|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
As I understand it Mormons are essentially Pelagian in their outlook on sin and redemption. Perhaps you should sign up, Myrrh.
Another who thinks I should move.. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) No ta, Pelagius is Orthodox, it's not I who should go..
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Not sure who you encompass by "Western theology" since I didn't think the RC were arguing any less about it.
I didn't say they were arguing any less about it. I said -- or meant to say -- that when you get underneath the language, you won't generally find that solid western theologians are describing the HS as some kind of impersonal 'bond of love' between the Father and the Son; but a proper person. I know the language runs that risk, which is one reason among several that I think it should be dropped. But, when you get right down to it, that's not what we're saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The Eastern Catholics under Rome have all decided to drop it . . .
precisely part of my longer explanation above. these are all people who are under Rome's authority (in some cases from the beginning, i.e., not all Eastern-Rite Churches were at one point Orthodox). Rome does not demand the filioque from all who are under its authority -- and when the Pope celebrates according to the Eastern Rite, he does not use the filioque -- all of which demonstrates that the filioque is not as canonically or morally binding upon Western (or Western-governed) Churches as the universal text of 381.
Naturally, Churches no longer under Rome's purview are free to drop the filioque as and when they please. Most haven't, I suspect, more as a matter of neglect than as a matter of positive thology. Others (including several Anglican provinces, with more on the way) have done so as both a theologically approrpiate gesture, and a sign of ecumenical outreach.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Hmm, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yeah...
quote:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
quote:
I will not cease from Mental Fight
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant Land.
I'm not sure how tongue-in-cheek this post should be considered. Does anyone know how literally that "Jesus went to England" legend was actually believed?
[ 23. May 2007, 15:12: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
Wow. I just had time to read through this entire thread. Thanks everyone for the carefully reasoned and passionate support of the definition of "Christian".
Upon reflection, I am very happy to be a Baptist in a free-standing church that doesn't attempt to draw a circle around the definition, or its membership.
I don't think being "Christian" hasd anything to do with a creed or an intellectual artifact like "belief". It's a way of being not a way of thinking. By that definition, there are plenty who think they're Christians, who are not, and plenty who think they aren't who, in fact, are.
What makes a Christian? IMHO: obedience to the Great Commandment. That is all. So there are probably plenty of Mormons who fall into that category, and plenty who fall outside it. Ditto for every other denomination. One could cast an even wider net than this, but I would not for fear of offending.
LAFF
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
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.
Hmm, where have I heard something like that before? Oh yeah...
quote:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
quote:
I will not cease from Mental Fight
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant Land.
I'm not sure how tongue-in-cheek this post should be considered. Does anyone know how literally that "Jesus went to England" legend was actually believed?
The difference is that Blake was bonkers and I doubt that anyone would elevate him to the status of prophet. That is just how far stretched this whole thing is.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The difference is that Blake was bonkers and I doubt that anyone would elevate him to the status of prophet.
That, and the fact that it was an ironic indictment of English society. 'Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's moutains green?' The correct answer, according to Blake, was 'no'.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The difference is that Blake was bonkers and I doubt that anyone would elevate him to the status of prophet.
That, and the fact that it was an ironic indictment of English society. 'Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's moutains green?' The correct answer, according to Blake, was 'no'.
Then maybe he was bonkers, tradition about Christ coming to Britain with Joseph or Arimathea has even be noted by Augustine of Canterbury in a letter to Gregory I:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Epistolae ad Gregorium Papam Augustine writes to Pope Gregory I;
In the western confines of Britain, there is a certain royal island of large extent, surrounded by water, abounding in all the beauties of nature and necessities of life. In it, the first neophites of Catholic law, God beforehand acquainting them, found a church constructed by no human art, but by the hands of Christ Himself, for the salvation of His people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the Orthodox teaching that St Joseph of Arimathea was Apostle to Britain on Augustine: The most controversial saint
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The difference is that Blake was bonkers and I doubt that anyone would elevate him to the status of prophet.
That, and the fact that it was an ironic indictment of English society. 'Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's moutains green?' The correct answer, according to Blake, was 'no'.
Then maybe he was bonkers, tradition about Christ coming to Britain with Joseph or Arimathea has even be noted by Augustine of Canterbury in a letter to Gregory I:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Epistolae ad Gregorium Papam Augustine writes to Pope Gregory I;
In the western confines of Britain, there is a certain royal island of large extent, surrounded by water, abounding in all the beauties of nature and necessities of life. In it, the first neophites of Catholic law, God beforehand acquainting them, found a church constructed by no human art, but by the hands of Christ Himself, for the salvation of His people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the Orthodox teaching that St Joseph of Arimathea was Apostle to Britain on Augustine: The most controversial saint
Myrrh
Oh for goodness sake. Do you really read this to mean that Christ was laying Bricks in England? This thread just more and more weird!
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
quote:
'Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's moutains green?' The correct answer, according to Blake, was 'no'.
So I am incorrect in my understanding that Blake based the motif of the poem on a once-current bit of English folk history?
quote:
Christ in Britain?
The next stage in the development of the legend was the idea that Joseph of Arimathea was Christ's great-uncle, which would explain why he had been willing to provide his tomb. This may have led to the notion that, as a child, Christ himself had accompanied Joseph to Britain on one of his tin trading expeditions. In the 19th century, the people of Priddy, a tin mining village just north of Glastonbury, had a saying, "As sure as our Lord was in Priddy."
There is also the story of Victorian metalworkers who cast the pipes for church organs. As they poured the molten metal, they would say for luck, "Joseph was in the tin trade." Asked to explain the custom, one foreman explained, "We workers in metal are a very old fraternity, and like other handicrafts we have our traditions amongst us. One of these... is that Joseph of Arimathea, the rich man of the Gospels, made his money in the tin trade with Cornwall. We have also a story that he made voyages to Cornwall in his own ships, and that on one occasion he brought with him the Child Christ and His Mother and landed them at St Michael's Mount."
http://tinyurl.com/2alsod
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Oh for goodness sake. Do you really read this to mean that Christ was laying Bricks in England? This thread just more and more weird!
Well, my point was not that the story was or wasn't true. Just that it might have been something that people did believe.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Not sure who you encompass by "Western theology" since I didn't think the RC were arguing any less about it.
I didn't say they were arguing any less about it. I said -- or meant to say -- that when you get underneath the language, you won't generally find that solid western theologians are describing the HS as some kind of impersonal 'bond of love' between the Father and the Son; but a proper person. I know the language runs that risk, which is one reason among several that I think it should be dropped. But, when you get right down to it, that's not what we're saying."
I'm really not following you here. I meant that the filioque has been used in the West to mean the Holy Spirit is an 'attribute', not that it was impersonal. If this Western theology is Anselm then he expounds Augustine and the Holy Spirit is love, a characteristic/atrribute personified of the love between the Father and Son. Which as it's described makes the Holy Spirit a creation of the Father and Son.
The Filioque Clause in the Teaching of Anselm of Canterbury — Part 1
Sorry, I don't have time to do a search, can you point me to Anglican teaching after the split with Rome?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Myrrh Oh for goodness sake. Do you really read this to mean that Christ was laying Bricks in England? This thread just more and more weird!
K.
Dear Komensky, this is in the history of the Church in Britain, and the church built was wattle and daub, so no bricks.
Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned in the Prologue and the of the 70's list as apostle to Britain and is noted as having died there. He baptised Linus (son of Caractacus) who was the first bishop of Rome. The Church in Britain had close contacts with Rome through marriage of his two sisters and together with Paul, who was connected by marriage to one of the husbands, the British Church was and is still very well known to have been involved in setting up the Gentile Church there, the offspring of these marriages were all martyred. I explored some of the evidence for this not being a weird myth in the thread I posted.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm really not following you here. I meant that the filioque has been used in the West to mean the Holy Spirit is an 'attribute', not that it was impersonal.
an attribute is, by definition, impersonal and derivative. it's been my understanding that this is precisely the Orthodox objection -- that the filioque risks demoting or doing away altogether with the full personhood (hypostasis) status of the HS in the Trinity.
