|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mormon Meets Christian: The Reckoning
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
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.
....
Well, at least your women don't have to keep silence in assembly. That's to their credit.
I hear and agree. Mormonism is founded on an "inherited" tradtion of Judeo-Christian attitude, illustrated by Paul's injunction that women should cover their heads and remain silent in church, etc.
This tradition manifests in many denominations more or less. The cutting-edge of change allows women to be exactly alike with men in EVERYTHING except gender differences. Men do not have children, that's about it for acceptable differences. Mentally, spiritually, physically, there is no reason why women should not occupy pastoral roles alongside men in any religion. The only reason why this is not so, is because we are still seeing the vestiges (alive and well) of ancient Judeo-Christian male dominence.
We can debate how and why this overarching tradition got started in the first place, and why it is almost a universal phenomenon. But my take on it is, that the ancient world was simply too dangerous for women to compete in physically; it WAS a physical world of many dangers. Bearing children was sufficiently dangerous to equal ALL the other dangers men put up with personally in order to provide for and protect their women and children. Women, being protected, naturally gave up the decisive roles in meeting the dangers. Men, compelled to make those decisions, wound up defacto the leaders and decision makers and kept at it as civilization evolved. Without blatant, more or less constant dangers -- that only men can meet in all practicality -- women and men become equal in most things. Yet the traditional dependence on men is seen hanging on in the religious traditions, which more or less (dogmatically) pronounce men superior to women in the male God's eyes (Eve was weak first, and corrupted Adam, after all, and not the other way around): i.e. it is God's will, that women submit to men in everything. Of course, the enlightenment says that men and women are equal in God's eyes: that men should never rule rough-shod over their wives, but love them as they love their own bodies, as Christ loves the church.
But there is no hint (in "holy writ") that women are to become AS men in everything. Nevertheless, this is the trend today. I say, fine and dandy. Until the world gets too dangerous for women again, and men have to stand in for the really dangerous, physically inconceivable stuff that they can do and most women can't. Hopefully, that will never happen again.
I like the world getting better, more paradisical: that kind of world has no place even for the dangers of child birth. One day, men and women will really be alike, in everything except the gorgeous differences in gender that we both admire in each other.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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?
I am simply making a facile comparison to the accusation Mormons get of concocting their own history.
Do you really believe that God zapped the pair of them, because of something Peter said? If so, then there is no reason to accuse the Mormons of being weird, because they claim all sorts of miraculous manifestations of God's power within the church.
I don't believe Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by God's power. They were most likely rubbed out by some fanatical religious perp; and the deed was covered up by a glossing over in the written account. Just like Ross accuses the Mormons in Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's church of carrying out their "blood atonement" orders, their assassinations, etc., the early Christian church had its perps.
I think that Ross has it wrong, in making much of extremely rare occurrances in early Mormon history: and I feel like reminding her of this unfairness, by resorting to a 2,000 year old example of essentially the very same attitude in the primitive Christian church, that she deplores in the Mormon church. Fair is fair. That's my motivation.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
perp
y'know, there really are too many CSI and Law & Order series these days! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I am simply making a facile comparison to the accusation Mormons get of concocting their own history.
Do you really believe that God zapped the pair of them, because of something Peter said? If so, then there is no reason to accuse the Mormons of being weird, because they claim all sorts of miraculous manifestations of God's power within the church.
I don't believe Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by God's power. They were most likely rubbed out by some fanatical religious perp; and the deed was covered up by a glossing over in the written account. Just like Ross accuses the Mormons in Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's church of carrying out their "blood atonement" orders, their assassinations, etc., the early Christian church had its perps.
I think that Ross has it wrong, in making much of extremely rare occurrances in early Mormon history: and I feel like reminding her of this unfairness, by resorting to a 2,000 year old example of essentially the very same attitude in the primitive Christian church, that she deplores in the Mormon church. Fair is fair. That's my motivation.
Hello, hello, hello, what have we here?
1. I don't see why making a "facile" (your own word!) comparison is somehow an example of "fair is fair." If "That's my motivation," well... never mind. This is Purg.
2. I'm NOT ROSSWEISSE. My name is Lamb Chopped. It should be easy to remember, it's on everything I post. Why can't you answer ME, instead of taking shots at her? I was the one who posted what you answered.
