|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
When you get to ONE definition of what exactly defines a "Christian", get back to me on this, please......
actually, i have one. the nicene creed. that was sort of the point of inventing it. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) the reality is: every denomination generally (and historically) recognised as Christian since 325/381 AD had that little statement of belief in common. even those, such as Baptists, who object to creeds on principle nonetheless accept every article of the nicene creed and regard the points they're making as normative to the Christian faith.
Merlin, I'm afraid it really is that simple. The traditional line is that if you can sign up to the theology of the Nicene Creed, you are a Christian, and part of the same basic religion.
If you cannot, whatever you call yourself, you are not part of that same religion. Christ-centred though you may be, you adhere to a fundamentally different belief-structure -- not least, because the Nicene Creed is about identifying what little we can say about the very core nature (ousia) of the Godhead itself. Thus, change it up, and what you've got yourself is a whole 'nother God by a whole 'nother conception.
----------------
as for Mel Gibson -- a point you mentioned somewhere above -- he may think Vat II was a bad idea, but as long as he's in communion with Rome, he comes under its authority, and voluntarily so. There is no contientious opt-out clause for him, nor should there be. (Just as you come under the authority of the Mormon Church, regardless of what you may think about this or that practise or doctrine.) The question of what he accepts or does not within his own head is of no real consequence; being in communion with Rome is de facto acceptance. that's just how it works. the kind of schism you're talking about is illustrated far better by the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht who broke with Rome after Vat I and administer a parallel structure.
[ 21. May 2007, 05:50: Message edited by: doctor-frog ]
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I find it curious that the Mormons even want to be considered Christians. They didn't used to. Merlin, why did the Mormons change thier tune and later want to be considered as 'Christian'? I assume the answer is similar to changes in polygamy policy. One day it is a requirement (Brigham Young: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." ) then later it is strictly forbidden. I'm sure that it is just a remarkable coincidence that this change came about after the US government insisted that the Mormons drop polygamy if they wanted Utah to join the United States.
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
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Doctor Frog wrote:
quote:
Merlin, I'm afraid it really is that simple. The traditional line is that if you can sign up to the theology of the Nicene Creed, you are a Christian, and part of the same basic religion.
Every translation of the Nicene Creed that I've found refers to Mary as "the virgin Mary." Which I take to mean that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ.
If a professed Christian believes that the virgin birth is likely mythological, but that the death and resurrection of Jesus actually took place, and for the reasons that it is traditionally claimed that they took place, would you say that that person is not a Christian?
[ 21. May 2007, 16:49: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
re: the creed, i think there's interpretive flexibility in several articles. The Ascension is a perfect example. Was it literally an ascension or something mythological, or a mythologising of something that actually happened?
my personal take on the virginity is that 'God can raise up from these stones sons to Abraham'. it's not nearly as important to me as the Godhead that the creed describes (nor was the virginity article the primary purpose of the creed; the creed was a response to the controversy over the nature of the Godhead).
there seems to be a sizeable chunk of liberal theologians who would agree that it's mythological, and the Church(es) as a whole aren't throwing them out (though there are conservative theologians who might do). I've never seen such a conception adopted as doctrine by an entire denomination -- and, ultimately, that would be the stage at which other denominations would have to respond. goes back to what I said about Mel Gibson.
Consensus / Conventional Wisdom seems to place the mythological view on the fringes (but not way out on the fringes), but not generally an unchurchable offense. In my experience, people who don't buy into it literally do recognise that it's a genuine witness to some important aspect of truth (not least in that it hearkens back to Isaiah and shores up Christ's position as Messiah).
PS -- I come down on the literalist side, though I am a liberal.
[ 21. May 2007, 17:32: Message edited by: doctor-frog ]
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
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".
quote:
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?
Not usually taken off, no. The numbers are in line with how other churches count their numbers: total "enrolled" membership, with no consideration to activity level. Most "less active" Mormons never bother the church to get their names removed from the rolls. The relatively few who insist have to make a fair fuss of it in order to get removed. Typically, if you are invisible you are not a problem. But if you make noise you can get yourself removed.
quote:
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.
"Ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil"
"Now I know the Lord is greater than all gods"
"For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords"
"I have said to you, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the most High"
"Among the gods there is none like unto thee oh Lord"
"Give thanks unto the God of gods, for his mercy endureth forever"
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods?"
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
quote:
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".
Ah, "The enemy of my enemy is still my friend" sorta thing.
quote:
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.
I know pagans who are very nice folk too. They behave more Christlike than some of the Christian assholes I know.
Not the point. If someone says "I am a Christian. I follow Jesus Christ. He is my Savior and my God, the source of my salvation:" then you are being arrogant to assume that s/he is wrong. You have nothing, no authority, to base your assumed denial on, other than your own interpretation of the Bible. And your interpretation is no more authorized than anyone else's. The days of dogmatic Christian hegemony died with the Prot Reformation. Unless, Mormonism (or something like it) can recreate it through a "new" "revealed" religion, as it claims.
The only other possibility is that the RCC remains the only true faith of Christians, as per having authority and all. The rest of yous are simply so many apostates from that true faith.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You have nothing, no authority, to base your assumed denial on, other than your own interpretation of the Bible.
again, there's the Nicene Creed.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The only other possibility is that the RCC remains the only true faith of Christians, as per having authority and all. The rest of yous are simply so many apostates from that true faith.
Oh, nonsense, Merlin. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
At the very least, you'd have to reckon with the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox for having equal claim to that particular honour.
But it just ain't so -- not least because the RCC accept as valid *any* baptism given in *any* Church according to the Triune formula, as referenced and intended by the Creed.
They'll re-baptise a Mormon convert as not having had sufficient baptism (and, of course, the reverse applies) -- but they won't re-baptise, e.g., a Baptist or a Pentecostal.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
....
If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be arguing in a circular fashion.
Kinda inescapable. Because I keep coming back to the stand, that a Christian is anyone who claims that they believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and God of their salvation. All the rest is just so much dogmatic difference between sects and denominations.
quote:
When you get to ONE definition of what exactly defines a "Christian", get back to me on this, please......
quote:
To two great ecumenical creeds, Nicene and Apostles, have worked pretty well for nearly two millenia.
The devil is in the details. When you start nitpicking at what various sects and denominations accept out of the two creeds, lines of differences get drawn. At what point does the difference between one or the other rub them out of "the club?"
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
At what point does the difference between one or the other rub them out of "the club?"
Well, I'd start with the affirmation or denial of the tri-unity of the Godhead and work my way back from there.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
When you get to ONE definition of what exactly defines a "Christian", get back to me on this, please......
quote:
actually, i have one. the nicene creed. that was sort of the point of inventing it. the reality is: every denomination generally (and historically) recognised as Christian since 325/381 AD had that little statement of belief in common. even those, such as Baptists, who object to creeds on principle nonetheless accept every article of the nicene creed and regard the points they're making as normative to the Christian faith.
You know what? Mormonism can be fit into the Nicene creed too! I knew I was saving this little exercise from the past for something:
I am glad that "truth3" posted the creed. I pasted it here and will show that *Mormonism* agrees with it exactly as it reads. (Agreement in how it is interpretated TODAY is definitely another matter.)