Aquinas trumps Anselm and just pips Augustine at the post in terms of the official RCC stances on who speaks most authoritatively. Aquinas is clear that procession of the HS is not caused by any eternal causality from Christ, but from the Father alone. That, and the status of the Eastern Catholics in Rome, is good enough for me.
I don't have to hand any good Anglican resource on the filioque -- but I can tell you that the dropping of it is a modern development and a result of modern liturgical revision. I expect our thoughts prior were much like Rome's -- although I also expect there wasn't an over-stressful amount of thought given to it.
Shouldn't this be on a thread of its own at this stage, rather than hijacking the Mormon one? (May I suggest, if you want to continue, starting a new one in Purg? Although it might get shifted over to DH ... . Like I said at the outset, we ain't-a gonna solve the filioque on the Ship of Fools!)
-------
as for Jerusalem -- has no one read the second verse? Whatever mythology may exist around Christ's journeys, the second verse is the answer to the first, and it clearly implies that his coming to England hasn't happened yet and Jerusalem ain't here!
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm really not following you here. I meant that the filioque has been used in the West to mean the Holy Spirit is an 'attribute', not that it was impersonal.
an attribute is, by definition, impersonal and derivative. it's been my understanding that this is precisely the Orthodox objection -- that the filioque risks demoting or doing away altogether with the full personhood (hypostasis) status of the HS in the Trinity.
Well yes it does and at the same time by still saying it is a person personifies that attribute, raising the other objection that it becomes a creation, etc.
quote:
Shouldn't this be on a thread of its own at this stage, rather than hijacking the Mormon one? (May I suggest, if you want to continue, starting a new one in Purg? Although it might get shifted over to DH ... . Like I said at the outset, we ain't-a gonna solve the filioque on the Ship of Fools!)
I don't particularly want to discuss the filioque only that it was mentioned here. I am interested to know how the Mormons understand this before we drop it.
Thanks for the information.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
The difference is that Blake was bonkers and I doubt that anyone would elevate him to the status of prophet. That is just how far stretched this whole thing is.
I think the point of a great deal of Blake's poetry is that he thinks that the streets of Clerkenwell are every bit as sacred as the via dolorosa. Hence Jerusalem. I wouldn't assume that he took it literally.
That said, he was a tiny bit bonkers. But you say it like it is a bad thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
The difference is that Blake was bonkers and I doubt that anyone would elevate him to the status of prophet. That is just how far stretched this whole thing is.
I think the point of a great deal of Blake's poetry is that he thinks that the streets of Clerkenwell are every bit as sacred as the via dolorosa. Hence Jerusalem. I wouldn't assume that he took it literally.
That said, he was a tiny bit bonkers. But you say it like it is a bad thing.
Just to clarify, my original question was how literally the legend was believed by the general public, not whether Blake himself believed it. I used the poem simply as a recognizable reference for the legend.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
In the twelfth century, quite a bit as Glastonbury Abbey did rather well out of it. By the eighteenth century, probably not a whole lot. There is no evidence of a Glastonbury legend prior to the ninth century so you are looking at a comparatively short window of opportunity - around four hundred years between the 'discovery' of the graves of Arthur and Guinevere and Henry VIII's judicial murder of the Abbot and the monks in the 1530s.
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There is no evidence of a Glastonbury legend prior to the ninth century so you are looking at a comparatively short window of opportunity - around four hundred years between the 'discovery' of the graves of Arthur and Guinevere and Henry VIII's judicial murder of the Abbot and the monks in the 1530s.
Augustine of Canterbury was aware of it, writing to Gregory 1. So it was known among the 'English' he went to.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Reference, please?
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Reference, please?
It's in the Augustine thread. A letter written by Augustine to Gregory after his arrival.
Also you'll find in the correspondence between them Gregory, who was well on his to establishing papacy in his neck of the woods sending Augustine into Gaul and Britain for that express purpose, telling Augustine that he had burned various documents he found in the library at Rome because the contained 'the heresies' of the British Church. He told Augustine to not count the bishops of the British Church as Christians at all. (Meanwhile in dealings with the other patriarchates he was objecting to the title "universal bishop" and attempting to claim that he was one of the three petrine successions as if "one chair" when he got a letter from Alexandria announcing new patriarch as successor of Peter.)
Anyway, Gregory must have been shocked, I think, to learn that the British Church had this tradition, that Christ Himself had established the Church there, and busied himself with destroying whatever evidence relating to it he found in Rome.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
None of which features heavily in my recollection of Bede.
If there are actual epistles by Gregory I can look them up, either on the web or in libraries. If it is just a matter of asserting stuff that you are pretty sure you remember reading somewhere then I am not inclined to take it terribly seriously.
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
None of which features heavily in my recollection of Bede.
If there are actual epistles by Gregory I can look them up, either on the web or in libraries. If it is just a matter of asserting stuff that you are pretty sure you remember reading somewhere then I am not inclined to take it terribly seriously.
Callan I gave a specific reference to that quote, and yes, go to CCEL which is where I went originally to read this stuff for myself. I don't remember which letters they were in, happy hunting.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
And we covered Bede. His interest was in establishing a history of the Church for the English, as a unifying story. Politics driven.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Since the scope of this thread became that broad, I don;'t think you will mind me making a short comment on this:
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
Aquinas trumps Anselm and just pips Augustine at the post in terms of the official RCC stances on who speaks most authoritatively. Aquinas is clear that procession of the HS is not caused by any eternal causality from Christ, but from the Father alone.
When the council of Ferrara-Florence between Orthodox and Catholics took place, the issue of the filioque and what it meant was discussed extensively and there are written accounts of what transpired at the meetings. So, we do know what the Catholic view was at the time... And the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone as a cause, while being sent from the Father and the Son in creation, was the Orthodox position that was opposed by the Catholics.... Anyway. Besides, that was not the only time in church history the Catholics and the Orthodox discussed on the issue of filioque...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
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) )
I won't bother to rehash all the (now redundant, here) points Komensky brings up. It's all discussed and answered by me in the string of posts preceding his post just ahead of this one by Doc Frog.
I agree, Doc, that "Mormon Christian" must only mean what it implies: a Christian who is a Mormon. And a Christian must be one who professes absolute belief in Jesus Christ as Lord, Redeemer and the God of salvation; and, the only begotten Son of the Father. (In this sense, Mormons are very close to all other Christians; its in the details that follow, that the "devil" comes into it all.)
And, Komensky's assertion that anything can be a "whatsit" Christian, is just absurd: a Muslim, for instance only accepts Jesus as a prophet, not as "the Christ", and certainly no "son of God", because Allah has no children, period.)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
....Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The Word created all the universe(s). How is that manifestation of the One God less?
quote:
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.
But it doesn't make Jesus Christ LESS, just different. If you worship THE One God of all creation, like Jesus of the Bible does, you are just following his example. Since Jesus is THE ONLY Word, ever, in all the eternal existence of the universe, Mormon worship cannot be less, just different than "orthodoxy." I agree, that to claim "we are just the same" isn't true: Hinckley makes that clear when he says he is a Christian, but not like the common understanding of that term.
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.
quote:
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.