3. I really don't care whether you think it happened the way the book of Acts reported. I DO think that you're pulling your assumptions about what happened out of totally thin air. If you want to do so, that's your privilege. But I can't see why an ungrounded attack on something you IMAGINE might have happened, without any evidence that your belief is in fact correct, is somehow evening the playing field.
4. Merlin my dear, if there wasn't a hell thread with your name on it already, there would be now. Not for your attacks on the Bible/Christianity/ subject of your choice, but for the grand offense you give to rhetoric. I shall now retire to hell.
[ 28. May 2007, 17:32: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
....Hello, hello, hello, what have we here?
1. I don't see why making a "facile" (your own word!) comparison is somehow an example of "fair is fair." If "That's my motivation," well... never mind. This is Purg.
2. I'm NOT ROSSWEISSE. My name is Lamb Chopped. It should be easy to remember, it's on everything I post. Why can't you answer ME, instead of taking shots at her? I was the one who posted what you answered.
3. I really don't care whether you think it happened the way the book of Acts reported. I DO think that you're pulling your assumptions about what happened out of totally thin air. If you want to do so, that's your privilege. But I can't see why an ungrounded attack on something you IMAGINE might have happened, without any evidence that your belief is in fact correct, is somehow evening the playing field.
4. Merlin my dear, if there wasn't a hell thread with your name on it already, there would be now. Not for your attacks on the Bible/Christianity/ subject of your choice, but for the grand offense you give to rhetoric. I shall now retire to hell.
1. Facile, as in easy and convenient, not superficial.
2. Not Ross!, well dog my cats, I was throwing the comparison at her without any consideration of previous reference to it with you. What exactly do you find repugnant about my comparison anyway?
3. My assumption isn't pulled out of totally thin air, when Ross, et al, say that Mormon perps are serial killers, hitmen, etc. for "the prophet". Because I read Acts and see a double murder, a man and his wife, killed for a minor infraction involving money promised to a religious sect of Judaism. It smacks EXACTLY of the scenario where B. Young makes some alleged pronouncement against an apostate trying to leave the territory, and said-apostate then disappears "mysteriously." The official Mormon history denies that anything criminal happened, and has an official version, which may (or likely will not) invlove claims of God's intervention in the affair. The point is, if Mormonism has its dark moments and characters, so too does early Christianity. That is, if both religions are founded and run by fallible men.
The evidence after 2,000 years is totally lacking. The Mormon history is fresh, almost living, memory. So Mormons get this unfair comparison to a cleaned-up Christianity: and the comparison to an ancient reality, which can only be gleaned from a cleaned-up scriptural history, is not made by anyone (so far here) but me.
4. I detest rhetoric, so couldn't care less. Logic, now, and reason and evidence, I do care a great deal about those.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Bull pucky, Ross. ...Get with the modern program.
Sorry, Merle. Blaming the OT won't cut it for appalling theology like (for example) the whole veil-lifting thing.
McDonald's may try to present itself as a company that's concerned about its customers' health, but they're still making their money by selling grotesquely unhealthy stuff. Modern Mormonism may now let women do a few things besides have babies and make Jell-O salads, but the men are still absolutely in charge. That's the fact.
quote:
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?...
I beg your pardon? "Never admitted" it? You've never mentioned it. Frankly, this one's over the edge in terms of your assumptions: Of course they're Christians. (If I'm not mistaken, they're now affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church for administrative purposes, but not bound by all the RCC's doctrines.) I'm not sure why you'd even ask. (And I don't accept the Roman pontiff as anything other than primus inter pares, either.)
A few Protestant denominations may claim that Roman Catholics aren't Christian; they're wrong.
How much do you know about Christianity?
quote:
There is no "blood atonement" in our religion either....
Sure there is. I trust you would consider 1984 "modern." Additionally, more recently, Mr. Hofmann senior -- a good non-fundamentalist Mormon with a Temple recommend -- reportedly told his boy the bomber that he needed to suffer blood atonement for his sins. (Mr. Hofmann junior declined.)
quote:
It is in the Bible. Paul is not talking about paganism, because he specifically applies this doctrine to the resurrection of the dead.
Nope. I'm afraid not. He's not talking about "paganism," but of a Classical world view. We went through this already.
quote:
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?
Nope, as LC has demonstrated. We went through that already, too.