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
(There is no problem with this: God the Father is a title, ergo Jesus Christ has a Father who is known by that title. God the Father directed Christ in creating the universe we see - and all that we do not see.)
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.
("Of one being with the Father" means what you want it to, or what God intended it to mean if these words were inspired: One flesh shared by a dual God? Not possible. Two Spirit-Gods sharing the same single entity, ergo One God somehow? Ditto. That kind of interpretation is what makes atheists announce that the God defined by Christendom is an impossible being and therefore cannot exist. *Mormons* know that Christ is the literal offspring of God the Father: and that he was never made, nor can be - but in addition to that, neither are we made, nor can be, since we have always existed. We are "creations" of God the Father's only in the sense that we are spiritual offspring of his. Christ, being a God before he was even clothed in flesh - unlike ALL of the rest of us - was always from the beginning One with his Father: One in understanding, One in purpose, One in creative powers, One in perfection.)
Through him all things were made.
(Perfectly explained in the beginning of the gospel of John. We believe this literally. But to teach the reality that God delegates his powers to the Son, and even to prophets and to us, in no way contradicts the doctrine that all things that were made were made by him: because the director is responsible for the final work, and the workers cannot of themselves do anything without his direction and approval.)
For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became fully human.
(Absolutely true in every word. If *Mormons* add the detail that God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus' physical body, that doesn't make the Holy Ghost any less the power by which Jesus came to be mortal through a mortal virgin. Sexual intercourse as we understand it is not necessary, for nature to be followed in ever particular: Mary, transported by the Spirit into a state of being that could withstand God's presence, emerged from that intercourse with the Father pregnant with our Lord. That is all that matters. We believe in the literal birth of our Savior Jesus Christ by Mary the virgin woman of God's choice.)
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
(All of this is believed by *Mormons* and there is no contradiction here. It should be added that to be seated on the right-hand of oneself is a physical impossibility.
(A question: Do Christians, since the creed of Nicea was formulated, understand the Godhead as those who made it did? By that, I mean to propose that apostacy has moved a long way since the creed, and it is just possible that the interpretations of men have muddied the waters of doctrine not just a little bit.)
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who in unity with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
(Yes. This is true doctrine. The Holy Ghost gives us eternal life through our receiving from him the testimony of Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost speaks the mind and will of God the Father and his holy Son.)
We believe in one Christian and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
(True, in the actual sense that there IS only ONE religion of the Holy Spirit. Those who hear the voice of the Spirit live in unity of the faith. One day, all will see eye to eye, and religion as it is today in the world will be a thing of our chaotic past. *Mormons*, and all others who profess to belong to the "true church" of Christ, need to remember this: there are only TWO churches in the world: Satan's and God's. The question is not WHICH CHURCH you were born into, or join yourselves to in order to do the good work of helping to save souls: the question has always been: which direction are you going? We should never accuse each other of being on our way to outer darkness, hell, or damnation: only God can tell us individually if we are turning away from him. If we are not, and our desires of our hearts are toward him alone who is the giver of light and life, then he will be merciful to all those who seek him and will show each of us the way in his own timing of things. I repeat, there are only TWO CHURCHES: the church of Christ and the church of the devil. Which one do you adhere to? The answer to that is no one elses business but your own.)
We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
(That is the summation of the gospel of Christ: the world will end, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. All who have died will be resurrected to glory. But note that the Bible does in fact teach that there are degrees of glory. I will not list the references here at this time, and in fact have already done so recently on this board.)
Bear in mind, that I wrote that c. five years ago. When I was still a believer in the Mormon variety of Christianity.
quote:
Merlin, I'm afraid it really is that simple. The traditional line is that if you can sign up to the theology of the Nicene Creed, you are a Christian, and part of the same basic religion.
If you cannot, whatever you call yourself, you are not part of that same religion. Christ-centred though you may be, you adhere to a fundamentally different belief-structure -- not least, because the Nicene Creed is about identifying what little we can say about the very core nature (ousia) of the Godhead itself. Thus, change it up, and what you've got yourself is a whole 'nother God by a whole 'nother conception.
....
What little the Nicene creed has to say says nothing about the other objections Rosswiesse, et al, put on "outing" Mormons. Their interpretations/objections go much further to find reasons to "out" them.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I find it curious that the Mormons even want to be considered Christians. They didn't used to. Merlin, why did the Mormons change thier tune and later want to be considered as 'Christian'? I assume the answer is similar to changes in polygamy policy. One day it is a requirement (Brigham Young: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." ) then later it is strictly forbidden. I'm sure that it is just a remarkable coincidence that this change came about after the US government insisted that the Mormons drop polygamy if they wanted Utah to join the United States.
K.
I don't understand why you think that Mormons only "recently" wanted to be recognized as Christians? They have always seen themselves as the "restored church" of Jesus Christ.
The polygamy trouble got solved by government fiat and Mormon compliance. That in no way effected the religion as a Christian faith. The majority of Mormons up to 1890 wanted to dump polygamy and never liked it to begin with. So, Woodruff's "Manifesto" dumping "the practice" came as welcome news, and the mainstream church has never looked back since.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(Agreement in how it is interpretated TODAY is definitely another matter.)
errrm. no.
You cannot twist the Creed to mean anything you want to from it. Well, actually you can; but what you cannot do is twist trinitarianism out of it.
in the first place, the creed was explicitly devised to affirm trinitarianism *as opposed* to Arianism which, in many particulars of how Christ's relationship to the Father is explained, Mormonism closely resembles.
your explanation appears to be based on the english translation rather than the Greek -- do correct me if I'm wrong about that. This is most obvious in the explanation of the phrase 'of one being with the Father'.
The word in Greek is 'homo-ousios'. This literally means 'of the self-same core nature and core being'. As opposed explicitly to 'homoi-ousios' ('of like being'), another possibility being floated at the time, and (of course) completely separate beings. This is a fundamental statement of ontology and epistemology, and cannot literally be interpreted in another way. If the explanation were based on ancient Greek, it would have had to reckon with this fact, and did not. It simply refuted the English in an interpretation of English that is not allowable in the Greek original. What it describes is 'homoi-ousios', which was precisely what the Church Fathers meant to rule out.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
(edit of the above failed. so continuing ...)
which is to say: if the orthodox Churches are, as the LDS claims, apostate, then they went apostate before the Nicene Creed was formulated, and the Nicene Creed -- by definition -- is a prime example of the apostasy.
it is not possible for you to interpret the very carefully chosen words in a Mormon way, and that was precisely the aim of its authors.
You may well continue to argue for the Christian nature of the LDS. But the Creed will not and cannot support you.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
I don't understand why you think that Mormons only "recently" wanted to be recognized as Christians? They have always seen themselves as the "restored church" of Jesus Christ.
Yes. But, more accurately, the apparent desire to be associated with traditional or what we would call "orthodox" Christianity appears to be a new movement, I assume instituted by Hinkley. Jo. Smith certainly did not want to be associated with mainstream Christianity.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(Agreement in how it is interpretated TODAY is definitely another matter.)
errrm. no.