But, ALL of creation is a "collection" of manifestations of THE One God of all creation. If God "the Father" manifests as Jesus in mortal flesh, and Jesus is called the only begotten Son of God, then Jesus is God manifesting anthropomorphically, no matter how you look at it or define it with words. The Mormon view says "Jesus Christ is the literal Son of the Father, and a separate Being from the Father." This is demonstable in the NT on several occasions (including Jesus praying, clearly NOT to himself). Mormon theology tries to answer all the scripture: to deduce as much as we can from the scripture and thus eliminate needless mystery. Joseph Smith took this too far, claiming that the Father was once a man: but as I have said, that is NOT church doctrine, and Hinckley himself has refused to comment on it, claiming to not know much about that, and further saying that he does not know anyone who does know much about that.
So the Mormon Godhead is three separate manifestions of THE One God of all creation. It could as easily have been One, or One hundred: but all proceeding from the very same One God. But we have three: the Father, who IS THE One God of all creation; the Son, a manifestation exactly like us, in the sense of having been mortal and human; and, the Holy Spirit, which seems to be the link between the Father and Son with mortal humanity: i.e. communicating constantly with us via our own spirits. Mormons call this communication "the light of Christ, which is in every man."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Wow. I just had time to read through this entire thread. Thanks everyone for the carefully reasoned and passionate support of the definition of "Christian".
Upon reflection, I am very happy to be a Baptist in a free-standing church that doesn't attempt to draw a circle around the definition, or its membership.
I don't think being "Christian" hasd anything to do with a creed or an intellectual artifact like "belief". It's a way of being not a way of thinking. By that definition, there are plenty who think they're Christians, who are not, and plenty who think they aren't who, in fact, are.
What makes a Christian? IMHO: obedience to the Great Commandment. That is all. So there are probably plenty of Mormons who fall into that category, and plenty who fall outside it. Ditto for every other denomination. One could cast an even wider net than this, but I would not for fear of offending.
LAFF
This is the most sensible thing I have read in many days. It closely echos my personal religious perspective. Religion is only effectively good when it furthers the development of what we call a "Christlike" character. Some people don't even need a religion to be like that. Others need a close religious net around them to keep from slipping off the rails and into the abyss.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
.... quote:
Shouldn't this be on a thread of its own at this stage, rather than hijacking the Mormon one? (May I suggest, if you want to continue, starting a new one in Purg? Although it might get shifted over to DH ... . Like I said at the outset, we ain't-a gonna solve the filioque on the Ship of Fools!)
I don't particularly want to discuss the filioque only that it was mentioned here. I am interested to know how the Mormons understand this before we drop it.
Thanks for the information.
Myrrh
In 1835, Joseph Smith produced "The Lectures on Faith." Lecture No. Five, iirc, defines his then-current doctrine on the Godhead. In it, the Father is a Spirit, the Son is a separate Being of Flesh and Spirit; and the Holy Ghost "proceeds" as their combined influence. So, at least in 1835, Mormon theology came the closest to being like the RCC addition to the Creed "and the Son." (filioque)
Today, the doctrine is, that the Holy Ghost is his own person. The Mormon Godhead is three distinct Persons, and only the HG is a Spirit, lacking a physical body: so that he can communicate directly with us, Spirit to spirit. There is speculation (some would say it is hard doctrine) that the HG will get his own body once his "job" is done, i.e. once the earth is changed into the celestical kingdom for those who will live here.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
From Camille Paglia's latest Salon column...
quote:
With his quick humor and easy grace, Mitt Romney emerged in my view as the clear winner of the first Republican debate. Will his Mormonism be the sticking point? A recent caller to Sean Hannity's radio show, hosted that day by WABC's always lively Mark Simone, shockingly denied that Mormons are Christians. The implication was that evangelical Protestantism is absolute truth -- which would also put Roman Catholicism beyond the pale.
So Camille Paglia was "shocked" that someone would deny that Mormons are Christians? Hmm. Guess she hasn't read this thread, or ventured into a Christian bookstore lately.
Also interesting that Paglia thinks drumming out Mormons would logically entail drumming out Catholics as well.
http://tinyurl.com/383qc8
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
Good luck to him. Mormons have just as much right as anybody to the highest office in the land. I think a good deal more highly of McCain; but if Romney wins the nomination, I'll say 'Good. It's about time.'
'Course, I'll actually be voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination ... but that has far more to do with my religion than Mitt Romney's ...
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I do need to be more careful with you. ...
There's progress.
quote:
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.
I've given you that definition, repeatedly. Rather than do it yet again, I'll add my voice to the others here who have suggested that you can find it in the Creeds -- and not as reinterpreted by Mormons, but as understood for centuries by Christians.
My denomination is a branch of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, so no, you're wrong on that one too.
quote:
That is explainable as only the difficulty of our finite minds trying to comprehend eternity.
And that, to me, is one of the fundamental problems with Mormonism: it applies a strictly limited, human viewpoint to matters that are, in their very essence, incomprehensible to humans. Smith's mind was too pedestrian, his appetites too much in control, and his imagination too limited for him to really think this one through.
I don't know what heaven will be like. I'm very certain, however -- based on scripture, tradition and reason -- that it will not contain class divisions, sexual activity, promotions to godhood, or other male-fantasy fodder.
quote:
...The modern church has nothing whatsoever to do with unchristian "outre" doctrines. Name one, please?
Here are five of my favorites, chosen at random:
1) Polytheism
2) Men becoming gods (with harems)
3) A god who relies on human beings to do "baptisms for the dead"
4) Multiple classes of heaven
5) Wives not rising until their husbands choose to raise their veils and say their secret names
None of these are remotely Christian, as the terms has been understood for nearly two millennia.
No, I'm afraid the term "Mormon Christian" is a nonstarter.
quote:
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. ...
You missed the key word there: Mormonism is demonstrably false. I didn't say that any religion is demonstrably true. There's a big difference.
Lots of things in the Bible do have archeological, historical and linguistic evidence to back them up: we know the plants and animals that were there. We've found the sites of cities. We've found mentions of the House of David.
Getting to the NT, archeological excavations have shown that features mentioned in the Gospel of John were exactly as indicated -- and that Gospel is the only evidence for them.
The physical evidence doesn't prove the truth of accounts in the Bible, but it does provide support for them. The Book of Mormon, however, has absolutely nothing in it that's demonstrably true (anything from the pre-migratory stuff Smith could have found in the Bible or popular histories of the time): no archeology, no animals, no linguistics, no DNA, no nothing.
Not, of course, that a single distinctively Mormon doctrine can be found it either, other than the business about Jesus filling up the idle hours by bopping over to the New World....
quote:
...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."
And you need to read your Smith, Young, Smith, McConkie, et al, a little more closely: Mormonism is unalterably opposed to Christianity and Christians. "Abominations," aren't we? Mormonism is indeed against us.
quote:
...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.
We've found two more points of commonality, then!
quote:
"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" ...
I haven't seen anyone address this yet. This is pretty basic Old Testament studies stuff: the early people who became the Jews were surrounded by people who worshipped other gods. They accepted that those other gods existed; they just believed that they were inferior to Yahweh.
Complete adherence to the sole worship of Yahweh was a relatively late development; read all those prophets on the dangers of hanging out with foreigners, who brought their household gods with them. Yahweh got fed up with them on a regular basis.
The acceptance of monotheism took a long time to take completely even among the Israelites; it was a pagan, polytheistic world except for this tiny group of religious oddballs.
Since we (well, most of us) no longer believe in a "plurality of gods," aka polytheism, we take these passages symbolically. They certainly don't represent a mature Jewish theology or any kind of Christian theology.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Orignally posted by MerlintheMad: 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:
I've given you that definition, repeatedly. Rather than do it yet again, I'll add my voice to the others here who have suggested that you can find it in the Creeds -- and not as reinterpreted by Mormons, but as understood for centuries by Christians.
My denomination is a branch of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, so no, you're wrong on that one too.
