Roman law, of insurrection; the Romans found him sufficiently threatening to listen to the Temple authorities -- not "the Jews." (Perhaps we could just blame the "Mobbers" for this, as for so much else. Handy, aren't they?)
quote:
(...if you need to point out where I err, it would be more polite and less show-offy, if you PM'd me.)
I'm unaware that I was being "show-offy;" that was not my intent. However, I'm sure you can understand that I prefer to have everything out in the open.
Ross
[ 14. May 2007, 23:57: 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:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Who said defining heaven was a major doctrine? It is a minor one, imho....
quote:
I think it's pretty major to consign people into different heavens; our universal equality in Jesus Christ is certainly a defining doctrine of Christianity.
My point still stands.
As does mine: that equality, cookie-cutter salvation, is refuted by the Bible when you don't toss out the passages which clearly support the idea that "cheap grace" is not how we are saved: our works DO matter. But bottom line, what is in our hearts is how God judges us. So amount or type of works, as we look upon the "outer man", do not matter at all. You will not find a holistic comparison of the teachings regarding our state in heaven (few though they be), supporting any notion of the human race's manifest differences (speaking of individuals individually) being subsumed in some all-suppressing or all-advancing "cloning" system. You may retain such a simplistic (dreadful) perspective of heavenly "reward", but others will disagree strongly: and Mormons will head that list, but be far from alone.
quote:
The only major doctrines of Christianity....
quote:
I think you should consider doing more reading about Christianity from Christian viewpoints, and less as filtered through the Mormon propaganda machine.
I read the Christ's words, first and foremost. He said that was the whole law (in a nutshell, I always mentally add). You should live that FIRST, and not leave the "others" undone. So, they are all important, but not equally so. And without the first and great commandement firmly lodged forever in your heart, all the rest is crap and gets you nothing. That's why I say those are the only major doctrines of Christianity. Just quoting Jesus' own words to that effect.
quote:
You're also forgetting one of the foundations of Judaism and Christianity, the Sh'ma: Sh'ma, Yisroel, Adonoi elohenu, Adonoi echod. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Polytheism absolutely does not fit with that.
Of course not. And the commandment says, "you shall have no OTHER gods BEFORE me." Mormon doctrine does not.
quote:
And as has been correctly observed many times, majority and venerability of a belief does not automatically prove it to be correct. ...
quote:
True -- except that tradition and long usage of doctrines and belief do give them an authority that no religion-come-lately can imitate or manufacture on demand. All the doctrines of ancient Christianity can be supported by Scripture; they've been put to the test. You don't appear to understand the process.
I seem to recall that a few days back, I noted the only significant difference between the process of Mormon evolution and Christianity outside of Mormonism, is the difference of c. 1800 years!
I am sure that you are arguing from the very same perspective as a devout pagan in the first through fourth centuries CE, against Christianity. They even accepted Judaism because it was a bonafide (that is to say, old) religion. That new-fangled abomination, Christiantiy, was not valid and was in fact "illegal" for hundreds of years.
quote:
Mormons do not have a pantheon, and their view of the Christian Godhead is not different enough to rub them off the roster of Christians.
quote:
I never said you had a "pantheon," and I'm sorry, but just insisting doesn't make it so. I've given you plenty of reasons, with plenty of support, to demonstrate why Mormons aren't Christian.
What exactly? Outside of the "polytheism" that is? I have refuted clearly that Mormons are NOT polytheists. You don't agree. Oh well. Move on to something else then, to demonstrate your "plenty of support" denying Christianity to Mormons.
quote:
It might impress fundamentalists, who might wonder how any non literalist can call themselves "Christian".
quote:
I don't think I know any quite so ignorant or intolerant.
Neither do I. That's the mystery behind your insistence that Mormons can't possibly be Christians: but instead are just trying to get people to think that they are, for some hidden agenda reasons of their own.
quote:
So the Romans were the physical means, so what? It was Jewish law Jesus was found guilty of breaking; they had him killed. ...
quote:
Jesus was found guilty, under Roman law, of insurrection; the Romans found him sufficiently threatening to listen to the Temple authorities -- not "the Jews." (Perhaps we could just blame the "Mobbers" for this, as for so much else. Handy, aren't they?)
(The Mobbers, as I pointed out, were legitimate militia officers and units, under the governor no less: talk about parallels!)
Roman law only kicked in when the "Jews" insisted that Jesus had called himself the legit king. The religious aspect was that such a claim to the Jews meant that he was their Messiah: which delicate feature, the Romans could not have cared less about. Without that, the "Jews" would not have had a case against Jesus worthy of death.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
No, Merlin, the Mormons are polytheists according to every definition but your own -- and you really don't get to overrule the rest of the world, except in your own minds. You haven't really refuted anything. (Insisting is not the same as refuting.)
As noted many times before, polytheism is just one of the many reasons that Mormons cannot legitimately be counted as Christians. Others have joined me in pointing out the business about buying your way into First-Class Heaven, men becoming gods (pure blasphemy for real Christians), God the Father having sex with the Virgin Mary (ditto), Jesus and Satan as physical brothers (ditto), adding to scripture, and all the rest of the stuff that Smith and Young and their aged successors invented.
There is nothing "cheap" about grace; you just don't get it. And if there's a pagan involved in this discussion, it's sure not me.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse on the other Mormon thread that has also become a Rossweisse v. Merlin slanging match:
Perhaps this attempt at discussion has run its course.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad a few minutes later on the same thread, but several hours before both participants came back with renewed vigour:
If you sincerely believe that my method and intent is to make people agree with me "because I Say So", then I agree, we have nothing further to discuss at this point.
Quite.
Why doesn't one or t'other of you just issue a hell-call and have done with it? Then maybe someone could start a thread on Mormons in Purgatory where people might actually discuss Mormonism purgatorially.
[ 16. May 2007, 05:03: Message edited by: doctor-frog ]
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Well, that's what I was trying do, O amphibious one.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
No, Merlin, the Mormons are polytheists according to every definition but your own -- and you really don't get to overrule the rest of the world, except in your own minds. You haven't really refuted anything. (Insisting is not the same as refuting.)
HOW, polytheists? I questioned how the Father can literally BE the Son at one and the same time, and still have a separate identity at Jesus' baptism; how Jesus can pray to himself; how Stephen can see TWO separate Gods. And you come back with, nothing at all. Mormons have very sound reasons for accepting the doctrine that Father and Son are in fact two, separate Beings.
quote:
...Others have joined me in pointing out the business about buying your way into First-Class Heaven,
And I pointed out that your perspective on the doctrine is totally off. Mormons don't "buy" anything, period. Works are only an outward evidence of what is inside. "I will show you my faith BY my works".
quote:
...men becoming gods (pure blasphemy for real Christians),...
Your concept of "gods" differs from Mormons, therein lies the trouble. You read "gods" to mean some rival to THE God of all creation. God the Father is the ONLY God we have anything to do with. That agrees with the Bible God claiming to know of no other Gods; and having no other gods before him. It just doesn't satisfy your dogmatic, narrow definitions.
quote:
..and Mormons God the Father having sex with the Virgin Mary (ditto),...
I don't know of any authority in the church, during my lifetime, actively teaching this in writing or over the pulpit. I have heard speakers quote the earlier "authorities" on this doctrine; which is decidedly B. Young in origin, quoting or referring to what "brother Joseph" taught. It is an outgrowth of his Adam God theory, which is not doctrine if anything B. Young ever said can be said to not be doctrine: that is it. You can bet your bottom dollar, that Hinckley will not say anything supporting a literal, dogmatic doctrine that the Father "came down" on Mary in a physically sexual way. But even if he did: that is not in any way a refutation of the NT claim that Jesus' Father is the same God of creation that all Christians believe in: "over-shadowed by the Spirit" is certainly euphemistic language and can mean any number of literal things. It doesn't disqualify someone from being Christian.
quote:
...Jesus and Satan as physical brothers (ditto),...
Not physical brothers, since Lucifer/Satan never got a physical body. If God the Father is literally a Father, and not a figure of speach, then all other Beings in heaven above and earth beneath, have to be his children. We are called children of God and heirs with Christ. I don't see the problem with this interpretation: why it should disqualify a person from being a believer in Christ.
How does this cause any problem with believing that Christ is the Savior of the world? You can find all manner of slanting the story this way or that in the retelling. As long as the relationship between good and evil remains clearly the same; as long as Satan is the adversary, and Christ the Son of God, I cannot see how this is any significant objection to a person being "allowed" (by you) to be a legitimate Christian.
quote:
... adding to scripture, and all the rest of the stuff that Smith and Young and their aged successors invented.
Scripture got added to until Constantine insisted on a "canon". You trust the actions of such a man? Yep, I guess that you do.
The OT was never a finished work until c. 7th century BCE, then it got written down in its more or less present form for the first time, and added to by 2nd Isaiah, et al, to explain the diaspora and failure of the line of David. The NT was not even conceived as such till late in the 1st century CE. So what's your ligitimate complaint about Mormons having additional scripture? How does THAT of itself run counter to their claim to be Christian?
"All the other stuff invented" is a lazy toss-off of all Mormonism.
I know "Christians" who claim that Catholics are not Christians too! How, I have to wonder, can a branch from the original tree be something the tree never was.
quote:
There is nothing "cheap" about grace; you just don't get it. And if there's a pagan involved in this discussion, it's sure not me.
You know what I mean by "cheap grace." But I will repeat it anyway: a belief that claiming "I am saved through the grace of Jesus Christ: he is my (personal) Savior", and then continuing to behave any old wicked way, and it won't matter because Jesus has saved, is "cheap grace". You don't have to do anything except run your mouth, and everything is taken care of by Jesus. It is a bastardization of the passages in the NT addressing that we are only saved by faith and not works.
I never said you ARE a pagan. I said you are arguing against Mormonism from exactly the same position a pagan would have argued against primitive Christianity.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse on the other Mormon thread that has also become a Rossweisse v. Merlin slanging match:
Perhaps this attempt at discussion has run its course.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad a few minutes later on the same thread, but several hours before both participants came back with renewed vigour:
If you sincerely believe that my method and intent is to make people agree with me "because I Say So", then I agree, we have nothing further to discuss at this point.