You cannot twist the Creed to mean anything you want to from it. Well, actually you can; but what you cannot do is twist trinitarianism out of it.
in the first place, the creed was explicitly devised to affirm trinitarianism *as opposed* to Arianism which, in many particulars of how Christ's relationship to the Father is explained, Mormonism closely resembles.
your explanation appears to be based on the english translation rather than the Greek -- do correct me if I'm wrong about that. This is most obvious in the explanation of the phrase 'of one being with the Father'.
The word in Greek is 'homo-ousios'. This literally means 'of the self-same core nature and core being'. As opposed explicitly to 'homoi-ousios' ('of like being'), another possibility being floated at the time, and (of course) completely separate beings. This is a fundamental statement of ontology and epistemology, and cannot literally be interpreted in another way. If the explanation were based on ancient Greek, it would have had to reckon with this fact, and did not. It simply refuted the English in an interpretation of English that is not allowable in the Greek original. What it describes is 'homoi-ousios', which was precisely what the Church Fathers meant to rule out.
Well, this just gets more hillarious! Now, we all have to learn Greek in order to confirm our doctrine. Sounds more and more like Islam, where you can't get to read the Quran unless you learn to read Arabic, because no translation is considered genuine enough.
And your points only underscore the continuing 2,000 year old problem of defining others' doctrine for them. That is something that shouldn't have started in the first place, and should stop.
So Mormons are Arian Christians then? Or was that sect "demoted" to non Christian status?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
(edit of the above failed. so continuing ...)
which is to say: if the orthodox Churches are, as the LDS claims, apostate, then they went apostate before the Nicene Creed was formulated, and the Nicene Creed -- by definition -- is a prime example of the apostasy.
it is not possible for you to interpret the very carefully chosen words in a Mormon way, and that was precisely the aim of its authors.
You may well continue to argue for the Christian nature of the LDS. But the Creed will not and cannot support you.
I just demonstrated (again, after five years) that the Mormons can be supported by the Creed. By interpretation, and most of it doesn't even require any twisting or turning to get it all to fit. The ONE bug in the ointment is the Trinity stuff. And if Joseph Smith had just shut up with the Book of Mormon, we wouldn't even be having this debate: because the BofM God is Trinitarian.
If Mormons think of the Nicene Creed as a demonstration of how apostate Christianity had become, then they are just being dogmatic and difficult. Read it as it stands, and I for one have little or not trouble with it at all. And I didn't even five years ago when I was a sincere believer.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
quote:
I don't understand why you think that Mormons only "recently" wanted to be recognized as Christians? They have always seen themselves as the "restored church" of Jesus Christ.
Yes. But, more accurately, the apparent desire to be associated with traditional or what we would call "orthodox" Christianity appears to be a new movement, I assume instituted by Hinkley. Jo. Smith certainly did not want to be associated with mainstream Christianity.
You're right there. But the modern church isn't pursuing the same agenda as the early one. That one was exclusive, both in outlook and community.
Hinckley has said that we are Christians but worship a different (concept of) Christ than most of the rest of Christianity does. (Somebody earlier posted that quote verbatim.) He's trying to play both sides of the fence: keep the LDS church's claims to unique priesthood authority and revelation, and still be recognized as a Christian religion by the rest of the world. I don't think it's going to work out in the long run.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
And if Joseph Smith had just shut up with the Book of Mormon, we wouldn't even be having this debate: because the BofM God is Trinitarian.
That's (IMHO) an understatement! Yes, I think you're quite right-- if it had all stopped at B of M, the LDS would be much like Church of Christ or other restoration movements-- maybe considered a tad legalistic or extremist or exclusive, but still very much considered w/in "mainstream" of Protestant Christianity.
As a sorta aside, it seems to me (and I'd appreciate your perspective) from my limited reading that things really started to go south both theologically and systemically with the King Follett address, which seems to come at the time when there were beginning to be schisms and division, in large part due to revelations of Smith's (until then mostly secret) polygamous marriages. (fwiw, I'm not as concerned about the polygamy as the way he committed polygamy, which seem at least from a 21st c. perspective to be abusive). I"m trying to make up my mind if King Follett and what followed was an attempt to reign in and isolate discontented followers, or was just a symptom of a charismatic leader beginning to spin out of control (as has happened so many times in the past).
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
When you start nitpicking at what various sects and denominations accept out of the two creeds, lines of differences get drawn. At what point does the difference between one or the other rub them out of "the club?"
If you are an Anglican like me, just about everyone counts as in. Though not, I am afraid, the Muslims. Or the Mormons.
If you are Orthodox apparently its you your priest and just possibly your priest's maiden aunt - provided she lives a perfectly holy life, ritually curses St Augustine five times a day, and only speaks Greek. And even then you have your doubts about the priest.
The reasons for saying Mormon teaching is not Christian teaching (which is not at all the same thing as saying that individual Mormons are or are not Christians) are various. To me the big one is the doctrine of who God is.
Its fuundamental to orthodox Christianity that the God of this world, who we can know in Jesus Christ and who we address as "Father"; is the same God as the eternal creator of the entire universe (and all other universes, if there are any), not located inside the universe in any one place or time any more than an artist is located inside a picture they paint, or an author inside a novel they write.
The same belief is taught by many other religions, including Islam and Judaism and Zoroastrianism and (I think) the Sikhs.
But there have been plenty of religions that did not teach that. For example the idea that the God of this world is not the eternal God of the whole universe but a sort of assistant god, or an understudy, or a created being, or a rebel against God, was taught by lots of Gnostic religions in the past, and by Manicheism (which started as a Zoroastrian heresy, not a Christian one but sort of got improted into Christianity and perhaps gave rise to Catharism). It is maybe also taught by the modern-day Druze and various midlle-eastern sects that look very much like Muslims to our eyes but have fundamentally different ideas of God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Well, this just gets more hillarious! Now, we all have to learn Greek in order to confirm our doctrine. Sounds more and more like Islam, where you can't get to read the Quran unless you learn to read Arabic, because no translation is considered genuine enough.
no, that's not what i'm saying at all, and i suspect you know that.
but it *is* important to know, when dealing with original documents in other languages, how to remain as faithful to the original as possible -- and to rule out cavalier (and, in this case, impossible) translations.
For example: the preposition 'in' in Spanish means both 'in' and 'on' -- and it's not trivial, when translating into English, to know whether something is 'in the beach' or 'on the beach' if the phrase used is 'in la playa'.
Another example: two words in Greek translate as 'love' in English: 'agape' and 'eros'. 'Agape' (faithful love and altruistic love or some equivalent) is what's used in scripture to describe divine love, but 'eros' would be used to describe erotic and romantic love. Thus, you can't say from scripture that God looks and human beings and starts feeling frisky. (Mormon doctrine about Christ's conception notwithstanding.) It's just not the word that's used.
Back to 'homo-ousios', then. I'm not demanding that you have a working knowledge of Greek, but I'm not being petty, either. You simply cannot re-imagine 'of one being with the father' to mean Arianism or something like it, because that's simply not what 'homo-ousios' with the Father means, nor can even possibly mean.
Now, I've granted that you can make a fine case for Arianism from scripture (albeit a wrong one IMO). But, if the Nicene Creed is the test of ecclesiality -- which it is in orthodox circles -- then you cannot argue Arianism from that. Sorry. That's just not how it works, and it would be intellectually dishonest for me to let that one slide.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And your points only underscore the continuing 2,000 year old problem of defining others' doctrine for them. That is something that shouldn't have started in the first place, and should stop.