This isn't very useful. As a couple of new threads in Purg on this very subject illustrate, the divisions within Christianity make it unlikely that your limited definition of "Christian" will be mirrored by a consensus. What is understood for centuries isn't uniting Christianity, which seems to continue to fragment as always since the first schism, and Prot reformation.
.... quote:
I don't know what heaven will be like. I'm very certain, however -- based on scripture, tradition and reason -- that it will not contain class divisions, sexual activity, promotions to godhood, or other male-fantasy fodder.
You keep leaving the women out. It isn't a "male fantasy". Read D&C 132: polyandry is alluded to there, and never addressed by the church leaders (denied, even, because its implications are too controversial). Modern doctrine makes men and women EQUALS in heaven in every respect.
quote:
Here are five of my favorites, chosen at random:
1) Polytheism
2) Men becoming gods (with harems)
3) A god who relies on human beings to do "baptisms for the dead"
4) Multiple classes of heaven
5) Wives not rising until their husbands choose to raise their veils and say their secret names
None of these are remotely Christian, as the terms has been understood for nearly two millennia.
Polytheism is not "outre", it is the most common theology of human history.
Mormons are not polytheists, because implicit in their theology is THE One God of all creation. If you want to put "us" on the same level with God, because the scriptures refer to us as "gods", then you are twisting Mormon doctrine to suit your definition of poytheism. The doctrine does not say we become "Gods" like THE One God of all creation; only that we become joint heirs with Christ and like him in relation to the Father. That isn't enough weirdness to disqualify an entire religion, which worships Christ as the God of Salvation, from being Christian.
"Harems" is unjustified. You are putting Mormon heaven on the same level as Islamic heaven, which is unfair and inaccurate. Mormon men and women are EQUALS in heaven.
Baptisms for the dead is the Mormon explanation for God's equal love for all people. Mormons are the antithesis of Calvinism's selected saved and created damned: baptisms of family members through genealogical research is a charitable work of "saving the dead." But just as in Christianity generally, it is not the priest who blesses the host, but rather God who answers the priest's prayer by blessing it, so too, in Mormon ordinances the doctrine says it is God alone who saves people. Mormons only perform the ordinances, God does the actual salvation.
Again, multiple classes of heaven is NT based; your interpretation is not the only one that many other Christians believe. And, Mormon heaven is far more charitable than the rigid, auster "heaven" of standard Christianity. It is hardly "unChristian!"
You do not understand the temple endowment. There are TWO kinds of veil: the ones worn by women as part of their temple clothing, and the "veil of the temple" which participants pass through into the "celestial kingdom." When a man and woman are married in the temple, the ONLY time the wife is admitted into the celestial kingdom through the "veil of the temple" by her husband is if she has just received her own endowment on that occasion. If she is already an endowed member of the church when they get married, the husband does not learn her "new name", does not stand in the place of the "Lord" to receive her through the "veil of the temple", and in any case, never touches her veil that is part of her temple clothing. (I could be mistaken about already endowed women, who later get married, not being admitted by their husbands through the "veil of the temple": but I don't think I am mistaken.) In any case, how is any of this "non Christian"? None of it has anything to do with denying the efficacy of the atonement of Christ: in fact, it all centers upon and depends upon it.
quote:
No, I'm afraid the term "Mormon Christian" is a nonstarter.
Why? Because of the above reasons? Then your requirements are impossible to meet. (It's a good thing for us all, that you are not God then! "For with God, all things are possible.")
quote:
....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. ...
quote:
You missed the key word there: Mormonism is demonstrably false. I didn't say that any religion is demonstrably true. There's a big difference.
A "big difference?" If Christianity is not demonstrably true, how then, can Mormonism be proven to be demonstrably false? Compared to what?
quote:
Lots of things in the Bible do have archeological, historical and linguistic evidence to back them up: we know the plants and animals that were there. We've found the sites of cities. We've found mentions of the House of David.
Getting to the NT, archeological excavations have shown that features mentioned in the Gospel of John were exactly as indicated -- and that Gospel is the only evidence for them.
The physical evidence doesn't prove the truth of accounts in the Bible, but it does provide support for them. The Book of Mormon, however, has absolutely nothing in it that's demonstrably true (anything from the pre-migratory stuff Smith could have found in the Bible or popular histories of the time): no archeology, no animals, no linguistics, no DNA, no nothing.
Quite true. And the DNA problem alone will prove the Book of Mormon to be no more than Joseph Smith's targumic treatment of the Bible, and popular views of his time and place. But these are not based on "absolutely nothing". The civilizations are there; they date to the correct time frame the Book of Mormon talks about. Hard core believers are still holding out for the miraculous archeological discovery of the specific Book of Mormon people. As you may know, FARMS (the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) can put ingenious spin on the Book of Mormon claims and the archeological findings to make them "fit" together plausibly. But, there is that DNA hurdle; about as high as Everest, imho. Even the Lord himself, in several places in the D&C, speaks literally of the "Lamanite" inhabitants of North America. So, unless the DNA evidence is changed by some miraculous discovery, this will undo the book as having any chance at historicity predating the 19th century (i.e. J. Smith's imagination).
Is it any different with the creation of the OT? I don't think so. For centuries the stories and the Law were passed down to the Hebrew masses by oral tradition. Archeological evidence provides no indication of literacy among them till c. the late 8th century BCE. The "world" of the OT perfectly fits the Levantine world of the 7th century BCE, specifically the reign of king Josiah. So the evidence is that our OT is a Jewish targum of already ancient legendary and mythic tradition. Given time, the Book of Mormon could become just as indistinguishable from literal history as the OT stories are (without archeological examination to ferret out the truth from the religious spin).
The NT is a different case altogether. It does "live" in a known world and has clearly defined geo-political boundaries. The problem isn't the evidence of the historicity of the NT world: it is in the utter lack of a single shred of proven outside evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was anything more than a religious reformer who got killed. The religion grew up, as religions do, surrounding his memory and reputation. He gets zero mention outside the NT, period. There is no more evidence outside of the NT, for Jesus "Christ", than there is for "Zarahemla, Nephites and Lamanites" outside of the Book of Mormon.
quote:
Not, of course, that a single distinctively Mormon doctrine can be found [in] it either, other than the business about Jesus filling up the idle hours by bopping over to the New World....
In the NT or the Book of Mormon? You are unclear to me here.
I'll assume you meant the Book of Mormon. And you are right: there's nothing "distinctively Mormon" about it, which is superbly ironic! It is a targum of the Bible: the stories are biblical, only augmented to be even more amazing and impressive. The heros are biblical in how they behave and speak; but are more clearly delineated (Mormon, the captain, is the only character in all "scripture" who gets a characterization). If you took out all the direct quotes of the Bible, and the clearly borrowed passages, the Book of Mormon would be reduced to less than half size.
quote:
...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:
And you need to read your Smith, Young, Smith, McConkie, et al, a little more closely: Mormonism is unalterably opposed to Christianity and Christians. "Abominations," aren't we? Mormonism is indeed against us.
Nonsense. Nobody in Mormonism is opposed to Christianity outside of Mormonism. Opposed means that you have some antipathy, even antagonism. Mormon doctrine accepts all of God's children as equally loved. (I modify what I said about the Book of Mormon not containing any Mormon doctrines: there is one: the universal love of God for all people without any condtions whatsoever. That's a Mormon fundamental.) Joseph Smith's "quoting" the Lord as saying that all "their creeds are an abomination" refers to their creeds, not the people. And which creeds? Only those which separate them and make enemies of each other; which was the direct evil occurring in Joseph Smith's immediate world, as the sectarians of his day were fighting each other over doctrinal differences and condemning each other to hell. That was what was (and is) abominable.