Quite.
Why doesn't one or t'other of you just issue a hell-call and have done with it? Then maybe someone could start a thread on Mormons in Purgatory where people might actually discuss Mormonism purgatorially.
"Slanging match?" Is that how you see this? We haven't said anything personally attacking, or name calling, i.e. anything childish/hellish.
We evidently agreed to stop discussing the MMM, that's all. As for the "Mormons aint Christians, no way" subject; that is still open, see just above.
How is this discussion "hell-bound"? I think it is very Purg oriented.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Well, that's what I was trying do, O amphibious one.
You want to take this discussion to "Hell?" If so, I am disappointed. "Hell" is for dim bulbs who love to show off how mouthy they can be, attacking the messenger rather than the message: a clear indicator that they can't argue the content of any discussion to the final draw, but must resort to childish personal attacks. I won't, as I have said already, go "there."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Slanging match?" Is that how you see this?
Yeh, 'tis, I'm afraid. The language isn't hellish, but what could have been a / two lively conversation(s) have degraded into what seems like a whole lotta tit-for-tat petty bickering and small-point scoring at one anothers' expense -- commonly known as a pissing match -- and on both threads the two of you have now taken up at least a page (50 posts) worth of pretty much not letting anyone else get a word in edge-wise.
And the insults aren't hellish -- but they're edging to the ruder and ruder.
The other thread may yet be turning a corner, and I hope it is. But, whatever, I'd love to see a discussion with a few substantial paragraphs instead of a lot of one-liner 'you said this and I said that' sorts of things. I just read it and glaze over -- and that's sad, because Mormon theology is a pet topic of mine.
[ 16. May 2007, 18:09: Message edited by: doctor-frog ]
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
....Mormon theology is a pet topic of mine.
Well then, you shoulda chimed in sooner! I don't think you have any trouble "getting a word in edgewise" with me at least.
And Mormon theology is a little closer to the bone than a "pet" topic of mine, and always will be I suspect....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
HOW, polytheists? ...
You believe in "a plurality of gods." That is the very DEFINITION of a polytheist -- literally. (I posted the dictionary link with an earlier response.)
And you just don't understand the whole Christian concept of grace. I'm sorry for that.
No, Merlin, I don't think you're a liar. I do think that we've taken the discussion about as far as we're going to, since everything I know about Mormonism screams that it's non-Christian, and you want to be counted as a Christian. We've also pretty well done the MMM as well as we're going to.
On the other hand, I don't know what Doctor Frog's problem is, except perhaps a desire to stir things up. You and I have not been Hellish in our discussion.
(And what it is it with this guy and his obsession with urine, anyway? Why are so many Y-chromosome types obsessed with bodily functions?)
I've enjoyed much of our discussion, and it didn't deserve to interrupted by the medical amphibion and his sixth-grade-boy sniggering over piddle.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And Mormon theology is a little closer to the bone than a "pet" topic of mine, and always will be I suspect....
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I didn't mean to sound so patronising.
What I meant was that I've done a fair amount of proper study into Mormon doctrine, for personal interest and for academic purposes, and it is a topic that I've found myself passionately interested in at various stages in my life (albeit whilst never actually convinced of any of it; I've never been tempted to be anything other than an Anglican.)
And -- to boot -- unlike many Trinitarians who've had bad experiences (or closed minds), I actually bear the Mormons (if not exactly the LDS power-structure) a fair amount of good will and am largely inclined to enter conversations such as these either sympathetically or neutral-mindedly (to whatever extent that's possible for a very passionate Trinitarian believer!)
errm. "Pet topic" for shorthand. (Of course! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
You believe in "a plurality of gods." That is the very DEFINITION of a polytheist -- literally.
Yeh, Merlin, I've got to agree with Ross on this one. If everybody can become a god somewhere in the multiverse, it's essentially polytheism, notwithstanding the caveat that we must treat the God of this section of the multiverse as The One God.
I've heard Mormonism described as 'serial monotheism' before. It's not un-apt.
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
... since everything I know about Mormonism screams that it's non-Christian, and you want to be counted as a Christian.
which goes back to my point about the analogous relationship of Judaism/Christianity and Christianity/Mormonism (or, better stated, the several Restoration Churches): with the best will in the world, I think they're two very different religions, albeit with the one rooted in the other.
For much the same reason that Christians can't claim to be Jews (despite claiming to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy), the Restoration Gospel (whilst presenting itself as a fulfillment of the New Testament) is, in many of its very essentials, not the same.
I don't view the LDS claims to be Christian as disingenuous, but I do view them as flawed in the same way that the early Church's (honest and genuine) attempts to be a part of the Jewish community was. In the end, the latter didn't work, and everybody was better off recognising that things had moved on. I'm quite sure much the same it true for the LDS in its relationship to the orthodox Churches.
Put another way, with a metaphor borrowed from scientific taxonomy, you could say that Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism are all part of the same genus of religious families, but not quite the same species.
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
On the other hand, I don't know what Doctor Frog's problem is, except perhaps a desire to stir things up. You and I have not been Hellish in our discussion.
No, Ross. I only wanted to get in on the conversation, which was getting difficult to do given the way y'all were going. The only thing I wanted to stir up was an end to those very long posts containing line after line after line of one-liner tit-for-tat responses.
Hellish might have been too strong. (I was a bit cross when I wrote it.) Hoggish would have been a far more appropriate word.
(And thanks, Merlin, for engaging with my complaint.)
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
HOW, polytheists? ...
quote:
You believe in "a plurality of gods." That is the very DEFINITION of a polytheist -- literally. (I posted the dictionary link with an earlier response.)
A dictionary link is allowed to trunkate the rest of my comment on the impossibility of Jesus and the Father NOT being two separate people?
Don't weasle out, Ross. If this is the ONLY reason why you define Mormons as Polytheists, then you have a lot of other Christians who wonder the same kinds of things as Mormons do.
The Mormon "sin", here, evidently, is in making a dogmatic statement of doctrine that flies in the illogical face of traditional "mystery-making" religion. You take reason and logic and stuff them into a box of cognitive dissonance, and decide this is one of the several/many areas where "God" remains inscrutible. Again, the only Mormon "sin" is in deciding that "God" isn't quite that mysterious: he is Father and Son, but literally that relationship, then ONE in purpose. That isn't enough to make Mormons not Christians. If you insist on this, then some of the oldest Christian denominations are also going to fail to be Christians in your estimation. And, what must they think of you? Henry VIII's break with Rome allows you to be a legitimate Christian, when many denominations never acknowledged the supremacy of Rome to begin with? I think your criteria of judging people Christian or non Christian is simplistic, dogmatic and bordering on bigotry.
quote:
And you just don't understand the whole Christian concept of grace. I'm sorry for that.
Really? I think my understanding of grace is pretty broad. Are you suggesting that my defintion of "cheap grace" is non existent? There are variations on the take of "cheap grace", but they all share a common repugnance for mortal human works.
You have not supported your claim that Mormons "buy" their way into heaven. They emphatically deny that accusation; yet you are allowed to be an authority on what Mormons are allowed to claim as their own beliefs?
quote:
No, Merlin, I don't think you're a liar.
Then don't refute my promise that I do not bully, and that I hate bullies, by saying I "tried" to bully you.
quote:
I do think that we've taken the discussion about as far as we're going to,...
Only if you back away from the questions I have given you.
quote:
... since everything I know about Mormonism screams that it's non-Christian, and you want to be counted as a Christian.
Who said I want to be counted as a Christian?
I am defending the Mormon right to be acknowledged as a Christian church. And all you come up with is unsupported claims about their doctrine. The only reason why Mormons can't be "Christians" to you, is because of the construct in your mind about what they ARE: which, as I have provided amply (again in this post on reraising the "polytheistic" question), are mistaken on several particulars. You might be mistaken about a great many things, but seem very certain that you have it all figured out.
quote:
We've also pretty well done the MMM as well as we're going to.
Yes. We don't see eye to eye on the evidence, ALL of it, that's for sure.
quote:
On the other hand, I don't know what Doctor Frog's problem is, except perhaps a desire to stir things up.
Maybe. But Frog seems to enjoy discussing Mormon stuff, simply because it's interesting: so Frog claimed, and I take Frog's word for it.
quote:
You and I have not been Hellish in our discussion.
Agreed. I haven't felt anywhere near hellish during this entire, protracted exchange.
quote:
(And what it is it with this guy and his obsession with urine, anyway? Why are so many Y-chromosome types obsessed with bodily functions?)
It's the same thing with handguns: some people think that every man who owns guns sees them as an extension of his penis. Some people project their views onto others.
quote:
I've enjoyed much of our discussion, and it didn't deserve to interrupted by the medical amphibion and his sixth-grade-boy sniggering over piddle.
Ross
I've got time for everyone, so far.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
well said, Dr. Frog.
Merlin writes:
quote:
A dictionary link is allowed to trunkate the rest of my comment on the impossibility of Jesus and the Father NOT being two separate people?
This doesn't seem to follow. You seem to be confusing definition with argument here. I would agree with Dr. Frog that by any logical understanding of the term "polytheist" Mormons apply. You seem to be arguing (at least here) that you shouldn't be called "polytheists" because trinitarian monotheism can't be explained logically. That may be true (and Mormons certainly aren't the first to point it out) but it still doesn't change the meaning of the word "polytheist". You seem to be arguing that even though the LDS is polytheistic they shouldn't be called polytheists because they have a really good reason, or because their pov makes more sense than the trinitarian pov.
Doesn't follow.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
(And what it is it with this guy and his obsession with urine, anyway? Why are so many Y-chromosome types obsessed with bodily functions?)
It's the same thing with handguns: some people think that every man who owns guns sees them as an extension of his penis. Some people project their views onto others.
y'know, I don't actually remember *saying* that I'm male. I am, as it happens, but why jump to that conclusion?
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
I've enjoyed much of our discussion, and it didn't deserve to interrupted by the medical amphibion and his sixth-grade-boy sniggering over piddle.
I've got time for everyone, so far.