I'm not defining your doctrine for you. I'm defining mine. The fact that you don't happen to share it is entirely down to you!
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So Mormons are Arian Christians then? Or was that sect "demoted" to non Christian status?
Well, actually, they were exiled from the Roman empire and/or exterminated.
But, yes, they were excluded from the Church -- and arguably demoted from Christianity as it is commonly understood.
The term Arian Christian is, however, an acceptable one, for want of a better one. But it should not be interpreted to mean that they're essentially of the same faith -- precisely because their conception of God's very being was different. It all hinged on that.
I didn't say that Mormons were Arian Christians. (To be honest, I expect that they'd argue you were heretical. They had more in common with us than Mormonism does.) I think I said (without looking back at my previous post) that the conception of the Godhead is fairly close or bears similarities to Arianism in important particulars.
I'd still argue that you're a distinct religion, rooted in Christianity, but sufficiently different (more than sufficiently different) to be something new and something other. And, again, I think that if I believed what Mormons believed, I'd rejoice in that fact and not want to be lumped in with trinitarians.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I just demonstrated (again, after five years) that the Mormons can be supported by the Creed.
no. you didn't. you did the exact opposite, precisely because you've haven't properly translated the central plank of the Creed.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The ONE bug in the ointment is the Trinity stuff. And if Joseph Smith had just shut up with the Book of Mormon, we wouldn't even be having this debate: because the BofM God is Trinitarian.
that's a pretty big bug in a very small tub of ointment. it's sort of like saying godzilla was a slightly-larger-than-average lizard.
the trinity was the whole point of the creed, from conception, to language, to promulgation, to political consequences. ditch that, and none of the rest of it matters.
what I *will* give you willingly (unless Ross can point out otherwise) is that as far as I know, the BoM is indeed trinitarian -- as indeed are the CoC/RLDS explicitly.
But, as you yourself say, JS did not 'shut up', nor did later members of the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles -- and the LDS are not trinitarian and do not claim to be. you can't claim it's all o.k. on the 'would coulda shoulda' principle. what happened, happened.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
just realised -- catching myself before I'm caught out -- I twice cited 'in' as the spanish for in/on. Of course, it's 'en'. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Same point applies, though.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Ken wrote:
quote:
Its fuundamental to orthodox Christianity that the God of this world, who we can know in Jesus Christ and who we address as "Father"; is the same God as the eternal creator of the entire universe (and all other universes, if there are any), not located inside the universe in any one place or time any more than an artist is located inside a picture they paint, or an author inside a novel they write.
I would agree that that has been the standard consensus among theologians. However, thinking back to my Catholic upbringing, I'm having a hard time recalling if it was ever explicitly stated that God was not part of the physical universe. Probably it was, but it certainly wasn't something that was drummed into our heads in every homliy and religion class.
What I'm getting at here is that I could easily imagine an uneducated member of a mainstream church believing in the popular artistic representation of God living up in the sky somewhere, simply because he's seen it in a hundred times and no one has ever told him otherwise.
So: a guy believes that Jesus was the Son Of God, and died for to redeem us. He also attends church every week, and volunteers at a home for disabled children every Tuesday night. However, he also happens to think that heaven might be located somewhere in the deepest folds of the NGC 4414 galaxy. Is he in or out of "the club"?
[ 22. May 2007, 15:05: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
strictly speaking, i think both conceptions are not quite right. the God who created us all ex-nihilo -- from nothing -- is not constrained by space and time (nor the absense of it, if such a thing exists). He is distinct and Other from the Universe by his very nature, but it wouldn't be appropriate to say he exists exclusively 'outside' it or exclusively 'inside' it. his relationship to us is not constrained by spatio-temporal ideas.
thus, the Trinity exist towards the universe in a general fashion that was differentiated as Jesus Christ in a specific place/time in history, but without him ceasing to be God that he ever was.
but i don't think an uneducated idea of the old man with a beard 'up there in heaven' is a hanging offence, no. this person also believes in the God who created 'all things, seen and unseen' -- i.e., ex nihilo. the implications take care of themselves, whether that particular believer thinks it out or not.
[ 22. May 2007, 16:07: Message edited by: doctor-frog ]
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
....
As a sorta aside, it seems to me (and I'd appreciate your perspective) from my limited reading that things really started to go south both theologically and systemically with the King Follett address, which seems to come at the time when there were beginning to be schisms and division, in large part due to revelations of Smith's (until then mostly secret) polygamous marriages. (fwiw, I'm not as concerned about the polygamy as the way he committed polygamy, which seem at least from a 21st c. perspective to be abusive). I"m trying to make up my mind if King Follett and what followed was an attempt to reign in and isolate discontented followers, or was just a symptom of a charismatic leader beginning to spin out of control (as has happened so many times in the past).
In D&C 130:22 (April 2, 1843), Joseph Smith gives the very same description of the Godhead as he did five days later in the King Follett funeral address. And in that address added the couplet about God once being a man and us becoming as God. A little over one year later, Smith was dead.
During that year, his polygamous activites came to a head, his wife Emma threatened divorce if he didn't desist, he made public statements denying any other marriages whatsoever: and during that time initiated more LDS couples into the "practice." All without Emma's knowledge. Joseph Smith's Godhead and polygamy grew together. His first attempts at polygamy are arguably as early as 1832. Fanny Alger (1833) is the first provable "plural wife." Emma made Joseph get rid of her at once when she found out. At the same time, his Godhead doctrine changed from Trinitarian, to duality with the Father as Spirit and the Son as flesh (the Holy Ghost being their combined influence), and finally into the Godhead of modern Mormonism. It seems evident to me, given that there is a letter of Eliza R. Snow to her brother Lorenzo, to the effect that Joseph Smith believed in reincarnation, that had Smith lived on, his religion would have unravelled as he inculcated more and more "revelations": from his exposure to more and more religious notions that he learned about, he could not possibly have assimilated them and had the entire mass hold together. His death was timely. Mormonism would have perished under the weight of its own "revelations" if Smith had lived much longer. Imho, of course.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
....
Its fuundamental to orthodox Christianity that the God of this world, who we can know in Jesus Christ and who we address as "Father"; is the same God as the eternal creator of the entire universe (and all other universes, if there are any), not located inside the universe in any one place or time any more than an artist is located inside a picture they paint, or an author inside a novel they write....
Fascinating. I have come up with analogies almost exactly like these, on my own, to try and illustrate my concept of THE One God of all creation: THAT which transcends the universe: "I AM therefore, I think up all of this"; the only CAUSE which was never itself caused. God manifested as human is NOT God, but a manifestation within creation of the Originator of all Existence. In that sense, we all are manifestations of God too, because we are creations of God's (even though the process is demonstrably through what is referred to as biological evolution).
I've already shown, how Joseph Smith's theology raises questions it does not begin to answer; how it is incomplete. Implicit behind Smith's eternal progression of Father to Son, Gods, is THE One Cause of all creation. No other explanation makes any theological sense. Perhaps Mormonism will be pinned down someday to admit that. Then will you be satisfied that (at least) the beef over the Godhead is no longer a significant issue to prevent the Mormon church org from being defined as a Christian one?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
.....