....
quote:
"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" ...
quote:
I haven't seen anyone address this yet. This is pretty basic Old Testament studies stuff: the early people who became the Jews were surrounded by people who worshipped other gods. They accepted that those other gods existed; they just believed that they were inferior to Yahweh.The acceptance of monotheism took a long time to take completely even among the Israelites; it was a pagan, polytheistic world except for this tiny group of religious oddballs.
Since we (well, most of us) no longer believe in a "plurality of gods," aka polytheism, we take these passages symbolically. They certainly don't represent a mature Jewish theology or any kind of Christian theology.
Oh, symbolism to the rescue, again.
Yet you assign a godhood literalness where Mormons do not. When they talk about becoming "gods", as I have said, it is in conjunction with Christ, as joint heirs of all the Father has. I.e. this universe. Nowhere does the doctrine hint that the "children" of the Father are going to become one like THE One God of all creation. Like the Father that appeared to Joseph Smith? That is not taught even by G. B. Hinckley. In fact, he refuses to be drawn on the subject, claiming to "not know much about that, or know anyone who knows much about that."
You left out the NT quotation by Jesus, of the Davidic Psalm "I said ye are gods". So your entire position that these OT references are outdated (incorrect) doctrines, fails.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
You missed the key word there: Mormonism is demonstrably false. I didn't say that any religion is demonstrably true. There's a big difference.
Precisely.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
quote:
You missed the key word there: Mormonism is demonstrably false. I didn't say that any religion is demonstrably true. There's a big difference.
Precisely.
(That has to be the first time on the Ship, that my post has exactly the same time as someone else's. And on a thread which hadn't been posted to in two days before Ross's post. Weird.)
Anyway, not "precisely." Because it isn't a "big" difference, when Christianity has nadda outside evidence that Jesus Christ even lived, much less was the "Christ." It's as demonstrable as the existence of Joseph Smith, if we had no physical evidence of his having lived, outside of Mormon references to him.
A religion cannot be demonstrably false, if the comparison is to a religion which is not demonstrably true.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
quote:
You missed the key word there: Mormonism is demonstrably false. I didn't say that any religion is demonstrably true. There's a big difference.
Precisely.
(That has to be the first time on the Ship, that my post has exactly the same time as someone else's. And on a thread which hadn't been posted to in two days before Ross's post. Weird.)
Anyway, not "precisely." Because it isn't a "big" difference, when Christianity has nadda outside evidence that Jesus Christ even lived, much less was the "Christ." It's as demonstrable as the existence of Joseph Smith, if we had no physical evidence of his having lived, outside of Mormon references to him.
A religion cannot be demonstrably false, if the comparison is to a religion which is not demonstrably true.
I can prove that 2=2 does not equal 16 (at least in base 10).
I cannot prove that a+b=16. I don't know the values of a and b. We can assume, but not prove.
I cannot prove that 8+b=16. We can figure that b=8 (again assuming base 10), but I would need much more information to prove that.
The Mormon church says some things are true. Those things can be disproved.
The Roman Catholic Church says that some things are true. We can make assumptions about what kind of proof we would need, but we don't have enough information to prove it. Does that mean the Roman Catholic church is based on falsehoods. Maybe. Possibly.
But one cannot compare proving 2+2=16 and 8+b=16, or a+b=16, and say that they are all the same.
Different levels of proof are needed due to what is being asserted.
Just because what one religion says can be proved to be untrue does not mean ALL religions are untrue.
Or that all religions need to be held to the same standard, because they all don't claim the same things.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
Good analogy, pasta.
what that means is that in a religion is demonstrably false you have to deny your own reason, you have to set aside your own intellect and suffer cognitive dissonance in the cause of "faith-affirming history." Merlin, your own story resonates with the difficulty you had with that aspect of the LDS.
In a religion that can not be proven true, but is not demonstrably false, there are areas that need to be taken on faith, but one does not need to set aside reason to do so. One does not have to suffer cognitive dissonance.
IMHO, this is a very important distinction. When you have to live your life by setting aside reason, walling off certain areas where you "just don't think about it", you end up internally biforcated, in ways that have negative results both spiritually and psychologically.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This isn't very useful....What is understood for centuries isn't uniting Christianity, which seems to continue to fragment as always since the first schism, and Prot reformation.
The most exclusionary of Orthodox, the most convinced-of-papal-infallibility Roman Catholics, the most liberal of Anglicans and the most hard-shelled of Baptists have far more in common with each other than with Mormons when it comes to beliefs.
I've given you the basic definition of Christianity, repeatedly, as have others. You may not find it "useful," but that is not really our problem.
quote:
Modern [Mormon]doctrine makes men and women EQUALS in heaven in every respect.
No, it doesn't. We've been over this one repeatedly, too.
quote:
Polytheism is not "outre", it is the most common theology of human history. ...
Please stop taking my words out of context.
Polytheism IS outre in terms of Christianity. And Mormonism IS polytheistic, because you believe in "a plurality of gods." Don't tell me what's "implicit" in Mormon theology; polytheism is explicit therein. I'm not the one doing the "twisting" here.
quote:
"Harems" is unjustified. You are putting Mormon heaven on the same level as Islamic heaven, which is unfair and inaccurate. Mormon men and women are EQUALS in heaven.
No, they're not. That's revisionism on your part.
And you're being unfair to Islam; Muslims would be horrified at the blasphemy of pretending that men can become gods.
I'm not going to go over the other points of unChristian Mormon theology again. Some future Mormon prophet du jour can claim a revelation that they must paint themselves blue and stand on their heads if they like; that is not my concern. My objections will arise if they claim that it is an authentic and necessary expression of Christianity and "NT based."
quote:
Why? Because of the above reasons? Then your requirements are impossible to meet. (It's a good thing for us all, that you are not God then! "For with God, all things are possible.")
Several of us have repeatedly explained why "Mormon Christian" is an oxymoron. It has to do with theology, tradition, scripture and history. Your answers to this and to my other points are complete non sequiturs; frankly, I'm getting tired of going over the same ground over and over and over.
quote:
Is it any different with the creation of the OT? I don't think so. For centuries the stories and the Law were passed down to the Hebrew masses by oral tradition. ...
Once again: the archeological evidence is there. The linguistic evidence is there. The DNA evidence is there. As for the NT, we sure start hearing about Christians very early on. I don't know of any reputable historian who would deny that Jesus existed.
quote:
Nonsense. Nobody in Mormonism is opposed to Christianity outside of Mormonism. Opposed means that you have some antipathy, even antagonism. Mormon doctrine accepts all of God's children as equally loved. ...
I think not.
quote:
... In the History of the Church (vol.7, p.287), Brigham Young even claimed that "Every spirit that confesses that Joseph Smith is a Prophet, that he lived and died a Prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true, is of God, and every spirit that does not is of anti-Christ."
Read all about it here. Christians would seem to be "of anti-Christ," according to Mr. Young.
quote:
Oh, symbolism to the rescue, again.
Yet you assign a godhood literalness where Mormons do not....
You left out the NT quotation by Jesus, of the Davidic Psalm "I said ye are gods". So your entire position that these OT references are outdated (incorrect) doctrines, fails.
Okay, you reject basic OT scholarship where it suits you. Noted. But Jesus, a Jew, should be allowed to quote the Psalmist. Nu?
And every Mormon I've ever encountered except you has absolutely, positively, insistently, bought into the "godhood literalness" bit. Sorry, but I think you're putting your own reading -- not the official SLC version -- into things again.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
Good analogy, pasta.
what that means is that in a religion is demonstrably false you have to deny your own reason, you have to set aside your own intellect and suffer cognitive dissonance in the cause of "faith-affirming history." Merlin, your own story resonates with the difficulty you had with that aspect of the LDS.