Again, thank you, Merlin, for taking my moan seriously. I find interesting the fact that Ross regards my comments on a public-access board as an 'interruption' (and a little-barb -worthy one at that). The idea that she has the right to dominate the conversation to the point that other people's opinions constitute an intrusion does rather illustrate my point that the two threads in question have been hogged and need to get back on track. I'll leave the barbs to others, but I'm not going to be bullied out by that breed of small condescension. And that's my spleen now vented as much as I'm going to vent.
Which brings me to ...
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I am defending the Mormon right to be acknowledged as a Christian church.
... and what about the analogy I drew on this and, in more detail, on the other thread (at least I think it was the other one!)? The Jewish/Xian = Xian/Restoration analogy. ('Restoration', rather than 'Mormon', since I'd expect the RLDS/CoC would have a thing or two to say here, as well.)
Perhaps stated another way: very often I've encountered Mormons who've been dead keen to insist that 'We're Christians, too' or, at least, to defend, as you say, the right of the LDS to be recognised as Christian. I question why that's a sensible tactic in the first place. Why would you *want* to be recognised as such -- rather than what you claim to be, anyway: namely, the fulfilment and perfection of what we orthodox (IMO) types teach only in part?
Seems to me it's far more to do with the agression of certain Christians in using the old 'you know they're not really Christian' as a means of denigration -- i.e., it's defensive.
For myself -- FWIW -- I'm not arguing what I argue in a negative way; I'm just honestly recognising that there are important differences, theologically and sociologically -- they really *are* different communities, Christians and Mormons -- and, frankly, if I were a Mormon, I'd celebrate that fact and make capital on it.
It was St. Paul who first insisted (in Scripture) that Gentiles needn't be held to the Jewish Law -- faced St. Peter down and everything. And, actually, it's right there that we see the core of Christianity's very-soon-to-follow separation from the institutional body of Judaism. And it was the right thing -- and the honest thing. And both bodies were better off for it (albeit, in the end, it was the Church who benefited far more, given the historical persecutions of the Jews).
I don't see how we would have got where we are today by claiming 'Really! Honest! We ARE Jews, really!' But what we do claim is that in our community God fulfilled a promise he made to the Jews.
By the same token, isn't it more sensible for the Mormons to say, 'Actually, no we're not them. But we're now mainstream -- and what's more we're the ones fulfilling a promise he made to them.'
Just makes more sense to me. Whaddaya think, Merlin?
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
What I meant was that I've done a fair amount of proper study into Mormon doctrine, for personal interest and for academic purposes, and it is a topic that I've found myself passionately interested in at various stages in my life (albeit whilst never actually convinced of any of it; I've never been tempted to be anything other than an Anglican.)
The closest I come to this interest of yours, is for Islam. Over the years, I have been a keen listener whenever the subject or content of the religion comes up. I have written a small amount on it. And I find it perpetually fascinating; especially in the modern world. Yet I don't believe a shred of it is anymore inspired than the next manmade religion.
....
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
You believe in "a plurality of gods." That is the very DEFINITION of a polytheist -- literally.
quote:
Yeh, Merlin, I've got to agree with Ross on this one. If everybody can become a god somewhere in the multiverse, it's essentially polytheism, notwithstanding the caveat that we must treat the God of this section of the multiverse as The One God.
Here's the problem: Jesus and his Father are TWO separate, distinct persons: the NT proves this circumstantially at least three times: at Christ's baptism, when he prays in Gethsemene, and at the martyrdom of Stephen. That's THREE witnesses that Father and Son are TWO separate beings. We are joint heirs with Christ, "we shall see him as he is because we shall be like him": we are called "the sons of God". What could be more clear than this? Mormons do not believe in a ploytheism of shared gods. We call ourselves children of God and we become like Christ, the only begotten Son of the same Father. You're letting a dictionary tell you what Mormons believe!
quote:
I've heard Mormonism described as 'serial monotheism' before. It's not un-apt.
I've never heard it put that way before. But I can accept it. You see, the trouble is, Joseph Smith's theology is incomplete. Mormons are stuck making sense out of a premise which implicitly assumes one of two things about the Being who appeared to him as "God." Never mind, the "two personages" aspect for a moment. That is immaterial to the concept. If the Being who appeared to Joseph Smith is a physical, tangible-bodied humanoid, then either he is an advanced human being, or he is a manifestation of THE One God of all creation. If the former, then he is either speaking FOR God, as God (like angels do in the first person, e.g. the messenger in Revelation); or he is a shyster pulling a fast one on the human race.
You see, that question can't be answered: Mormons believe in Joseph Smith's (and B. Young's) God on faith. But that is no different than Christians everywhere accepting Paul's Jesus Christ on faith. The Mormon "God", therefore, is not THE One God of all creation, if he is a human being speaking FOR God, or assuming that I.D. without authority. But he could be THE One God if he chooses to manifest that way. Evidently, this has been done before: e.g. the three (at least) NT circumstances where both Beings manifest together as separate. So when B. Young says, "God the Father is the only God with which we have to do." And Joseph Smith says "God was once a man as we are now, but has attained his exaltation and sits enthroned in yonder heavens", he is not addressing THE One God of all creation: but merely "the only God with which we have to do." I.e. a messsenger/manipulator, or, the real, full deal appearing as a man.
There is no polytheism allowed with this: because there is no other being who can be called GOD except THE God of all creation. Joseph Smith didn't get that far. And could have been mistaken about the "God was once a man" doctrine. The church sure doesn't teach THAT one anymore (cf Hinckley's statements on at least two occasions, when asked about "As man is God once was", saying, "I don't know much about that. I don't know anyone who does know much about that").
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
... since everything I know about Mormonism screams that it's non-Christian, and you want to be counted as a Christian.
quote:
which goes back to my point about the analogous relationship of Judaism/Christianity and Christianity/Mormonism (or, better stated, the several Restoration Churches): ...
More clearly identified with the apostate sects of early Christianity: they are not part of THE "restored church", because they have split with it.
quote:
...with the best will in the world, I think they're two very different religions, albeit with the one rooted in the other. For much the same reason that Christians can't claim to be Jews (despite claiming to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy), the Restoration Gospel (whilst presenting itself as a fulfillment of the New Testament) is, in many of its very essentials, not the same.
Which, to a Mormon, would make him, if pushed to the logical conclusion that it must be one or the other, claim that all other denominations are not Christian, because they haven't recognized the revealed, latter-day Christ.
But just because the Jews did not accept their Messiah did not mean that they ceased to be Jews: anymore than Mormons consider non Mormon Christians to be not Christians because they have not been converted to Mormonism yet. Yet the unconverted Jews soon enough cut off all Jewish contact with the "Christian" Jews: considering them apostate. The early Christian Jews considered themselves still Jewish.
Perhaps the day will come, when Mormons will consider themselves not Christian, if it means being "like" all the others who call themselves Christian. Some, I suppose, already make that break in their own minds. Most do not.
It is still early yet. We can't tell for sure where the metamorphosis is taking all of this. But I reckon that Mormonism is destined to change into mainstream Christianity. The days of its exclusivity claims are swiftly drawing to a close.
quote:
I don't view the LDS claims to be Christian as disingenuous, but I do view them as flawed in the same way that the early Church's (honest and genuine) attempts to be a part of the Jewish community was. In the end, the latter didn't work, and everybody was better off recognising that things had moved on. I'm quite sure much the same it true for the LDS in its relationship to the orthodox Churches.
As I said, I think, rather, that the Mormons are going to "mainstream" all the way. Their claims to absolute, unique priesthood authority will go down with the Book of Mormon; down with Joseph Smith's evolving Godhead; down with the evolving story of how the priesthood got here. Yes, these things are not new: but the Internet (information highway) is new. And Book of Mormon claims are not supportable. That book, once discredited down to a product of Joseph Smith's fecund and religious imagination, and no historical narrative, will undo all the dogmatic claims which are built on the church's claims for that book: and what it means about Joseph Smith being a prophet. If there is no prophet, then there is no priesthood. No temple ordinances. No church: as Jeffery R. Holland has recently said: "without the priesthood we are no church and the whole structure should be confined to hell with its founder" (words to that effect): words which will bite the church in the kiester.
quote:
Put another way, with a metaphor borrowed from scientific taxonomy, you could say that Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism are all part of the same genus of religious families, but not quite the same species.
I am partial to the phrase "Judeo-Christianity", to cover all the religions which have sprung out of Judaism.
....
quote:
...Hellish might have been too strong. (I was a bit cross when I wrote it.) Hoggish would have been a far more appropriate word.
(And thanks, Merlin, for engaging with my complaint.)
Carry on.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Rosswiesse:
And what it is it with this guy and his obsession with urine, anyway? Why are so many Y-chromosome types obsessed with bodily functions?)
It's the same thing with handguns: some people think that every man who owns guns sees them as an extension of his penis. Some people project their views onto others.
y'know, I don't actually remember *saying* that I'm male. I am, as it happens, but why jump to that conclusion?
I did, didn't I! Could have been burned on that one. But actually, I was subliminally sure, because you sound "male", just like Ross sounds "female." You never can tell, though, with this medium.
....
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I am defending the Mormon right to be acknowledged as a Christian church.
quote:
... and what about the analogy I drew on this and, in more detail, on the other thread (at least I think it was the other one!)? The Jewish/Xian = Xian/Restoration analogy. ('Restoration', rather than 'Mormon', since I'd expect the RLDS/CoC would have a thing or two to say here, as well.)
That's just it: is the CoC (former RLDS) "now" considered Christian? If so, why? Have they dumped the Book of Mormon? (I honestly don't know.)
If Grant Palmer ("An Insider's View of Mormon Origins") has his way, the LDS church will become mainstream Christianity. He still associates as a "Mormon", albeit, one out of favor for that book. Nobody could legitimately claim he is not a Christian.
quote:
.... Why would you *want* to be recognised as such -- rather than what you claim to be, anyway: namely, the fulfilment and perfection of what we orthodox (IMO) types teach only in part?