Now, I've granted that you can make a fine case for Arianism from scripture (albeit a wrong one IMO). But, if the Nicene Creed is the test of ecclesiality -- which it is in orthodox circles -- then you cannot argue Arianism from that. Sorry. That's just not how it works, and it would be intellectually dishonest for me to let that one slide.
I'm with you on this. You said the Nicene Creed was created to deal with Arianism (among other troubles of the day); so it would be deliberate trouble-making to argue it from the Creed. Sort of like the polygs (FLDS) do, when they quote from our own scriptures to prove that the mainstream church's prohibition of polygamy is bogus.
....
quote:
....The term Arian Christian is, however, an acceptable one, for want of a better one. But it should not be interpreted to mean that they're essentially of the same faith -- precisely because their conception of God's very being was different. It all hinged on that.
I didn't say that Mormons were Arian Christians. (To be honest, I expect that they'd argue you were heretical. They had more in common with us than Mormonism does.) I think I said (without looking back at my previous post) that the conception of the Godhead is fairly close or bears similarities to Arianism in important particulars.
I'd still argue that you're a distinct religion, rooted in Christianity, but sufficiently different (more than sufficiently different) to be something new and something other. And, again, I think that if I believed what Mormons believed, I'd rejoice in that fact and not want to be lumped in with trinitarians.
How about, "Mormon Christian", then? Most LDS would probably accept that for now and change the subject.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
....But, as you yourself say, JS did not 'shut up', nor did later members of the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles -- and the LDS are not trinitarian and do not claim to be. you can't claim it's all o.k. on the 'would coulda shoulda' principle. what happened, happened.
Nevertheless, a non Trinitarian Godhead isn't enough of a difference to cut an entire religious group out, that says that they are Christians. The Person they worship is the same Word of the Bible. They so-claim. You have to come up with a definition for them: and it isn't going to happen if all you say is "No, you're NOT Christian."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
actually, i have one. the nicene creed. that was sort of the point of inventing it. the reality is: every denomination generally (and historically) recognised as Christian since 325/381 AD had that little statement of belief in common. even those, such as Baptists, who object to creeds on principle nonetheless accept every article of the nicene creed and regard the points they're making as normative to the Christian faith.
Merlin, I'm afraid it really is that simple. The traditional line is that if you can sign up to the theology of the Nicene Creed, you are a Christian, and part of the same basic religion.
If you cannot, whatever you call yourself, you are not part of that same religion. Christ-centred though you may be, you adhere to a fundamentally different belief-structure -- not least, because the Nicene Creed is about identifying what little we can say about the very core nature (ousia) of the Godhead itself. Thus, change it up, and what you've got yourself is a whole 'nother God by a whole 'nother conception.
That's how the Orthodox Church see the additional of the filoque, describing a different God.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
strictly speaking, i think both conceptions are not quite right. the God who created us all ex-nihilo -- from nothing -- is not constrained by space and time (nor the absense of it, if such a thing exists). He is distinct and Other from the Universe by his very nature, but it wouldn't be appropriate to say he exists exclusively 'outside' it or exclusively 'inside' it. his relationship to us is not constrained by spatio-temporal ideas.
thus, the Trinity exist towards the universe in a general fashion that was differentiated as Jesus Christ in a specific place/time in history, but without him ceasing to be God that he ever was.
but i don't think an uneducated idea of the old man with a beard 'up there in heaven' is a hanging offence, no. this person also believes in the God who created 'all things, seen and unseen' -- i.e., ex nihilo. the implications take care of themselves, whether that particular believer thinks it out or not.
And the implications of Mormon Godhead theology "take care of themselves" as well. Arguing that Mormons believe in an endless string of uncaused gods within an eternal multiverse just begs the question of ultimate Origin. It has to work out as you say above: that God is not constrained by any of our notions and limited perceptions. We should always be trying for the concept of God that cannot be exceeded by anything greater in our imaginations: that is as close to understanding what God IS as we are ever going to get, short of a God-induced epiphany.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
That's how the Orthodox Church see the additional of the filoque, describing a different God.
I do not know of a single Orthodox ("big O") Christian who would agree with that statement.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
actually, i have one. the nicene creed. that was sort of the point of inventing it. the reality is: every denomination generally (and historically) recognised as Christian since 325/381 AD had that little statement of belief in common. even those, such as Baptists, who object to creeds on principle nonetheless accept every article of the nicene creed and regard the points they're making as normative to the Christian faith.
Merlin, I'm afraid it really is that simple. The traditional line is that if you can sign up to the theology of the Nicene Creed, you are a Christian, and part of the same basic religion.
If you cannot, whatever you call yourself, you are not part of that same religion. Christ-centred though you may be, you adhere to a fundamentally different belief-structure -- not least, because the Nicene Creed is about identifying what little we can say about the very core nature (ousia) of the Godhead itself. Thus, change it up, and what you've got yourself is a whole 'nother God by a whole 'nother conception.
That's how the Orthodox Church see the additional of the filoque, describing a different God.
Myrrh
If Eastern Orthodox and RCC differ on the Holy Spirit (one-third of the Godhead, ferpetesakes!), or in other words, on how the HS originates, then how can anyone complain about the Mormon differences in "their" Godhead? The central issue is accepting Christ as Savior, Lord and Redeemer, without whom we would all be doomed to eternal death. All other differences in understanding the mystery simply have relevance to an individual or they do not: we believe what we will and can about WHAT God IS. But the central tenet of Christian faith accepts Jesus Christ as God made flesh to save us from sin and death: Mormons believe in that at least as much as any other Christians.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
quote:
That's how the Orthodox Church see the additional of the filoque, describing a different God.
I do not know of a single Orthodox ("big O") Christian who would agree with that statement.
? Sorry, but we've had rather a lot of centuries arguing exactly that, as Doctor-frog explained it:
"because the Nicene Creed is about identifying what little we can say about the very core nature (ousia) of the Godhead itself. Thus, change it up, and what you've got yourself is a whole 'nother God by a whole 'nother conception"
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Thus, change it up, and what you've got yourself is a whole 'nother God by a whole 'nother conception"
Though Doctor Frog did seem to indicate earlier on this thread that some things about the creed are more indispensable than others.
re: the Virgin Birth...
quote:
there seems to be a sizeable chunk of liberal theologians who would agree that it's mythological, and the Church(es) as a whole aren't throwing them out (though there are conservative theologians who might do). I've never seen such a conception adopted as doctrine by an entire denomination -- and, ultimately, that would be the stage at which other denominations would have to respond. goes back to what I said about Mel Gibson.
Consensus / Conventional Wisdom seems to place the mythological view on the fringes (but not way out on the fringes), but not generally an unchurchable offense. In my experience, people who don't buy into it literally do recognise that it's a genuine witness to some important aspect of truth (not least in that it hearkens back to Isaiah and shores up Christ's position as Messiah).
Nerlin/Frog exchange:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
At what point does the difference between one or the other rub them out of "the club?"
----
Well, I'd start with the affirmation or denial of the tri-unity of the Godhead and work my way back from there.