In a religion that can not be proven true, but is not demonstrably false, there are areas that need to be taken on faith, but one does not need to set aside reason to do so. One does not have to suffer cognitive dissonance.
IMHO, this is a very important distinction. When you have to live your life by setting aside reason, walling off certain areas where you "just don't think about it", you end up internally biforcated, in ways that have negative results both spiritually and psychologically.
I just don't see general Christendom as significantly different from Mormonism in the "just don't think about it" way. Christians, in order to accept their religion as historically true, must resort to cognitive dissonance too. Because of the utter lack of outside evidence. It seems incredible that a religion of this magnitude cannot be supported by a single scrap of physical evidence outside its own scripture and traditional history.
Mormonism's "sin" is in selective history. The official history only takes you just so far, in just so many directions; then no further. It isn't so much fabrication as denial of the rest as having any validity. So what the church says isn't false, but it is spun to provide a perceived need for "flavor." People today are not as they were in the 19th century during the rise of Mormonism. What then would not bat an eye would go down very poorly with people now: e.g. the large amount of superstitition believed in by Joseph Smith, et al.
The DNA evidence, or rather the lack of it, that undermines the Book of Mormon's claims to be history, is, imho, the only question that is serious enough to completely undo what it purports to be. Because the "language" of it, the way it was "translated", etc., can all be explained sufficiently to allow belief in it. But the DNA issue is insurmountable. Without any "Lamanites": with God himself referring to "Lamanites" as literally the American Indians, we have a problem: a claim which is so far utterly false. If a miraculous "discovery" of Hebrew DNA were made, this would be the escape for believers who also think. Without such a body of indigenous peoples, possessing Hebrew DNA, we are left to spin and spin and spin. "The Nephites and Lamanites were so few that their DNA got erased by the native population through intermarriage." (Never mind, that the Book of Mormon makes such a claim problematic at best, by necessitating the making of many assumptions, and reading them into the text -- between the lines as it were.) I have already heard FARMS, et al., throw that one out there.
But Christianity relies on just as many unprovables that are as equally unlikely as Hebrew Lamanites. Roman records do not support any census taking as the gospel says, or a slaughter of "the innocents". And various geopolitical statements are just not correct. The gospels do not agree on important things. Jesus' own prophecy of his time in the grave does not agree with the stated facts. In short, the religion is chock-full of inconsistencies and contradictory statements.
Christians who deny that Mormons are Christians, because their religion is "demonstrably false", are basing their accusations on the lack of evidence, not on evidence already "found" which disproves Mormonism. A lack of Hebrew DNA does not disprove anything: it just says, "we haven't found any Hebrew Lamanites, yet."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
I just don't see general Christendom as significantly different from Mormonism in the "just don't think about it" way. Christians, in order to accept their religion as historically true, must resort to cognitive dissonance too. Because of the utter lack of outside evidence. It seems incredible that a religion of this magnitude cannot be supported by a single scrap of physical evidence outside its own scripture and traditional history.
You still don't seem to be getting the point. There is a HUGE difference in accepting a belief that is unproveable and/or difficult to grasp (e.g. the Trinity) and accepting a belief that is able to be disproved. One retrains reason but requires a further "leap of faith". The other requires an outright rejection of reason that leads to the kind of biforcation I'm concerned about.
Again, pasta's analogy is apt. To say 8 + a = 20 is unproveable without knowing the value of "a". But it doesn't require one to set aside reason. It is intellectually viable, if unproveable. It's certainly possible. This is akin to Christian truth claims which are unproveable but are intellectually viable.
But to say that 2 + 2 = 20 (at least in base 10) is not viable intellectually. It requires one to put aside everything they know about mathematics and the way the empirical world works. That's crazy-making. And IMHO, that's true of some Mormon truth claims.
quote:
Mormonism's "sin" is in selective history. The official history only takes you just so far, in just so many directions; then no further. It isn't so much fabrication as denial of the rest as having any validity.
Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. And that sort of denial of reality is crazy-making.
Look, some of Christianity's history is 10x as horrific as anything Mormons ever did, even including the not-to-be-spoken of MMM. But at least we have the intellectual cojones to acknowledge it.
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
....
And you're being unfair to Islam; Muslims would be horrified at the blasphemy of pretending that men can become gods.
And you bring up a comparison I did not make. I was talking TO the comparison of multiple wives/women for the men. Islam says they are possessions of men. Mormons say men and women require each other to get to the highest heaven. That is very different, yet you compare Mormon polygamy to "harems." A deliberate analogy that you find disparaging. Muslims would be offended at your attitude, comparing them to Mormons.
....
quote:
Why? Because of the above reasons? Then your requirements are impossible to meet. (It's a good thing for us all, that you are not God then! "For with God, all things are possible.")
quote:
Several of us have repeatedly explained why "Mormon Christian" is an oxymoron.
And all of you can be collectively bigotted and mistaken.
A Christian is one who professes a belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and God, without whom we would all perish forever, etc. Mormons ARE just that sort of Christian. All of your objections based on their refusal to accept YOUR orthodoxy, mean nothing. Mormons are not YOUR BRAND of Christian; but they ARE Christian, "Mormon Christians."
quote:
It has to do with theology, tradition, scripture and history. Your answers to this and to my other points are complete non sequiturs; frankly, I'm getting tired of going over the same ground over and over and over.
You are weary of trying to defend your narrow, bigotted point of view of an entire religious people: who, despite their manifest weaknesses (pride being at the forefront), behave in a Christian manner and profess Christ as the Author of their Salvation. The most you can do is select old quotations from their early leaders to slang them with. When such quotations are not even accepted by Mormons as scripture. You anticipate that such quotations prove something false about the religion: when all they do is prove what fallible human beings the founders of Mormonism were. Sort of like Peter and Paul, if you are going to be fair about this.
quote:
....Once again: the archeological evidence is there. The linguistic evidence is there. The DNA evidence is there. As for the NT, we sure start hearing about Christians very early on. I don't know of any reputable historian who would deny that Jesus existed.
Reputable in this case being at least someone not antagonistic to religion? I am sure that there are plenty of non religious historians of prodigious talent, who scoff at the very idea of Jesus Christ being a real person as the religion understands him. Or even existing at all.
quote:
... In the History of the Church (vol.7, p.287), Brigham Young even claimed that "Every spirit that confesses that Joseph Smith is a Prophet, that he lived and died a Prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true, is of God, and every spirit that does not is of anti-Christ."
quote:
Read all about it here. Christians would seem to be "of anti-Christ," according to Mr. Young.
You continue to respond with non scriptural commentary from the early leaders of the church. There is plenty that they said, in the majority, which is considered scriptural. The church has been making selections of their doctrinal teachings. And this sort of polemic you have quoted has nothing to do with the church today. We don't need such polarized defensive tactics as B. Young, et al., felt compelled to resort to in their climate of anti Mormonism.
You really should cease with the old quotes. They don't address the modern church's teachings, as they are heading, very well at all.
quote:
Oh, symbolism to the rescue, again.
Yet you assign a godhood literalness where Mormons do not....
You left out the NT quotation by Jesus, of the Davidic Psalm "I said ye are gods". So your entire position that these OT references are outdated (incorrect) doctrines, fails.
quote:
Okay, you reject basic OT scholarship where it suits you. Noted.
Noted? Care to be specific? I am not leaving out anything that I am aware of.
quote:
But Jesus, a Jew, should be allowed to quote the Psalmist. Nu?
Side-stepping the fact that HE quoted the bit about us being children of god, and called "gods." Why do you not address that point?
quote:
And every Mormon I've ever encountered except you has absolutely, positively, insistently, bought into the "godhood literalness" bit. Sorry, but I think you're putting your own reading -- not the official SLC version -- into things again.