I suspect it is a result of subliminal suggestions all around "us", that the church's claims are somewhat bogus if taken as dogmatic, literal, exclusive truth. If they are to be "downgraded" to metaphysical myths, then we can join the main mass of other Christians. Sort of like trying to play both sides of the fence till the final decision is reached, then leap to the side which "wins."
And, practically explained, Mormons are outnumbered, and not living in exclusive Mormon communities. They have Christian neighbors. They want their neighbors to see them as neighbors and not aliens. So, Mormons point out all the ways that we agree on Christians principles, and downplay the differences in doctrine.
quote:
Seems to me it's far more to do with the agression of certain Christians in using the old 'you know they're not really Christian' as a means of denigration -- i.e., it's defensive.
It is that too. Nobody likes to be told that their claims are wrong.
....
....
....
quote:
By the same token, isn't it more sensible for the Mormons to say, 'Actually, no we're not them. But we're now mainstream -- and what's more we're the ones fulfilling a promise he made to them.'
Mormons don't get to be identified as "mainstream" anything, by those most critical. On this thread (or that other one, not sure which), comments to the effect that Mormons are more dangerous than Islamists have illustrated the mindset that Mormons are up to something behind all that "we're the same as you" stuff.
This has nothing to do with "you're not Christians." It has to do with raking up old history and saying that nothing has changed with the church's agenda.
And, if the church ever does get big enough to "threaten" to become one of the largest denominations of "Christianity" (which I greatly doubt), you will see Mormons revert to their more fundamentalist attitude as they held in the early days. The only reason why Mormons don't pursue that line now is because they are greatly outnumbered. Hey, the early Christians did the same thing. Once they became "top religion", their entire self-image changed. They became "the church militant".
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
well said, Dr. Frog.
Merlin writes:
quote:
A dictionary link is allowed to trunkate the rest of my comment on the impossibility of Jesus and the Father NOT being two separate people?
This doesn't seem to follow. You seem to be confusing definition with argument here. I would agree with Dr. Frog that by any logical understanding of the term "polytheist" Mormons apply. You seem to be arguing (at least here) that you shouldn't be called "polytheists" because trinitarian monotheism can't be explained logically. That may be true (and Mormons certainly aren't the first to point it out) but it still doesn't change the meaning of the word "polytheist". You seem to be arguing that even though the LDS is polytheistic they shouldn't be called polytheists because they have a really good reason, or because their pov makes more sense than the trinitarian pov.
Doesn't follow.
Read my explanation of "the problem" to Doc Frog just above. If the NT is pointing out that Father and Son are TWO separate Beings, then that doesn't suddenly make Christians polytheists either. Because there can be only THE One God of all creation. The only Cause which was itself never caused. Mormons worship this same Singular God.
By saying that, I am not suggesting that most Mormons have even thought it out this far. But the doctrine of "worship only GOD" -- ten commandments style -- is implicit in Mormonism. there is no room for any other "gods."
[ 17. May 2007, 17:33: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
Oh, such a lot of stuff to answer! May not get to it all. Short on time. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
but some thoughts ...
1. Are you suggesting that the doctrine of eternal progression (a la L. Snow's 'as man once was') is no longer taught? It's certainly the general line I got from the missionaries who spent rather a lot of time with me back in 2000 or so. Got a copy of McConkie, Mormon Doctrine? What do you make of p. 577? Still legit or no? (Yes, I know McConkie is dated, but he was a powerhouse.)
I'm not suggesting polytheism in the classic pantheon-of-gods sense. I recognise that you worship The One God of (This) Creation. But if the doctrine of eternal progression still holds, then it's polytheism in the sense that there is a multiverse populated with several such The One Gods of (This) Creation in each consituent universe.
2. CofC/RLDS: have not renounced BoM or their edition of the D&C. But they're playing them down and, in any case, were always a little closer in teaching to orthodox Xity because they didn't have the later revelations of Prophets Young and Snow and others.
Their pedegree, however, is impressive -- not least because the Smith line stayed with them and not the Utah Mormons and indeed were hereditary prophets till recently. The LDS may say they split with THE Church -- but then they could make the same argument with real credibility.
They are, however, making a concerted effort to 'go mainstream' in a way that the LDS is not. The BoM and D&C are going to wane in importance, and if they're eventually dropped I wouldn't be surprised. But it hasn't happened yet. And for that reason I'd still count them in the Restoration side of the Jew/Xian = Xian/Rest. analogy I drew.
3. As for the LDS itself -- it is, as you say, quite early. These things work themselves out in decades and centuries, rather than days. But I'd predict that much will happen to the LDS as it did to Christians. They'll gradually become more accepted and mainstream, and their positions will soften accordingly. (One day, e.g., they'll have to have a proper debate and/or revelation on women's priesthood and homosexual monogamy, for example. And they'll have to debate some of the stuff of dodgy historicity, just as Darwinism served as a wake-up call for mainstream Christianity. This will affect their view on scripture.) But I don't see them losing their really distinctive stuff any time soon -- certainly not the BoM and D&C and PGP -- and, in some way, would be disappointed if they did. For that reason, I don't think they'll ever be Christians in a classic sense. But, as I've said, I'm not sure why they need to be -- and maybe one day they'll view it that way too.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
I would be the first to admit I don't fully understand LDS Christology. My point was simply that you can't argue that "we're not polytheists" by pointing out the deficiencies in trinitarian monostheism. Either Mormons are polytheists or they're not. And yes, it all depends on your definition of "polytheism" and how you understand both LDS Christology and progressive succession. But inconsistencies w/in trinitarianism does not change whether or not Mormonism fits or doesn't fit whatever definition we arrive at.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Doctor Frog, no problem -- but the expression "pissing contest" makes me ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) . And we weren't being "hoggish;" very few others were stepping in.
Merlin, Christians believe that there is just ONE God. Mormons believe that there are many of them -- that, in fact, every man is potentially a "god in embryo." That's polytheism. There is just no other word for it. It's a question of belief, not necessarily practice.
I've given lots of other ways in which Mormonism just diverges too drastically from authentic Christianity: the "other scriptures," the different heavens, a god who relies on human beings to do the work of salvation ("baptism for the dead"), "living prophets," and so on. There's the doctrine of Blood Atonement, which I would say is the exact opposite of Christian belief. We're just too far apart, as far as Islam is from Judaism.
I've got a crushing load at work at the moment, but I'll try to keep up with the discussion if you still think we have things we can discuss.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
Oh, such a lot of stuff to answer! May not get to it all. Short on time.
but some thoughts ...
1. Are you suggesting that the doctrine of eternal progression (a la L. Snow's 'as man once was') is no longer taught? It's certainly the general line I got from the missionaries who spent rather a lot of time with me back in 2000 or so. Got a copy of McConkie, Mormon Doctrine? What do you make of p. 577? Still legit or no? (Yes, I know McConkie is dated, but he was a powerhouse.)
I go by what I heard "the prophet" say. There has been no official renouncement of L. Snow's popular couplet, and, I am sure missionaries teach it (even though it was never accepted as doctrine to begin with). It is VERY popular with Mormons. But, Hinckley's refusal to discuss it, and his denial that he knows much about it, is evidence to me that at the highest levels of authority, it is not considered doctrine. There are quite a number of "Mormonisms" that are popular beliefs and are not doctrines.
quote:
I'm not suggesting polytheism in the classic pantheon-of-gods sense. I recognise that you worship The One God of (This) Creation. But if the doctrine of eternal progression still holds, then it's polytheism in the sense that there is a multiverse populated with several such The One Gods of (This) Creation in each consituent universe.
But there has to be an Original Cause of the multiverse. THAT is THE One God of all creation that all the "gods" of the multiverse worship. It is a case of semantics. And semantics should not be the basis of "Christian or not?"
....
quote:
3. As for the LDS itself ....I don't think they'll ever be Christians in a classic sense. But, as I've said, I'm not sure why they need to be -- and maybe one day they'll view it that way too.
Well, I won't argue that Mormons are Christians "in the classic sense" either. But some, e.g. Ross, won't allow that they are "Christian" in any sense whatsoever. Pagans, a cult, with a secret agenda to be feared, yeah, all of that certainly: but "Christians?" No way hosea. "All that 'we're just Christians like you' stuff is a palpabale act." That attitude just pegs my BS meter.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Merlin, Christians believe that there is just ONE God. Mormons believe that there are many of them -- that, in fact, every man is potentially a "god in embryo." That's polytheism. There is just no other word for it. It's a question of belief, not necessarily practice.
It is a very different polytheism than the kind which prohibits someone from being Christian. A polytheist in the pagan sense would stick Jesus somewhere amongst a pantheon of gods and godlets. Whereas, Mormon doctrine says Jesus Christ is the WORD which created the entire universe. Christ is the Creator, but worships the Father, as do we all. As I explained, it is possible to see Joseph Smith's First Vision (the official, "finalized" version) as a manifestation of THE One God of all creation. Smith's theology is incomplete; speculation is required to make it all fit together (it is no better than Trinitarian efforts). But a belief in Christ as the Word is absolutely Christian. Your dogmatic insistence upon a dictionary as reason enough to cut Mormons "out" as being Christians, just makes no sense to me.
quote:
I've given lots of other ways in which Mormonism just diverges too drastically from authentic Christianity:...
"Authentic" Christianity. That word, if you look it up in any dictionary, requires one type, not a multiplicity. Something "authentic" is the original, or the one existing. Christianity has many divergent varieties: I guess that Mormonism falls into that category of "other Christiantiy", and not the "authentic" kind.
quote:
... the "other scriptures," the different heavens, a god who relies on human beings to do the work of salvation...
What about that 1WW damaged statue of Christ in the church yard, who was left with his hands blown off: and the inscription added, "He has no hands but ours?" What about the doctrine of "a God without body parts or passions?" How "God" gets his work done in the physical world is by our physical hands that he created.
Different heavens is arguable from the Bible. While it remains arguable, you can't cut out believers in Christ on that basis.
"Other scriptures" that dovetail with the Bible, and "clear up" those doctrines peculiar to Mormonism. They do not in any way reduce Christ to some godlet in a polytheism, but rather, "flesh out" the Mormon belief in him as the Word of all creation.
quote:
("baptism for the dead"), "living prophets," and so on. There's the doctrine of Blood Atonement, which I would say is the exact opposite of Christian belief. We're just too far apart, as far as Islam is from Judaism.