So: the Creed is the final word, but we all acknowledge that mainstream denominations just sort of wink at accredited theologians saying the Virgin Birth is maybe a myth.
I think it would be more accurate for the "Nicene party" to say that what's really important to them is the Trinity, not the Creed. Because from what I've seen on this thread(and from mainstream Christians in general), there seems to be a general tolerance for a certain amount of hemming and hawing about just how important every single item on the Creed really is.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
Sorry, but we've had rather a lot of centuries arguing exactly that
Of course we have been arguing over it for centuries, and of course it was the reason for the Great Schism. But I do not know of a single person, theologian, or leader on either side of the schism who would suggest that the two different versions of the Nicene Creed represent "two different Gods". There is nothing in the desert Fathers or the writings of the patriarchs that suggests that.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
merechristian
Apprentice
# 6722
|
Posted
Whether mormons are christians are not is such an interesting topic, especially given the exponential growth of the LDS church. Looking through all the postings between Merlin and the rest, it's of note to notice that things that Christians sopmetimes take for granted when talking to each other..what grace is, what exactly is the trinity, the Nicene Creed, the nature of Jesus, heaven, etc become really important. Really, there are so many things that Mormons have redefined that for the rest of us, we can hardly see the Christianity in it. It flies under the banner of Christianity by using the name of Christ but changes so many of the basic things found in the Bible and then through many revisions of original doctrines expounded by Joseph Smith&etc tries to say that they mean the same thing.
When I say that I believe in grace, I mean I believe in the grace, I'm not talking about some universal salvation for all who would not directly blaspheme God. I'm talking about completely unmerited grace that saves those whom the Father calls absoloutely and completely. That's not cheap grace.
When I say Jesus, I'm talking about the Son, God incarnate, who was with God in the Beginnning. Not the first-born spirit child of the lord of this planet and his wife.
When I say God, the Father, I'm not talking an exalted man with a physical body. I'm talking about the Creator of the Universe, the only God there is.
God did not have sex with Mary (Christ's mother). Mary was not one of God's or the "Heavenly Father's" wives,
The Bible does not say much about heaven, but Jesus does say that man with neither be married nor given in marriage.
Oh, and the native americans are not descendants of people who came to America from ancient Israel.
Paul gave a warning to those who would preach a different gospel than the one given in the Bible, it's in Galations 1:6-9
quote:
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Who called Joseph Smith to create the "restored church" with lost doctrine? Dudes, it was none other than an angel, an angel named Moroni.
--------------------
Sometimes the place I'm at is at a loss for words.-Relient K
Posts: 39 | From: Las Vegas, NV | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
quote:
Sorry, but we've had rather a lot of centuries arguing exactly that
Of course we have been arguing over it for centuries, and of course it was the reason for the Great Schism. But I do not know of a single person, theologian, or leader on either side of the schism who would suggest that the two different versions of the Nicene Creed represent "two different Gods". There is nothing in the desert Fathers or the writings of the patriarchs that suggests that.
That's precisely what the argument is about, that for example, it creates the Holy Spirit as subordinate, thus making it a different God.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
That's precisely what the argument is about, that for example, it creates the Holy Spirit as subordinate, thus making it a different God.
You are correct that the argument is about the relation of the three members of the Trinity. However, again, I know of NO (big O) Orthodox theologian, priest, or patriarch who has EVER suggested that the filloque "makes it a different God." YOU may think it does, but I would challenge you to find even one Orthodox patriarch who agrees with you.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[QUOTE]That's how the Orthodox Church see the additional of the filoque, describing a different God.
yeh, i was sort of hoping no one would open that particular can of worms! There's no question that the filioque -- the question of the Holy
Spirit's procession from the Father, or from the Father and the Son -- is an historic problem of huge significance. I have seen Orthodox theologians argue both ways.
However, I'd say there are ample ambiguities in the situation, and markedly different ones from the problems with Mormonism.
In the first instance, the biggest problem the Orthodox have with it is that it was a later and unauthorised (or at least non-universal) addition to the Creedal text of 381 -- as you say, because they think it unbalances the Godhead -- and because it was done unilaterally. (For the record, I'm with the Orthodox on this one. I think the procession makes more sense if it's from the Father only.)
In the second, the Western Church added it -- however wrongly in Orthodox eyes -- for the explicit purpose of fighting Arianism, which was gaining popularity amongst the Visigoths. The very pointed idea was to shore up the divinity of Christ and his co-equality and co-eternity with the Father. I don't know that it was well thought-out, but the intention was little-o orthodox. Most Western theologians argue that the procession is from the Father through the Son, rather than from the Father and the Son. This makes a difference, although the Orthodox still object, and IMO rightly.
In the third -- and of crucial, crucial importance -- the filioque is not binding upon the RCC or later Western Church(es), whereas the Creed of 381 is. Eastern Catholic Churches (i.e. Eastern Rite Churches in full communion with Rome and under its authority) do not recite the filioque, and cannot be made to do canonically. They regard the filioque as a term that must be interpreted in a way harmonious with eastern tradition (as indeed it can be, e.g., by St. Thomas Aquinas, the most authoritative of RCC theologians since the patristic period; he argued that the eternal causality of the Spirit is entirely down to the Father, not the Father and the Son, which is an orthodox and Orthodox interpretation).
In the fourth, the separation of Western and Eastern Churches took place over 4 centuries between c 800 and c 1200, with brief intervals of full communion afterwards. The excommunications of 1054 have been retracted, as well. There was no one moment when heresy was declared and acted on, and the split was caused by a multitude of factors, not just the one. The filioque has always had the character of an internal scuffle between siblings -- notwithstanding how deeply important it is. And the Orthodox and RCC, even in the deepest moments of condemnation, have never failed to recognise one another's importance and heritage from the earliest Church.
Make of all that jumble what you will; we ain't gonna solve the Filioque on the Ship of Fools. But, unlike Arianism, the filioque has always been a far messier, less clear-cut issue.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
just begs the question of ultimate Origin.
100% true. But I am not necessarily given to understand that the Father 'personage' who appeared to J.Smith is the same as the Ultimate Cause. Are you saying categorically otherwise, and are you saying so from LDS teaching?
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We should always be trying for the concept of God that cannot be exceeded by anything greater in our imaginations: that is as close to understanding what God IS as we are ever going to get, short of a God-induced epiphany.
But that's actually the whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity: Christ, in his very self, was that epiphany. ("How can you say show us the Father. Do you not know that he who has seen me has seen the Father?") By becoming incarnate, God himself revealed himself in his totality. Our failure to understand all that in its implications is not to say that it wasn't revealed -- and indeed greater than anything that could possibly exceed our imaginations.
The Mormon Christ is far less than this. That's why I don't worship him as a Mormon. (or one big reason why.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But the central tenet of Christian faith accepts Jesus Christ as God made flesh to save us from sin and death: Mormons believe in that at least as much as any other Christians.
But they also say he's the literal son of the Father. Can't be both -- God made flesh, or something divnised but from God made flesh. Which is it?
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
How about, "Mormon Christian", then? Most LDS would probably accept that for now and change the subject.
I could probably buy that one, provided it was consistently used and it was clear enough that a distinction was being made between Trinitarian and other followers of Christ. Just as you have to make a distinction between orthodoxy and Jehovah's Witnesses, Arian Christians, Gnostic Christians, etc.