Ross
I am not putting my own reading on anything. I have quoted the scripture, to show that the Mormon view of us destined to become "gods" is biblical. You don't like their spin on "your" scriptures. But you can't accept that it is possible to believe in Jesus Christ in more ways than plain old orthodoxy.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pastorgirl
Shipmate
# 12294
|
Posted
quote:
And all of you can be collectively bigotted and mistaken.
True. But it's at least a tad ironic for Mormons to call mainline Christians bigotted for not wanting to afix the "Christian" label to Mormonism, when the LDS got it's start by labeling mainline Christianity an "abomination."
Posts: 757 | From: L.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And you bring up a comparison I did not make. I was talking TO the comparison of multiple wives/women for the men. Islam says they are possessions of men. ...
So does Mormonism. Women are absolutely subservient to their husbands, and the Mormon theology of polytheism makes that very clear. I'm sorry you don't care for the word "harem," but I fail to see how it's inaccurate.
quote:
And all of you can be collectively bigotted and mistaken. ... All of your objections based on their refusal to accept YOUR orthodoxy, mean nothing.
And all of your objections to my refusal to accept Mormons as Christians, because I adhere to the term as it has been understood for nearly 2,000 years, mean nothing as well.
No doubt we can be "bigoted [only one 't' there, hon, and my eye keeps tripping over the repeated error] and mistaken," but at least our religion preaches love and forgiveness, and repentance when we err. There's no "blood atonement," all who accept God's grace end up in just one heaven, and all of us acknowledge just one God.
quote:
You are weary of trying to defend your narrow, bigotted point of view ... The most you can do is select old quotations from their early leaders to slang them with. ...You anticipate that such quotations prove something false about the religion: when all they do is prove what fallible human beings the founders of Mormonism were. Sort of like Peter and Paul, if you are going to be fair about this.
It's curious that you're so anxious to distance Mormonism from its founders. I'm afraid it can't be done. And your comparison of Smith and Young to Peter and Paul is as offensive as it is inaccurate.
I think we can be fairly certain that neither Peter nor Paul ever employed sociopathic hitmen and ordered the murders of their enemies; their preaching was quite the opposite. Neither Peter nor Paul ever forced women into concubinage for themselves and their cronies. Neither Peter nor Paul ever pretended that God spoke only to them and them alone. And so on.
Please rethink your statement.
quote:
....I am sure that there are plenty of non religious historians of prodigious talent, who scoff at the very idea of Jesus Christ being a real person as the religion understands him. Or even existing at all.
Give us some citations, then. There are indeed many "non religious historians of prodigious talent," but I'd wager that there are very few reputable specialists in that period who would agree with you.
quote:
...You really should cease with the old quotes. They don't address the modern church's teachings, as they are heading, very well at all.
Isn't that fascinating? What does it tell us about Mormonism's claims? Why do you think the organization would want to shove its real past under the rug?
quote:
...Why do you not address that point?
Okay: You've taken it completely out of context -- as Smith took various obscurities out of context and built outre theologies on them -- in order to support a very dubious point.
Jesus is arguing with the Temple authorities, who find his claim to be the Holy One blasphemous. Jesus therefore cites the Psalmist, speaking of those who have received the Word of God as "gods" simply in terms of the knowledge they've been given. So if they don't have a problem with that, why should they have a problem with Jesus referring to himself as the Son of God? That's all he's doing there.
Context is, as always, (almost) everything.
quote:
...But you can't accept that it is possible to believe in Jesus Christ in more ways than plain old orthodoxy.
Not and call yourself Christian, I'm afraid.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I just don't see general Christendom as significantly different from Mormonism in the "just don't think about it" way. Christians, in order to accept their religion as historically true, must resort to cognitive dissonance too. Because of the utter lack of outside evidence. It seems incredible that a religion of this magnitude cannot be supported by a single scrap of physical evidence outside its own scripture and traditional history.
Any religion is going to have cognitive dissonance.
My point is that each religion, sect, denomination, etc, has it's own claims. Each of those claims have to be proved or disproved on it's merits, or lack thereof.
One cannot, say, prove that St. Serepham of Serov did not exist or was totally bonkers, and then say ALL of Christianity is therefore false. That's just weird.
There are things in Mormonism that have been proved to be false. Instead of either 1) abandoning those beliefs as being untrue or 2) seeing them as allegories, the Mormon church still claims them as truth straight from God.
You seem to not want to do either, but still claim that they are "true".
That sets a cognitive dissonance that I can not live with, and neither can some others.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
quote:
And all of you can be collectively bigotted and mistaken.
True. But it's at least a tad ironic for Mormons to call mainline Christians bigotted for not wanting to afix the "Christian" label to Mormonism, when the LDS got it's start by labeling mainline Christianity an "abomination."
Did you notice my exegisis on that up there a ways? "All their creeds are an abomination", does not mean that the churches-entire are, and certainly not the people in them. The creeds Joseph Smith's messenger were addressing are the kinds which twist scripture and doctrine to push people out, to divide religion against itself: like the sectarian preachers were doing in the 1820's in Joseph Smith's neighborhood.
When have the leaders of the LDS church (the modern church of the 20th century up till now) referred to Christians, or their churches, as "abominations?"
[ 28. May 2007, 02:17: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
More revisionism, Merlin...
If modern Mormons don't consider Christians and our churches "abominations," why do the missionaries make such a point of that particularly ugly bit of Smith's supposed vision?
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:
And you bring up a comparison I did not make. I was talking TO the comparison of multiple wives/women for the men. Islam says they are possessions of men. ...
quote:
So does Mormonism. Women are absolutely subservient to their husbands, and the Mormon theology of polytheism makes that very clear. I'm sorry you don't care for the word "harem," but I fail to see how it's inaccurate.
Bull pucky, Ross. I begin to think you learned your attitudes and understanding of Mormonism from some whacko sectarian breakoff.
"Absolutely subservient" is simply not true, in any degree or nuance. It is OT lingo which makes the woman a helpmeet for the MAN, after all. That isn't a Mormon inovation. Judaic culture was masculine. This continues to be fought by women sufferage today, a battle almost completely won. Mormon women are right there. If men possess them, then they also possess the men. Get with the modern program.
quote:
And all of you can be collectively bigotted and mistaken. ... All of your objections based on their refusal to accept YOUR orthodoxy, mean nothing.
quote:
And all of your objections to my refusal to accept Mormons as Christians, because I adhere to the term as it has been understood for nearly 2,000 years, mean nothing as well.
You've never admitted that you accept the denominations which predate Constantine's theft, as Christians either. The African sects, the Arabic sects, et al. Are Maronites Christians to you? They've never accepted the Roman pontiff as their spiritual leader. Coptics?
These and others predate your Nicene Creed definition of "Christian." They all believe in Christ and the Bible, and most or all of them have scriptures that you do not.
quote:
No doubt we can be "bigoted [only one 't' there, hon, and my eye keeps tripping over the repeated error]...
Thanks for the tip; single and doubled consonants have always been my mainest bane.
quote:
... and mistaken," but at least our religion preaches love and forgiveness, and repentance when we err. There's no "blood atonement," all who accept God's grace end up in just one heaven, and all of us acknowledge just one God.
There is no "blood atonement" in our religion either. Stop quoting a dead man who's words are not all scripture. B. Young's statements are not followed by the church today; and besides, that spin on his doctrine was denied as early as Joseph Fielding Smith's rebuttals against the RLDS while his father was still president of the church.
On "one" heaven:(1 Cor. 15:39,42)
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is in the Bible. Paul is not talking about paganism, because he specifically applies this doctrine to the resurrection of the dead.