Islam is a composite of Judaism, Christianity and Arabic folk religion.
There is no "blood atonement" doctrine in LDS beliefs or practice. (You're relying on B. Young again, and on his most radical statements.)
Baptism for the dead is mentioned in the NT (of course, you say Paul was mentioning a pagan practice, but there is no certainty of this). "Living prophets" is a term for continuing revelation: Mormons are far from alone in their belief that God continues to give revelations to Christians.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
I would be the first to admit I don't fully understand LDS Christology. My point was simply that you can't argue that "we're not polytheists" by pointing out the deficiencies in trinitarian monostheism. Either Mormons are polytheists or they're not. And yes, it all depends on your definition of "polytheism" and how you understand both LDS Christology and progressive succession. But inconsistencies w/in trinitarianism does not change whether or not Mormonism fits or doesn't fit whatever definition we arrive at.
That's okay, then. But there is poytheism, and then there is the blatantly paganism kind.
Mormons say Christ created all the universe as the Word. That his Father is his God, as he is ours. Implicit behind all of this is THE One God of all creation: of the "multiverse" if you will. If Mormons declare that there is ONE God only that they worship and serve, that makes them Christians, when it is the biblical One God and no other, of the Ten Commandments, that they worship.
Mormons do not reduce Christ to a prophet-only status, like Islam does. They do not elevate any of these assumed "gods", that are children of the Father, to worshipful status. Therefore, the meaning of "gods" to Mormons is different than in paganism. You cannot define the word for Mormons, when they tell you that you are mistaken: if they say you are mistaken, you have to take the originators of the belief system at their word. They are the experts, not outsiders who dogmatically point to a dictionary and say, "But you can't be Christians because you are polytheists."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
Several points to raise.
I think a question that's going begging, Merlin, is your use of the word *universe* to describe what Jesus is the Word / Logos of, and where the boundaries of that end (or fail to end).
Put another way: it's my understanding that classic Mormon cosmology describes a multiverse, more or less, rather than a universe -- and what i want to know is whether you're saying Jesus is the Logos of the multiverse as well -- or just the part of it (viz., our universe) that his heavenly Father runs. That makes a huge difference, and it's my understanding that Mormon cosmology implies the latter far more commonly.
It's not a foregone conclusion, actually, that there *has* to be an original cause (as you suggest). (Well, it is a foregone conclusion in orthodox Christianity; but that's by no means an assumption that every philosophy makes.) That said, am I correct in understanding you to suggest that God the Father (and the 'personage' that appeared to JS Jr.) is THE original cause? Similarly, how do you reckon we relate to Jesus His Son -- because it's my understanding that, though he was the first-born and the Logos charged with enacting creation, he is not fundamentally different from us in the end, but rather merely the first born of Heavenly-Father's pre-mortal Spirit-Children -- a status which we all claim equally, ontologically speaking, barring the 'first born' bit.
(Also, as a separate note, where do you personally stand on the hypothetical arguments for a Heavenly Mother in the Mormon Cosmos?)
I don't believe it's just a 'question of semantics', though, whatever the case. In orthodox Christianity, salvation is essentially (and ultimately) an adoption into the triune dynamic of the Godhead itself. There is no question of 'gods' worshipping The One God. There is merely God's final, eternal gift to creatures of perfect freedom in and amongst the perfectly free will of The One God. Rather than inheriting a kingdom of our own, we become, through Christ and Spirit, a *very integral part* of God's triune dynamic (which is far, far better, IMO).
And there is also, of course the fundamental distinction between the divine-humanity of Jesus (who became man without yet circumscribing the God that he ever was) and the creaturely-ex-nihilo-humanity which was never pre-mortal (or pre-anything), but which is given God's glory all the same because of Christ's work as the Logos (in the classic hellenistic sense of 'ordering principle') of all that was made -- and the Spirit's dynamic enactment of that Logos.
I will grant you that baptism of the dead is mentioned in the NT -- and that I'm not sure what to make of it -- though I suspect, from the way it's written, there's a significant lost context to it that wouldn't have been lost to the original recipients but is to us.
As for the question of Mormon's belief in continuing revelation, I think the primary issue is that orthodox Christianity considers Christ of the NT (being tri-une with the Father and Spirit) to be the fullness and plenitude of God's self-revelation. All other 'further revelation' is derivitive of that, or clarifies, or meets the need of a new age, but doesn't and cannot fundamentally change or supercede what was given. Whilst I'm sure there is such a notion of revelation in Mormonism, there is nonetheless also a *further* notion that additional revelation of salvific import and additional revelation of who God actually is can be revealed. Even with the most charitable reading (which as I've said, I'm inclined to give the LDS), it's still essentially heresy. It's that distinction that differentiates the Pope speaking ex cathedra (which I also don't buy into, but I don't consider heretical) and the Prophet speaking ex officio.
As a separate, but not unrelated note, how typical would you say your theology is overall for Mormons? You strike me as giving it all a relatively liberal interpretation based on a considerable amount of thoughtful research. But you don't strike me as typical in your opinions and beliefs -- at least, not from the encounters I've had.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
Oh, yeh. Just thought of one other thing I meant to add! As for the doctrine of the Trinity itself, of course Mormons are far from the only people to claim a more unitarian vision of the Heavenly Father (setting aside the question of polytheism for a sec). The earliest, of course, is Arianism -- which bears historic similarities to Mormon Doctrine, and which at one stage nearly triumphed as the orthodox doctrine of the ancient Church. (Is this not part of why Mormonism regards Nicaea as the greatest single moment of apostasy?)
I will also grant you unconditionally that the Arian case can be (and has been) argued from scripture with great success, notwithstanding my greater persuasion by the other side of that debate.
**BUT** most of those unitarian / Arian / etc. religions, I'd have thought, would be regarded as Christian in the sense that they are rooted in Christ -- but equally apostate from the orthodox viewpoint. What I want to know is that, other than the fact that you yourself are a Mormon, why should Mormonism be singled out as different? Or should it?
Again, I'm happy if they become more mainstream. But I'm not convinced they're Christian as we use the term, nor are even best off being so. Trying to convince us is inevitably taking the disadvantaged position; tactically it's far better to say you're something new and better.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Well, I won't argue that Mormons are Christians "in the classic sense" either. But some, e.g. Ross, won't allow that they are "Christian" in any sense whatsoever. Pagans, a cult, with a secret agenda to be feared, yeah, all of that certainly: but "Christians?" No way hosea. "All that 'we're just Christians like you' stuff is a palpabale act." That attitude just pegs my BS meter.
Merlin, once again you're putting words on my keyboard, and I really do not appreciate it.
I have never called Mormons pagans. I have been very careful not to call Mormonism a cult in this discussion. I'm pretty sure you're the first one to bring up any possibility of "a secret agenda to be feared."
As you know perfectly well, Mormons are not "just Christians like (us)." Please save the missionaries' memorized script for people who haven't done the reading. Even if it were to be granted that Mormons are Christians at all -- rather than simply influenced by Christianity -- they're not Christians in any accepted or conventional sense of the word as it has been understood in the past 2,000 years. You've admitted as much. The "BS meter" is being "pegged" by you at this point.
No, it is not possible to be even a little bit polytheist and be a Christian -- and Mormons are a whole lot polytheist. You have utterly failed to demonstrate your claim that "Mormons are not polytheists." I'm sorry the dictionary's definition offends you, but it would be blatant Humpty Dumptyism to let you unilaterally redefine the word.
I don't think Mormonism has "a secret agenda." I believe the organization is perfectly open about wanting to be taken as the One True Religion, even though its doctrines are so far removed from those of Christianity as to be almost unrecognizable in any Christian context.
We're just going around and around on your other points, and the facts have not changed just because you keep complaining about them. Nor will they. "Other scriptures" are still clearly condemned in the NT. So are new prophets. Inventing major theologies like multiple heavens and baptism for the dead out of one unclear reference found in one place is still not legit. And Christians, no matter what their differences in other areas, still don't believe Smith's ultimate male fantasy, that men can ever become gods with their own planets and unlimited power and harems full of women with whom to have nonstop sex resulting in herds of "spirit children."
Mormonism should have the courage to admit that it's a new religion, and simply go on from there.
Ross
[ 19. May 2007, 19:51: 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 doctor-frog:
Several points to raise.
I think a question that's going begging, Merlin, is your use of the word *universe* to describe what Jesus is the Word / Logos of, and where the boundaries of that end (or fail to end).
Put another way: it's my understanding that classic Mormon cosmology describes a multiverse, more or less, rather than a universe -- and what i want to know is whether you're saying Jesus is the Logos of the multiverse as well -- or just the part of it (viz., our universe) that his heavenly Father runs. That makes a huge difference, and it's my understanding that Mormon cosmology implies the latter far more commonly.
As I said, Joseph Smith's theology is incomplete. Therefore, over the years many theologians in the church have tried to speculate everything into some sort of sense.
I believe you are correct in what most speculation assumes: that Jesus Christ atones for EVERYTHING that the Father has made (or, overseen the making of, to be more specific). But it is all speculation: there is no doctrine superceding Smith's, or adding more "light" to it. We have even less in scripture than theologians have made use of: which includes all of Joseph Smith's words, either as written, or as remembered by others.
I don't see that it makes much difference in the long run. Because Existence can still only be assumed to be the work of THE One God of all creation, whoever, or whatever that is.
If the Father is a manifestation of THE One God, then that means that Joseph Smith's teachings about God (the Father) once being a mortal man cannot be true. But if the Father is a glorified (once upon a time) mortal man, then all of this universe may be his possession; and his Son atoned for all of it, and possibly for the rest of the Father's multiverse. Nobody knows these kinds details; not least, Joseph Smith himself.
quote:
It's not a foregone conclusion, actually, that there *has* to be an original cause (as you suggest). (Well, it is a foregone conclusion in orthodox Christianity; but that's by no means an assumption that every philosophy makes.) That said, am I correct in understanding you to suggest that God the Father (and the 'personage' that appeared to JS Jr.) is THE original cause?