What I also think was stated well was this bit (on the first page of this thread!) by Laura (edited, because I'm entering into questions she said she wouldn't):
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
To the extent that Mormons are feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, etcetera, then they are participating in the central ministry that Jesus set forth for those whom he will recognize on the last day... I feel confident that many of us will be explaining bizarre beliefs on the Last Day ...
This, for me, is not a question of salvation -- but of identity. As I said earlier -- I'm not defining your belief, but mine. However wishy-washy Anglicans are, there are certain non-negotiables that deliniate what we believe, and Mormonism just happens to fall outside of those. I find it more sensible to call you a separate religion with your own valuable contributions to make to the world of religious thought -- and, actually, more respectful, because it doesn't put Mormons in the position of playing catch-up, always explaining to us why we should include them.
But, yes, I also recognise that you want to be followers of Christ, and I believe that you are.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
afterthought: it should be said, for the record, that the Abrahamic religions *all* worship the same God in the sense that they all regard one another as genuine worshippers of YHWH. Where they come apart as viewing one another as mutually incompatibe is in their outworking of what constitutes his very being. In this respect, I don't view the Mormons as any different.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[QUOTE]That's how the Orthodox Church see the additional of the filoque, describing a different God.
yeh, i was sort of hoping no one would open that particular can of worms!
Haven't thought about it for a while until I noticed Merlin had included it in his review of the Creed.
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We should always be trying for the concept of God that cannot be exceeded by anything greater in our imaginations: that is as close to understanding what God IS as we are ever going to get, short of a God-induced epiphany.
But that's actually the whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity: Christ, in his very self, was that epiphany. ("How can you say show us the Father. Do you not know that he who has seen me has seen the Father?") By becoming incarnate, God himself revealed himself in his totality. Our failure to understand all that in its implications is not to say that it wasn't revealed -- and indeed greater than anything that could possibly exceed our imaginations.
This is my primary objection to the addition, it makes it so boring..
quote:
You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God.
— Saint Gregory the Theologian
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That's precisely what the argument is about, that for example, it creates the Holy Spirit as subordinate, thus making it a different God.
Even if this were true it woudl be different human ideas about God, not a different God. We cannot remake God by talking about god.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
And again, I know of NO Orthodox Christian who believes that due to the filloque Western Christians are worshipping a different God. And vice versa.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That's precisely what the argument is about, that for example, it creates the Holy Spirit as subordinate, thus making it a different God.
Even if this were true it woudl be different human ideas about God, not a different God. We cannot remake God by talking about god.
But...
To some extent that's so, but the point of the 'formula' is not a description of God, who is indescribable, but of Christ's relationship, (it was formulated out of the Christological arguments) and that relationship is changed by the addition.
It's been a while since I've thought about any of this, but what does the trinitiarian baptism mean if the Holy Spirit is no longer a distinct person but changed into an attribute as the "love between the father and son"?
But also, the way we view God is important as different perspectives bring changes which affect our relationship, to God and to each other. If someone's view of God is one that has damned me already and I believe him I'll be living in a particular relationship with God. If I don't know of any other God except this one he says is God then, being me, I could end up hating this God and maybe him too... Is it semantics or a bit pc to object to particular views of God being described as different Gods?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
The Orthodox however do have a description of God, and this really is how we understand God which is why no philosophical description are taken seriously, from the words of John Damascene:
God then, is Infinite and Incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about Him is His Infinity and His Incomprehensibility.
And of course, that can be infinitely small etc.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
.... Originally posted by MerlintheMad: just begs the question of ultimate Origin.
quote:
100% true. But I am not necessarily given to understand that the Father 'personage' who appeared to J.Smith is the same as the Ultimate Cause. Are you saying categorically otherwise, and are you saying so from LDS teaching?
The church is still relatively new. It adheres dogmatically to exactly what Joseph Smith said last, as much as possible. And that, as I have pointed out already, is an incomplete theology. Had he stuck with the Book of Mormon theology, Mormons would be called "Christians" today. But he didn't. His incomplete theology implies THE One God of all creation cannot possibly BE the God(s) that appeared to him in the First Vision (the final version). Because he later stated in the King Follett sermon that "God the Father was once a mortal man and has attained his glory and sits enthroned in yonder heavens." That makes the Personage(s) that appeared to him glorious (once mortal) men, not the Ultimate Cause of Existence. However, if the last words of Joseph Smith in the King Follett address are discarded utterly as uninspired (in spite of his impassioned insistence that he is speaking in the name of the Lord), then the First Vision can be seen as a manifestation of Father and Son: yet One God, since both manifestations proceed from THE One God of all Creation. The trouble is, Mormon theology depends on Smith's Follett sermon, even though it is not "canonized" as scripture. An odd position. One that will not endure, trust that.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We should always be trying for the concept of God that cannot be exceeded by anything greater in our imaginations: that is as close to understanding what God IS as we are ever going to get, short of a God-induced epiphany.
quote:
But that's actually the whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity: Christ, in his very self, was that epiphany. ("How can you say show us the Father. Do you not know that he who has seen me has seen the Father?") By becoming incarnate, God himself revealed himself in his totality. Our failure to understand all that in its implications is not to say that it wasn't revealed -- and indeed greater than anything that could possibly exceed our imaginations.
I can't accept an anthropomorphic manifestation as being God in totality. The manifestation of the Son is mortal, then glorious after the resurrection; and is still a finite, corporeal Being: this cannot be God in totality. But that's just arguing theological points like how many angels can dance on a pinhead.
quote:
The Mormon Christ is far less than this. That's why I don't worship him as a Mormon. (or one big reason why.
I don't see the "Mormon Christ" being in any way less than God as flesh, then back to heaven after the resurrection. The Word created all the universe(s). How is that manifestation of the One God less? Mormons call Jesus the first-born Son of the Father; there is an assumed, homely relationship with him as "my elder Brother", because we also are called children of the Father (that's biblical). But it in no way puts any of us on a level with Christ as the Word of Creation. We are all lesser manifestations of the same One God of all creation: Christ is simply the First and the Last and Greatest. (This is me talking, not spouting Mormon dogma.)
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But the central tenet of Christian faith accepts Jesus Christ as God made flesh to save us from sin and death: Mormons believe in that at least as much as any other Christians.
quote:
But they also say he's the literal son of the Father. Can't be both -- God made flesh, or something divnised but from God made flesh. Which is it?
Can be either or, and still be "God of creation", the Word. Is there a problem with saying "literal Son of God?" I don't see it. If some Mormons assume carnal sex, they are not all Mormons: that concept is repugnant to many, and it isn't taught as doctrine, but only speculation based on the earlier words of Smith and Young.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
How about, "Mormon Christian", then? Most LDS would probably accept that for now and change the subject.
quote:
I could probably buy that one, provided it was consistently used and it was clear enough that a distinction was being made between Trinitarian and other followers of Christ. Just as you have to make a distinction between orthodoxy and Jehovah's Witnesses, Arian Christians, Gnostic Christians, etc.