And surely you don't actually believe that Mormons practice a religion of no forgiveness and love: No repentance?? The first four principles of the gospel are, faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. We are told to teach nothing except faith and repentance, and "of tenets though shalt not speak."
quote:
You are weary of trying to defend your narrow, bigotted point of view ... The most you can do is select old quotations from their early leaders to slang them with. ...You anticipate that such quotations prove something false about the religion: when all they do is prove what fallible human beings the founders of Mormonism were. Sort of like Peter and Paul, if you are going to be fair about this.
quote:
It's curious that you're so anxious to distance Mormonism from its founders. I'm afraid it can't be done. And your comparison of Smith and Young to Peter and Paul is as offensive as it is inaccurate. I think we can be fairly certain that neither Peter nor Paul ever employed sociopathic hitmen and ordered the murders of their enemies; their preaching was quite the opposite. Neither Peter nor Paul ever forced women into concubinage for themselves and their cronies. Neither Peter nor Paul ever pretended that God spoke only to them and them alone. And so on.
Please rethink your statement.
Oh really. So, Peter wasn't carrying out "blood atonement" on Ananias and Sapphira? Paul and Peter didn't fight like cats and dogs over the gentile converts not having to become Jews?
As plurality of wives was a "secret" practice among the spiritual "elite", it is likely that nothing of the sort would appear in the limited NT writings. A lot of hints from appocryphal writings hint at various esoteric early Christian practices, which seem similar to Mormon doctrines.
And Joseph Smith had this to say about Priesthood holders and revelation:
"...one great privilege of of the Priesthood is to obtain revelations of the mind and will of God." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 111)
So your assertion, that Smith and Young claimed that God spoke only to them, is false. The apostles are ordained "prophets, seers and revelators."
quote:
....I am sure that there are plenty of non religious historians of prodigious talent, who scoff at the very idea of Jesus Christ being a real person as the religion understands him. Or even existing at all.
quote:
Give us some citations, then. There are indeed many "non religious historians of prodigious talent," but I'd wager that there are very few reputable specialists in that period who would agree with you.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Here's a page taken at random. Are you saying that NONE of this old Webpage's sources is a reputable religious and historical scholar?
quote:
...You really should cease with the old quotes. They don't address the modern church's teachings, as they are heading, very well at all.
quote:
Isn't that fascinating? What does it tell us about Mormonism's claims? Why do you think the organization would want to shove its real past under the rug?
Oh, for the same reasons the NT writer makes out Ananias' and Sapphira's (obviously well-known) murder to be an act of God, rather than a "hit".
For the same reasons that any religion winds up telling its own history in preference an outsider doing the job.
And this has nothing to do with the issue at all: you seem to think that your own denomination's outrages can mean nothing, yet Mormon history condemns it.
quote:
...Why do you not address that point?
quote:
Okay: You've taken it completely out of context -- as Smith took various obscurities out of context and built outre theologies on them -- in order to support a very dubious point.
Jesus is arguing with the Temple authorities, who find his claim to be the Holy One blasphemous. Jesus therefore cites the Psalmist, speaking of those who have received the Word of God as "gods" simply in terms of the knowledge they've been given. So if they don't have a problem with that, why should they have a problem with Jesus referring to himself as the Son of God? That's all he's doing there....
And that's ALL?! Here is this Rabbi claiming to be the "Son" of Jehovah. An impossibility if there is no justification in citing the Pslamist for a legit claim. Why bring up a bogus meaning of the scripture if it doesn't prove Jesus' point?
quote:
...But you can't accept that it is possible to believe in Jesus Christ in more ways than plain old orthodoxy.
quote:
Not and call yourself Christian, I'm afraid.
Ross
And I repeat, what about all the venerable Christian denominations and sects which predate the Nicene Creed? There are beaucoup Prots who still think the RCC are not legit Christians. How, I wonder, do they justify their "branch" of Christianity being healthy, if it came from a corrupt "tree?"
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I have a question or rather several related questions, Merlin.
Do women have any standing in making decisions in the CoJCotLDS at any level from their ward on up? Do they ever preach? Are they ever put into any position in teaching or committee work over adult men ie those who have reached the level of priest or above? Are decisions congregational in any way and do women vote? From the outside it looks like men are in charge all the church decisions and women are in charge of having the babies. But you seem to indicate that the LDS have moved along with society somewhat.
I promise not to jump up and down on you for (to me) an unsatisfactory answer that isn't your responsibility. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Btw if you don't get to this until later Monday, I'll be away from computers for a few days, so don't think I'm ignoring you. Vacation! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I have a question or rather several related questions, Merlin.
Do women have any standing in making decisions in the CoJCotLDS at any level from their ward on up? Do they ever preach? Are they ever put into any position in teaching or committee work over adult men ie those who have reached the level of priest or above? Are decisions congregational in any way and do women vote? From the outside it looks like men are in charge all the church decisions and women are in charge of having the babies. But you seem to indicate that the LDS have moved along with society somewhat.
I promise not to jump up and down on you for (to me) an unsatisfactory answer that isn't your responsibility.
Btw if you don't get to this until later Monday, I'll be away from computers for a few days, so don't think I'm ignoring you. Vacation!
I'm "here", for the moment. I will reply before heading off to beddyby.
Women preach all the time at all levels of our church meetings. I would say that they get equal time before our congregations, except in stake and general conferences, where they seem to be about one-third of the assigned speakers. That's because there are more male leadership positions than female ones.
Women do not "hold" the priesthood. Men do, if they are worthy. (Oh that word.) This means, they are living their religion's commandments. Also, Joseph Smith clearly said that the priesthood was not some title to become overbearing or a dictator. No work in the gospel is ever accomplished by having that sort of attitude.
Women do not hold positions of leadership over men at any level in the church. But, this is church structure, hierarchy, and has nothing to do with the status of women in Mormon society. Mormon women have all the rights and privileges as individuals that men do. And, they can "vote" to sustain or not sustain any leader who is being passed on in congregation. In the early days, this was a dynamic privilege of all members. But the modern church rarely sees a dissenting "vote" when someone is being presented for a sustaining by the congregation.
In this male priesthood leadership structure, the Mormon church is hardly unique, as Judeo-Christianity is still largely a male dominated leadership/clergy religion. Of course, this has been changing for a number of years now. And, I suspect that Mormons will be the last to change (if they ever do at all) on the issue of a female "clergy."
But it is interesting to note, that Mormon women had "the vote" in and out of church long before women in the USA got "the vote" through sufferage.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Thanks for the reply. Don't take the following spleen personally. It's for any churches that claim equality for women but only by their own restrictive definitions.
LDS seem to be a little less restrictive of women than some. But not much.
quote:
Women do not hold positions of leadership over men at any level in the church. But, this is church structure, hierarchy, and has nothing to do with the status of women in Mormon society. Mormon women have all the rights and privileges as individuals that men do.
Yeah, yeah, women are totally equal to men except in all the ways they aren't. "Yes, sweetheart, you are equal; there is just a bunch of stuff you don't have a hope in hell of ever doing. But see, I can't be an astronaut because of my color blindness (and lack of math, science, and flight training). And I can't be a mother, either. Does that make me not equal? Of course not. So don't worry your pretty little head about it." A familiar tune among Western religions when they are embarrassingly behind the curve in egalitarianism. Well, at least your women don't have to keep silence in assembly. That's to their credit.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Merlin, I really can't understand why you keep going on about Peter supposedly "carrying out blood atonement" on Ananias and Sapphira. We've had this discussion like, three times before? He never laid a hand on them. Nobody ELSE ever laid a hand on them. The most he did was to pronounce God's judgement on them VERBALLY, which (if he had done it in error, or out of pride, or for some other stupid reason) would have had zip-all effect. As we see daily in the streets when one motorist yells at another, and yet nobody gets fried.
What is going on with your reasoning here?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