No. Unless Joseph Smith was wrong in saying that the Father was once a mortal man and has progressed to godhood: if Joseph Smith was mistaken, then the Being that appeared to Joseph Smith could be an anthropomorphic manifestation of THE One God. But if Smith was right, then the "Father" could only be a glorified man who was once mortal: and it would be logical to assume that he worships THE One God of all creation, as revealed to him by yet another "Father" of his spirit. Mormon theology then becomes serial polytheism, keeping in mind, that these "gods" are not THE One God of all creation that everything ultimately worships alone.
quote:
Similarly, how do you reckon we relate to Jesus His Son -- because it's my understanding that, though he was the first-born and the Logos charged with enacting creation, he is not fundamentally different from us in the end, but rather merely the first born of Heavenly-Father's pre-mortal Spirit-Children -- a status which we all claim equally, ontologically speaking, barring the 'first born' bit.
But being the first born Son, Jesus Christ is charged with working out the atonement, without which, all creation would be wasted, being incapable of attaining immortality and exaltation. So Jesus Christ is very different from any other spirit child of our Father. He is the only one capable of living a sinless mortal life, and of knowing the mind of the Father as if they are one and the same person. I don't see anything in scripture which suggests that anyone else but Christ will ever attain to that level of exaltation.
quote:
(Also, as a separate note, where do you personally stand on the hypothetical arguments for a Heavenly Mother in the Mormon Cosmos?)
Pure speculation. I don't ascribe to the Mormon theology anymore than I do another theology. To me, all theological speculation is simply that.
Now, I do have hope that individually we get a reunion with "God." By whatever means and in whatever form, it is a unique and personal experience. But that revelation isn't for anyone else: i.e. it is not supposed to form the basis for yet another dogmatic religion of the masses.
quote:
....Rather than inheriting a kingdom of our own, we become, through Christ and Spirit, a *very integral part* of God's triune dynamic (which is far, far better, IMO).
That seems reasonable. Sort of like my current pet imagined destiny of everyone: to remain a unique experience of living in space and time, that "God" takes like a part of a collection that never ends. No two of us are ever exactly alike, so the "collection" of mortal experiences in space time is composed of invaluable parts: each possessing a soul that unites as immortal spirit: spirit, in that condition, possessing all the sensibility we do here, but far more besides, as glorified, heaven-dwelling souls must be able to do.
I don't need to imagine my own world, with me as some "god" of its creation. But, I wouldn't say that Mormons are not Christians because they look forward to such a destiny. Whatever floats yer boat: it's all mortal speculation anyway.
quote:
And there is also, of course the fundamental distinction between the divine-humanity of Jesus (who became man without yet circumscribing the God that he ever was) and the creaturely-ex-nihilo-humanity which was never pre-mortal (or pre-anything), but which is given God's glory all the same because of Christ's work as the Logos (in the classic hellenistic sense of 'ordering principle') of all that was made -- and the Spirit's dynamic enactment of that Logos.
You lost me there, dude.
quote:
I will grant you that baptism of the dead is mentioned in the NT -- and that I'm not sure what to make of it -- though I suspect, from the way it's written, there's a significant lost context to it that wouldn't have been lost to the original recipients but is to us.
And which Joseph Smith claimed to have had revealled to him as part of temple works.
quote:
As for the question of Mormon's belief in continuing revelation, I think the primary issue is that orthodox Christianity considers Christ of the NT (being tri-une with the Father and Spirit) to be the fullness and plenitude of God's self-revelation. All other 'further revelation' is derivitive of that, or clarifies, or meets the need of a new age, but doesn't and cannot fundamentally change or supercede what was given.
And Mormons would agree: claiming only that that which was lost in the great apostasy was simply restored as Christ at first taught it.
quote:
Whilst I'm sure there is such a notion of revelation in Mormonism, there is nonetheless also a *further* notion that additional revelation of salvific import and additional revelation of who God actually is can be revealed.
Joseph Smith said, somewhere, that he had only given half of what he knew to the Saints: and the rest would have to wait, or else knowledge of it would drive most of them from the church. Implying, that there is a lot more of the gospel missing than even Mormons can appreciate.
quote:
Even with the most charitable reading (which as I've said, I'm inclined to give the LDS), it's still essentially heresy. It's that distinction that differentiates the Pope speaking ex cathedra (which I also don't buy into, but I don't consider heretical) and the Prophet speaking ex officio.
Yes, "heretics", but not NOT Christians.
quote:
As a separate, but not unrelated note, how typical would you say your theology is overall for Mormons? You strike me as giving it all a relatively liberal interpretation based on a considerable amount of thoughtful research. But you don't strike me as typical in your opinions and beliefs -- at least, not from the encounters I've had.
Not typical of Mormon "orthodoxy" whatsoever. I've probably answered that already. I don't consider any of this "true" in an exclusive way, or true at all, for that matter. I like to quote the emperor in Star Wars: "We will discover that we have all been mistaken about a great many things."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
Oh, yeh. Just thought of one other thing I meant to add! As for the doctrine of the Trinity itself, of course Mormons are far from the only people to claim a more unitarian vision of the Heavenly Father (setting aside the question of polytheism for a sec). The earliest, of course, is Arianism -- which bears historic similarities to Mormon Doctrine, and which at one stage nearly triumphed as the orthodox doctrine of the ancient Church. (Is this not part of why Mormonism regards Nicaea as the greatest single moment of apostasy?)
I don't think Joseph Smith knew much if anything about the council of Nicaea. He was well-read up on his Bible. And he was intimately familiar with the main sects of his place and time. It was their obvious divisions which Smith's religion-making addressed. As he progressed in knowledge of other religious teachings, he inculcated much of that into Mormonism: hence, his changing Godhead doctrines.
quote:
.... **BUT** most of those unitarian / Arian / etc. religions, I'd have thought, would be regarded as Christian in the sense that they are rooted in Christ -- but equally apostate from the orthodox viewpoint. What I want to know is that, other than the fact that you yourself are a Mormon, why should Mormonism be singled out as different? Or should it?
Of course it is different. Because Mormonism claims to be "revealed" as the opening event in "the dispensation of the fulness of times", i.e. the "end times" preceding the millennium.
One of the defining *conceits* of Mormonism is that it claims to possess the key to knowledge of all things past, present and to come. That means that any similarities with previous bits and pieces of other denominational or sectarian (even non Christian, e.g. Free Masonry) practice, is coincidental with earlier "dispensations of the gospel" wherein these doctrines and ordinances were once upon a time revealed: but later corrupted and or lost. "Well, God revealed that through prophets thousands of years ago, but since then it was lost/corrupted." That covers ALL possible explanations of any similarities.
quote:
Again, I'm happy if they become more mainstream. But I'm not convinced they're Christian as we use the term, nor are even best off being so. Trying to convince us is inevitably taking the disadvantaged position; tactically it's far better to say you're something new and better.
The "new and better" is of course, what has kept the church growing all these years. Losing that would cause the LDS church to sink into the mainstream and disappear, just as the former RLDS (now CoC) is swiftly doing.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Well, I won't argue that Mormons are Christians "in the classic sense" either. But some, e.g. Ross, won't allow that they are "Christian" in any sense whatsoever. Pagans, a cult, with a secret agenda to be feared, yeah, all of that certainly: but "Christians?" No way hosea. "All that 'we're just Christians like you' stuff is a palpabale act." That attitude just pegs my BS meter.
quote:
Merlin, once again you're putting words on my keyboard, and I really do not appreciate it.
You said on the 14th instant: quote:
"That's one reason it's so useful to know something about their history and doctrines, which make it very clear that Mormonism is not Christian, "mainstream" or otherwise. Modern Mormonism is very adept at public relations and making the organization seem to be something it's not. But you don't have to go very far beneath the surface to recognize the truth."
quote:
Rosswiesse: I have never called Mormons pagans. I have been very careful not to call Mormonism a cult in this discussion. I'm pretty sure you're the first one to bring up any possibility of "a secret agenda to be feared."
Okay, so I am assuming some things that Mormons ARE to you. If they are not Christians, mainstream or otherwise, then what exactly is left for them to BE?
You implied that they are hiding something; appearing to be other than they are. That sounds very cultish and having a secret agenda, to me.
quote:
....
....
I don't think Mormonism has "a secret agenda." I believe the organization is perfectly open about wanting to be taken as the One True Religion, even though its doctrines are so far removed from those of Christianity as to be almost unrecognizable in any Christian context.
Here's where you trip: what's "beneath the surface" then? If it's all out in the open?
And their doctrines are very biblically based and referenced. Joseph Smith taught from the Bible almost exclusively, disdaining to use his own scriptures that the modern church uses so much.
quote:
"Other scriptures" are still clearly condemned in the NT. So are new prophets.
Only according to the interpretation that you prefer, on both counts.
quote:
Inventing major theologies like multiple heavens and baptism for the dead out of one unclear reference found in one place is still not legit.
No by itself; but when the claim is that God revealed the fullness of the original doctrine, then it becomes biblically sound, because it is in the Bible. However, the temple stuff, except baptism for the dead, is all nonbiblical. The reason Mormons accept it is because the Bible is demonstrably not a complete God-given work, but assembled by uninspired men.
quote:
And Christians, no matter what their differences in other areas, still don't believe Smith's ultimate male fantasy, that men can ever become gods with their own planets and unlimited power and harems full of women with whom to have nonstop sex resulting in herds of "spirit children."
Don't speak for everyone. The church does attract c. 1/4 million converts a year with that appeal. Obviously, your view of Mormon "heaven" does not jive with the presentation the church teaches, or very few women would buy into it. You keep talking about men in heaven, as if it were some Islamic paradise with 70 female creatures provided by God for each man.
quote:
Mormonism should have the courage to admit that it's a new religion, and simply go on from there.
Ross
It seems to me, that it takes more balls to claim to be a revealed and restored religion, with all the missing bits of the original that Jesus Christ started up during his ministry.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Okay, so I am assuming some things that Mormons ARE to you. If they are not Christians, mainstream or otherwise, then what exactly is left for them to BE?