What I also think was stated well was this bit (on the first page of this thread!) by Laura (edited, because I'm entering into questions she said she wouldn't):
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
To the extent that Mormons are feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, etcetera, then they are participating in the central ministry that Jesus set forth for those whom he will recognize on the last day... I feel confident that many of us will be explaining bizarre beliefs on the Last Day ...
This, for me, is not a question of salvation -- but of identity. As I said earlier -- I'm not defining your belief, but mine. However wishy-washy Anglicans are, there are certain non-negotiables that deliniate what we believe, and Mormonism just happens to fall outside of those. I find it more sensible to call you a separate religion with your own valuable contributions to make to the world of religious thought -- and, actually, more respectful, because it doesn't put Mormons in the position of playing catch-up, always explaining to us why we should include them.
But, yes, I also recognise that you want to be followers of Christ, and I believe that you are.
Okay. Mormon Christians, then, between us at least.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Okay. Mormon Christians, then,*snip*
Sure, so long as we also have Muslim Christians and Hindu Christians and Wiccan Christians, etc. This is one of the strangest threads I've ever read on this board.
Mormans reject almost all of the central tenets of the Judeo-Christian texts and traditions. As the Psalmist says “All your words are true: all your righteous laws are eternal.” This is rejected by Mormons, to the extent they believe that Joseph Smith's laws are the ones that are true and eternal.
They follow Christ in a similar way that Muslims do – they think he's splendid chap and all, but not God. They reject the salvation of Christ. According to Spencer Kimball (a member of the LDS church) in Miracle of Forgiveness , "One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation". Furthermore, according to the Mormon 'Doctrines of Salvation', “There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God”; it's hard to imagine this as anything less than a rejection of Christ's own teaching and further explanations in the Epistles.
As for baptism, where to start with the LDS? Their very own Orson Pratt goes so far as to say that if someone is baptised in the Roman Catholic Church or any Protestant demonination that they "will be sent down to hell with [the priest who baptised them], unless they repent of the unholy and impious act.”
The test for a prophet was made clear in Deuteronomy (21-22): "You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him". Indeed. None of Smith's wackier claims (and that's up against some stiff competetion) have held water and they not even considered by scholars outside the 'church' of the LDS. Unlike Christianity, Judaism and Islam, there is no real historicity of Mormanism, beyong the studies Joseph Smith (and perhaps his problems with the law).
I could go on and on, and no doubt many other have done and will do so; the Mormons are not Christians in any meaningful way because they utterly reject Christ for who he claimed to be. Indirectly calling Christ a liar is all the evidence needed as to how the LDS follow Him.
They have repeatedly taught segregation and explicit racism and, like so many other of their loopy ideas, only altered them in face of political pressure. The notion, exaplined by Merlin above, that the Mormons get to reformulate their central beliefs every now and then speaks volumes about the religion as whole.
From a personal perspective I find the Mormon church much worse than any of that. But nevermind. The real 'history' of the Momons is tied up in American exceptionalism – hence the need for racism and transference of the idea of Holy Land from the Middle East to the USA.
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
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Sure, so long as we also have Muslim Christians and Hindu Christians and Wiccan Christians, etc.
I don't think that's *quite* fair.
Mormon belief is no further out from orthodox Christianity than is, say, Gnostic Christian belief. From that perspective -- and from the perspective that, however differently they understand Jesus, they do actually mean to follow him as the divine revelation to humanity -- then if Merlin wants to adopt the term Mormon Christian with the same caveats that I'd flag up about Gnostic Christianity, then I can live with that. Merlin has argued that if groups like Arians and Gnostics can lay claim to the term, so can Merlin -- and I kind of see his point, provided there's crystal-clarity and transparency about it. (Nobody ever seems to suggest that Gnostics aren't a Christ-based religion and aren't sociologically Christian, albeit not Christian in the orthodox theological sense).
I agree wholeheartedly that there's a fundamentally different religious structure going on in Mormonism, as there was in Gnostic Christiantity. So I wouldn't want the phrase in any way to imply 'Oh, we're pretty much all the same', because we're not. (And I still think Mormons are or would be far better off making the kind of claims about themselves in relation to us that we, in the early centuries, made about ourselves in relation to Judaism.)
BUT ... whereas a phrase like Muslim Christian would be pretty much a nonsense out of the starting gate, that point clearly isn't nearly so obvious when it comes to Mormons (or Gnostics, for that matter, or Arians or what-have-you). Otherwise we wouldn't have a thread 7 pages long with 50 posts each debating it.
(And Merlin ... you're not to start thinking I'm going soft, understand?! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
what does the trinitiarian baptism mean if the Holy Spirit is no longer a distinct person but changed into an attribute as the "love between the father and son"?
It'd be a problem. Fortunately, it's not. Western theology of the filioque, when spelt out, never actually reduces the Holy Spirit to that. As I said earlier, the fundamental binding pronouncement is the Creed as written in 381, and that proclaims the HS a person in his (her?) own right.
Of course, the filioque runs that risk, and dangerously so, and the Orthodox are quite right to point it out. I find it gratifying that Anglican Churches, one by one, are starting to drop it from their Prayer Book revisions.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The Word created all the universe(s). How is that manifestation of the One God less?
Because he's the first-born of the One God, and not actually the One God, eternal Son of the eternal Father, begotten but not made, co-existing and co-eternal with the Father and Spirit. By definition, however more exalted he is than us in the Mormon cosmos, it's less than what you get in the Trinitarian cosmos.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is there a problem with saying "literal Son of God?" I don't see it. If some Mormons assume carnal sex, they are not all Mormons: that concept is repugnant to many, and it isn't taught as doctrine, but only speculation based on the earlier words of Smith and Young.
My problem isn't the carnal sex (although I don't believe that, either), nor with the word 'literal' as such, but the fact that he is essentially a creation of the Father in the Mormon conception. If he's co-eternal, and co-existing in perichoretic unity with Father and Spirit, then where you see him, you see the innermost being of God. Remove him and make him a creation, and you cannot see that, any more than you can see my core being by looking at my children.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
what does the trinitiarian baptism mean if the Holy Spirit is no longer a distinct person but changed into an attribute as the "love between the father and son"?
It'd be a problem. Fortunately, it's not. Western theology of the filioque, when spelt out, never actually reduces the Holy Spirit to that. As I said earlier, the fundamental binding pronouncement is the Creed as written in 381, and that proclaims the HS a person in his (her?) own right.
Of course, the filioque runs that risk, and dangerously so, and the Orthodox are quite right to point it out. I find it gratifying that Anglican Churches, one by one, are starting to drop it from their Prayer Book revisions.
Not sure who you encompass by "Western theology" since I didn't think the RC were arguing any less about it. The Eastern Catholics under Rome have all decided to drop it, I think, in the process of regaining their liturgy and the Melkites who were particularly affected by acquired Latinisations have made it policy to get rid of whatever is incompatible. When the Uniates were first put under RC rule and the filioque introduced the typical response of the Ukrainians, excuse the transliteration, was to say 'istina' which means "truly" instead of 'i sinna', "and the son".
..perhaps I've missed it here, but what do the Mormons think, others think - male, female or neuter?
Myrrh
[ 23. May 2007, 12:42: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
As I understand it Mormons are essentially Pelagian in their outlook on sin and redemption. Perhaps you should sign up, Myrrh.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