Another religion in the Abrahamic tradition, a daughter religion of Christianity but distinct from it. Like Muslims or Rastas.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Or (you're going to hate this, but...) technically Mormonism is a Christian heresy. Sorry, Merlin.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Or (you're going to hate this, but...) technically Mormonism is a Christian heresy. Sorry, Merlin.
I don't hate that conclusion. It's closer to the truth than what "ken" offered. Mormonism is CENTERED in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer. But the outcome of that redemption, for Mormons, is what offends orthodox Christianity -- what Mormons refer to as "apostate Christianity". So either "side" can properly define what they think of each other, and still be considered as "Christians."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um, no. A heresy is by definition not the thing it comes out of/claims to be. It is a spin-off with significant changes--changes that are so significant that they invalidate the previous identity. Otherwise it would be a "sect" or a "branch" or even "that slightly odd group of folks down at St. Whatsits." A heresy has crossed the line. Sorry.
If it makes you feel any better, the traditional Mormon position (that all non-Mormon churches have fallen away from the truth of Christianity, which only exists in the Mormon system) defines US as heretics, every one of us. Which is a bit quixotic, given the dates involved, but there you go.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um, no. A heresy is by definition not the thing it comes out of/claims to be. It is a spin-off with significant changes--changes that are so significant that they invalidate the previous identity. Otherwise it would be a "sect" or a "branch" or even "that slightly odd group of folks down at St. Whatsits." A heresy has crossed the line. Sorry.
And who gets to define someone else's religion as a heresy? I guess we all have that right, but who has the authority? The Prots are ALL heretics by RCC medieval standards. But the RCC has backed off of that. Of course, Vatican Two was not accepted by all RCC, e.g. Mel Gibson, so we have yet another schism in the bosom of Mother Church. Seems that no matter how hard some indivuduals try to be agreeable, the whole religion just gets more fragmented.
So I return to my fundamental beef with Rosswiesse's, et al., attitide. Some people just can't let a perceived religious group call themselves what they want to. "Words have meaning." Yes, and usually a long list of different meanings in the dictionary, for this very reason.
When you get to ONE definition of what exactly defines a "Christian", get back to me on this, please......
quote:
If it makes you feel any better, the traditional Mormon position (that all non-Mormon churches have fallen away from the truth of Christianity, which only exists in the Mormon system) defines US as heretics, every one of us.
More accurately, as "apostates", which doesn't have quite the same negative tone to it. Heretics deliberately rebel against the doctrines; apostates just ignorantly become such. Perhaps I am making too fine a distinction, and the terms are more synonomous.
quote:
Which is a bit quixotic, given the dates involved, but there you go.
The dates involved have nothing to do with anything: because Joseph Smith insisted that he was receiving revelations on restoring the "original" Christianity. God is not limited to when or to whom he speaks, you would agree?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Okay, so I am assuming some things that Mormons ARE to you. If they are not Christians, mainstream or otherwise, then what exactly is left for them to BE?
You implied that they are hiding something; appearing to be other than they are. That sounds very cultish and having a secret agenda, to me.
You said that I stated the things that you now admit you're just assuming. That is simply dishonest of you.
As LC said, Mormonism could be called a "daughter" religion (or, given the abysmal status of women in Mormonism, a "son" religion) to Christianity, but it is not itself Christian. I've gone into the details repeatedly, as you know. If you're unclear on something I've said, please feel free to go back and reread those posts.
Mormonism sells itself on the basis of being clean-cut, wholesome, family-oriented. There are no ambiguities, no gray areas. It's all strictly monochrome.
And wow, now you can be with your family for all eternity! -- although I'm not sure you can really square that with the business about men becoming gods with their own planets, etc., to say nothing of the doctrine of different heavens for different people.
After all, how are you going to be together for all eternity if Uncle Fred is now off being the God Fred with his own turf, or if your gay cousin Bill is sentenced to Steerage Class Heaven because of his sexuality, and the rest of you are stuck in Economy Class Heaven because you didn't give enough money? The logic of this escapes me.
But most converts are responding to pressure from family and friends (and neighbors engaging in "friendshipping") to join, and they don't seem to examine Mormonism's premises too carefully.
Mormons admit that they're hiding a lot of the basic doctrines, just because those doctrines are so outre and unChristian. The catch phrase there is "milk before meat." In my own experience, the missionaries wanted to get me safely baptized before telling me any of the really funky stuff.
Again in my own experience, if you start asking questions about the difficult doctrines, they put you off. If you persist, they call in more experienced or higher-ranking missionaries. They really don't want to talk about, say, Kolob. I wonder why?
quote:
Here's where you trip: what's "beneath the surface" then? If it's all out in the open?
But it's not. Unlike ANY Christian denomination with which I'm acquainted, Mormonism keeps its ceremonies secret. Mormons, especially those with high ranks in the organization, get terribly upset when any details of those secrets are revealed.
But, as I say, the basic agenda is quite open: Mormonism wants to be the only religion on offer. Period.
Smith was a convicted con man. As others have noted, Mormonism is the only demonstrably false religion in the world, because the Book of Mormon is demonstrably fiction. Rewriting the Bible, adding "scriptures," borrowing Bible bits and spinning new, unfounded doctrines out of them is not a legitimate practice for anyone who wants to be accepted as "mainstream" or Christian.
The appeal of Mormonism is that it offers a clear road map for people who don't like uncertainties: Do this and this and this, and get there. Do this work for your local stake. Perform these Temple ordinances. Give this percentage of your money. Mormonism even dictates that families should spend Monday evenings at home together, perhaps because every other night of the week is taken up by other mandated activities.
The bottom line is that Mormonism is about power, control, and money. It's about telling people how to run their lives, about operating a wealthy organization that controls everything from the news media in its local market to businesses around the world -- and never, ever opening the books to reveal the extent of its power. (I can't remember if you answered my question about The Mormon Corporate Empire.)
It seems to me that the claim to be Christian is primarily a marketing tool in order to achieve those ends. This isn't to say that some individual Mormons may not be very close to Christian, but the organization and its doctrines are not.
quote:
...The dates involved have nothing to do with anything: because Joseph Smith insisted that he was receiving revelations on restoring the "original" Christianity. God is not limited to when or to whom he speaks, you would agree?...
Oh, I don't know. When I asked the missionaries, back in high school, what would happen if God spoke to another teenage boy today and gave him new revelations, they said it could never happen, that God ONLY speaks through the "twelve apostles" and "first presidency" of Mormonism.
That sounds to me as though Mormonism limits God in "when or to whom" God speaks, you would agree?
And since Smith's supposed revelations have nothing to do with what is known of original Christianity, I question that it was God dealing with him in the first place.
Occam's Razor works very well in this case.
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:
....
You implied that they are hiding something; appearing to be other than they are. That sounds very cultish and having a secret agenda, to me.
quote:
You said that I stated the things that you now admit you're just assuming. That is simply dishonest of you.
I do need to be more careful with you. I was speaking in general terms: terms which I assumed that you fit.
quote:
As LC said, Mormonism could be called a "daughter" religion (or, given the abysmal status of women in Mormonism, a "son" religion)....
HaHa.
quote:
.... to Christianity, but it is not itself Christian. I've gone into the details repeatedly, as you know. If you're unclear on something I've said, please feel free to go back and reread those posts.
And I repeat for you what I offered to LC: when you find THE definition of what a "Christian" is, that defines the lot, please get back to me. So far, you've only offered your definition. One which I am sure leaves out a great many doctrines that predate your denomination by centuries.
quote:
Mormonism sells itself on the basis of being clean-cut, wholesome, family-oriented. There are no ambiguities, no gray areas. It's all strictly monochrome.
I can tell, that it left a fine impression on you.
quote:
And wow, now you can be with your family for all eternity! -- although I'm not sure you can really square that with the business about men becoming gods with their own planets, etc., to say nothing of the doctrine of different heavens for different people.
That is explainable as only the difficulty of our finite minds trying to comprehend eternity.
The trouble with "eternal families" that I personally have is, that to get "forever families", Mormons insist that the human family must go through receiving all of the "saving ordinances" performed in Mormon temples. Yet, I understand that MANY people, Christian or otherwise, expect to be themselves in eternity, and associating together with loved ones AS families. So, why would an Italian, for instance, be interested in "buying into" Mormonism's "families are forever", when they already believe that God gives eternity to us for free? This is not RCC doctrine, of course: it is stuff that Italians have believed utterly separated from the church for thousands of years.
quote:
After all, how are you going to be together for all eternity if Uncle Fred is now off being the God Fred with his own turf, or if your gay cousin Bill is sentenced to Steerage Class Heaven because of his sexuality, and the rest of you are stuck in Economy Class Heaven because you didn't give enough money? The logic of this escapes me.
You missed the part, how denizens of any higher kingdom can visit with those of a lower kingdom. So, "reunions" will require that the upper snobs of higher heaven, condescend to a lower place for the duration of said-reunion. I am sure that that will tickle the lower orders no end, to receive constant reminders of just how much higher up their more righteous and talented brothers and sisters, et al, are. It all makes sense, but I don't like the implications any better than you do.
quote:
But most converts are responding to pressure from family and friends (and neighbors engaging in "friendshipping") to join, and they don't seem to examine Mormonism's premises too carefully.
You are making assumptions here. I am sure that the investigators of Mormonism are as varied in their circumstances as human beings are varied in every other aspect of life.
quote:
Mormons admit that they're hiding a lot of the basic doctrines, just because those doctrines are so outre and unChristian.
Balony. Mormons don't "hide" unchristian doctrines. Most Mormons are not even aware of their earlier church history: how the doctrines that you object to have changed or been dumped.
I keep saying this, but you are really not clear on a lot of points about the current LDS church: your exposure to B. Young, et al the early "brethren", is coloring your vision here.
The modern church has nothing whatsoever to do with unchristian "outre" doctrines. Name one, please?
quote:
The catch phrase there is "milk before meat." In my own experience, the missionaries wanted to get me safely baptized before telling me any of the really funky stuff.
What really funky stuff? The temple ordinances? They are being watered down all the time. The penalties are gone, seventeen years ago. The initiatories are no longer a source of possible embarrassment (or legal suit). "Milk before meat" is a catch phrase alright. But it hardly applies to anything in the church as it is these days. What exactly did the missionaries leave out for you?
quote:
Again in my own experience, if you start asking questions about the difficult doctrines, they put you off. If you persist, they call in more experienced or higher-ranking missionaries. They really don't want to talk about, say, Kolob. I wonder why?
Kolob is the name of the planet "nearest" to the dwelling place of God (not THE dwelling planet, as everyone so far here has assumed). You keep bringing it up, as if there is more to follow. There isn't. Kolob is it. So what? The OT is crammed with many more weird names and primitive science than is in the PofGP. It isn't one of Joseph Smith's more impressive efforts, imho. I do enjoy the lyric quality of Enoch's conversation with God, however: that is my favorite passage of scripture. I wonder where Joseph Smith got it from?
The effort of the missionaries to not discuss the "difficult questions" relates exclusively to the early church history stuff: which is embarrassing, because it doesn't fit into the modern church well at all. They aren't hiding, or keeping back any "meaty" doctrines that converts will get laid on them later. If a convert doesn't learn some things, it is because they don't read far enough. Nothing is being kept from anyone.
In any case, only c. 25% of converts stick with the church for more than a year. So the church has a problem with retention, once the euphoria of something new wears off.
quote:
Here's where you trip: what's "beneath the surface" then? If it's all out in the open?
quote:
But it's not. Unlike ANY Christian denomination with which I'm acquainted, Mormonism keeps its ceremonies secret.
Then it isn't something you can get to by studying it below the surface. Oh wait, the Internet lets you examine the entire temple ceremony stuff in complete detail. And it is a complete "so what?" There's nothing there to hide. Mormons say it is "sacred." That's fine then. Masons don't go around blabbing up their ceremonies in public either, yet they are not secret anymore.
quote:
Mormons, especially those with high ranks in the organization, get terribly upset when any details of those secrets are revealed.
I guess they'll just have to learn to live with disappointment then.
quote:
But, as I say, the basic agenda is quite open: Mormonism wants to be the only religion on offer. Period.
Balony. It wants to be "top religion." Not the only one. Didn't you get the part about the millennium having tons of other religious people on earth besides Mormons? It's just that the "united order" will be the world gov, with Christ ruling from the returned city of Enoch (new Jerusalem) with all the exalted Mormons, as co-rulers of the planet.
quote:
Smith was a convicted con man.
Go ahead, milk his one conviction (before Mormonism even existed) for all its worth, which aint much. He was "convicted" for disorderly conduct and being a "rowdy person", all based on his claims as a "glass looker" helping people find buried treasure: his so-called crimes were misdemeanors which cost him no prison time (or any fines either, iirc: just warnings). So he was young and had his foolish moments too. Embarrassing for Mormons, that one, but hardly enough to continue to call him a conman.
I think he actually believed he had "the gift." I give him that much. But that's because my working hypothesis of Joseph Smith's personality makes him believe the things he says as he says them. Later, he modifies the story as needed. He wasn't a malice-aforethought liar. But he wasn't particularly honest in what he said. He believed in what he said, however. YMMV, of course.
quote:
As others have noted, Mormonism is the only demonstrably false religion in the world, because the Book of Mormon is demonstrably fiction.
Oho, that's a good one. The ONLY demonstrably false religion? Where, pray tell, is ONE piece of incontrovertible evidence proving Christianity? Outside the Bible? Nothing, not after 2,000 plus years. It's as if the religion grew up in a vacuum, then burst upon the Roman world already made.
Btw, there is plenty about the BofM that is RL based. The entire opening setting, the journey down the Arabian penninsula, as very authentic in details. The history in America can be twisted to fit this location or that, quite convincingly. The trouble, is that nadda has been discovered to positively locate any of it. And we both know why.
But the Bible is also a lousy history book. None of the OT is literally true. So what, if it is located where history really did happen? The devil is in the details. And the most uncompromising scholarship exposes just how concocted the OT history is. This is so true, that many scholars even doubt that such a person as Abraham ever lived.
quote:
Rewriting the Bible, adding "scriptures," borrowing Bible bits and spinning new, unfounded doctrines out of them is not a legitimate practice for anyone who wants to be accepted as "mainstream" or Christian.
I disagree. Doctrines added, that do not cause a departure from Jesus Christ as "the chief cornerstone" and center of religion, cannot negate a religious community's claim to be Christian. B. Young's "men on the moon" comments do not impinge on his beliefs in Christ as his Savior. His Adam God theory also do not change his many statements on Salvation which are Christian.
quote:
The appeal of Mormonism is that it offers a clear road map for people who don't like uncertainties: Do this and this and this, and get there. Do this work for your local stake. Perform these Temple ordinances. Give this percentage of your money. Mormonism even dictates that families should spend Monday evenings at home together, perhaps because every other night of the week is taken up by other mandated activities.
This statement is quite correct altogether. However, it does not contain anything which is unchristian. Individuals can be "worse than infidels" if they allow church work to ruin their families. But that is actually against church doctrine. It is ironic that "families can be together forever" seems to many Mormons to apply to the next life and not this one.
quote:
The bottom line is that Mormonism is about power, control, and money. It's about telling people how to run their lives, about operating a wealthy organization that controls everything from the news media in its local market to businesses around the world -- and never, ever opening the books to reveal the extent of its power. (I can't remember if you answered my question about The Mormon Corporate Empire.)
I did. I haven't read it. Doubt that I would learn anything shocking if I ever do. And little in the way of new things I haven't run into before.
Your description fits the RCC pretty closely too. And many other Christian denominations are very controlling, as much as they can get away with. It is the nature of dogmatic religion: to exercise control over the oracular sacraments, and thus over the lives of its people.
quote:
It seems to me that the claim to be Christian is primarily a marketing tool in order to achieve those ends.
Maybe. But the members are sincere when they say "we are Christians."
quote:
This isn't to say that some individual Mormons may not be very close to Christian, but the organization and its doctrines are not.
How charitable of you. "Some" may "be very close to Christian." I think you need to interpret your NT a little closer to the original words of Jesus: "If they are not against us, then they are for us."
quote:
...The dates involved have nothing to do with anything: because Joseph Smith insisted that he was receiving revelations on restoring the "original" Christianity. God is not limited to when or to whom he speaks, you would agree?...
quote:
Oh, I don't know. When I asked the missionaries, back in high school, what would happen if God spoke to another teenage boy today and gave him new revelations, they said it could never happen, that God ONLY speaks through the "twelve apostles" and "first presidency" of Mormonism.
That sounds to me as though Mormonism limits God in "when or to whom" God speaks, you would agree?
No. That means that some Mormons would limit God. Just as the Jews of Jesus day did, in not accepting that their Messiah could be him.
I don't believe that God speaks to any exclusive religion, and never has. But I don't know many Mormons who hold that sort of ecumenical perspective.
quote:
And since Smith's supposed revelations have nothing to do with what is known of original Christianity, I question that it was God dealing with him in the first place.
Occam's Razor works very well in this case.
Ross
True. And I suspect that further research and discovered evidence will further unravel his claims to divine revelation. It should be interesting.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Or (you're going to hate this, but...) technically Mormonism is a Christian heresy. Sorry, Merlin.
I don't hate that conclusion. It's closer to the truth than what "ken" offered. Mormonism is CENTERED in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer.
So are Rastafarianism and at least some sorts of Islam. And Muslim doctrine of God is closer to Christian than Mormon is.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"In any case, only c. 25% of converts stick with the church for more than a year. So the church has a problem with retention, once the euphoria of something new wears off".
If many of the converts fall away are they then taken off the roll books? So does that mean the numbers the church says are really then exagerrated?
Also I find the mention of gods and a religion calling itself christian as ridiculous. There are no gods, big, less, important, minor or any ofher kind.
I think that you can get a traddie Latin muttering rosary 3x a day, Mary statue in every room Roman Catholic and a dour calvinist thumping Ian Paisley type to agree on one thing and that would be mormonism ain't "in the club".
I think the mormon apologist can produce so many pages defending mormonism is Christian to the point the servers for Ship of Fools crashes and you still won't convince anyone it seems. But we all agree, at least I do, that mormons can be very nice folk nevertheless.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
And who gets to define someone else's religion as a heresy? I guess we all have that right, but who has the authority? The Prots are ALL heretics by RCC medieval standards. But the RCC has backed off of that. Of course, Vatican Two was not accepted by all RCC, e.g. Mel Gibson, so we have yet another schism in the bosom of Mother Church. Seems that no matter how hard some indivuduals try to be agreeable, the whole religion just gets more fragmented.
So I return to my fundamental beef with Rosswiesse's, et al., attitide. Some people just can't let a perceived religious group call themselves what they want to. "Words have meaning." Yes, and usually a long list of different meanings in the dictionary, for this very reason.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be arguing in a circular fashion.
As the previous poster mentioned, both Mormons and Christians have explicitly defined the "other" as "heretics", either now or in the past. "Heresy" is by definition a relative term-- heretical <i>in relation to what?</i>. Hence you are quite right that Protestantism is heretical in relation to Medieval Catholicism, etc. etc.
But that's fine. You're also quite right to suggest that we should let the adherents of a particular group define their own terms and doctrines, rather than dictating to someone what they believe (and yes, I know Christians have a bad habit of doing exactly that to Mormons).
But that means we also have to let groups self-identify. We have to let groups define "Mormon" and "Presbyterian" and "Catholic". And we also have to let groups define "Christian." Will there be differences of opinion on that definition? You betcha. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong or even intolerant in saying "this is what I believe the core, essential, defining distinctive of Christianity is" even if that means some groups who call themselves "Christian" are left out. And those "others" will often define "Christians" in ways that leave out the first group. Oh, well. Get over it.
quote:
When you get to ONE definition of what exactly defines a "Christian", get back to me on this, please......
To two great ecumenical creeds, Nicene and Apostles, have worked pretty well for nearly two millenia.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