And Peter and Paul didn't send out assassins to murder one another. Yes, they argued -- but no blood was shed, and Peter came around to Paul's point of view. Again, how much do you know about Christianity?
quote:
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.
What ARE you talking about? Polygamy was long gone from Judaism (along with polytheism, as it happens) by Roman times. There were no "secret" practices of the sort; that one would have been considered an abomination.
Where are you getting this information? Please give your sources. (Let me guess....one of Smith or Young's or Smith's lechery-fueled "revelations"?) Remember, "A bishop should be the husband of one wife," as in "only one wife," as in "monogamy."
And do you really think that if some 12-year-old "priesthood holder" had challenged Smith or Young with a "revelation," that he would have been taken seriously? Do you think that anyone who challenged a "prophet" would be taken seriously? Nahh, their "revelations" are just in regard to telling their wives and children what to do.
quote:
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?
Oh, I read it on the Internet, so it must be true!
Who's Jim Walker? What are his credentials? He seems to be an atheist who has sorted through some things to pick and choose squiblets that seem to support his thesis, but they really don't.
No, we don't know who wrote the Gospels, and some of the epistles attributed to Paul are almost certainly by other hands. That doesn't mean Jesus never lived. Mr. Walker hasn't found any reputable scholars who say that. Elaine Pagels and John Shelby Spong question a lot of things (frequently while on a hunt for headlines and book sales), but not the existence of Jesus.
quote:
...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.
I don't know of any Christian denominations that have been allowed to "tell their own history" without input -- sometimes vitriolic -- from their critics. I don't know of any Christian denomination that frantically tries to control history and reinvent itself on a regular basis.
Christians aren't perfect. Human beings do bad things, and sometimes they claim they're doing them in the name of God. However, if you'll tell me which of my "own denomination's outrages" you have in mind, perhaps I can address them.
quote:
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? ...
First of all, there's no such critter as "Jehovah." That name is a corruption of YHWH ("Yahweh"). I'm not sure what else you're trying to say here.
quote:
...How, I wonder, do they justify their "branch" of Christianity being healthy, if it came from a corrupt "tree?"
It's too bad that all Christians can't agree on all things. On the other hand, we know that all Mormons haven't agreed on all things, given all the breakaway Mormon sects that have proliferated in the relatively short time since Smith announced himself as a prophet.
And then how can you justify Mormonism given the corruption of its "tree's" roots? You hate it when I bring up history (and for good reason), but you know them by their roots as well as their fruits -- and Mormonism's roots are pretty corrupt.
And now I have to leave this discussion for a while -- I have a serious family crisis going on, and I don't have the time or energy for debate just now. (See the prayer thread if you're interested.) See you later.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...Judeo-Christian attitude, illustrated by Paul's injunction that women should cover their heads and remain silent in church, etc. ...
One Last Post: Actually, that bit about being silent appears in different places in different early manuscripts. Additionally, it's spang in the middle of a section in which Paul is strongly praising women who very clearly do NOT remain silent in church.
The conclusion, as you will have recognized, is that it is almost certainly an interpolation by a later editor.
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:
Bull pucky, Ross. ...Get with the modern program.
quote:
Sorry, Merle. Blaming the OT won't cut it for appalling theology like (for example) the whole veil-lifting thing.
OT, includes the Ten Commandments, you know, part of THAT Law that Jesus said he had come to "fulfil" but not do away with. Something that "gentile" Christians gloss over for over 2,000 years now. Looks to me, like Judeo-Christianity should be insisting that wives not following their husbands is rank rebellion and apostasy.
quote:
....Modern Mormonism may now let women do a few things besides have babies and make Jell-O salads, but the men are still absolutely in charge. That's the fact.
A few things. Right. Like voting before American women could. Like owning property outright as the head of any household. Like having exactly the same rights as individuals in society as men. The ONLY thing they can't do is hold priesthood leadership positions within the church org. Non Mormons in the same community have exactly the same rights as Mormons. The only difference is that they are not part of the org. Family life and community status have nothing directly to do with the church org: it holds no POWER over anyone.
quote:
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?...
quote:
I beg your pardon? "Never admitted" it? You've never mentioned it. Frankly, this one's over the edge in terms of your assumptions: Of course they're Christians. (If I'm not mistaken, they're now affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church for administrative purposes, but not bound by all the RCC's doctrines.) I'm not sure why you'd even ask. (And I don't accept the Roman pontiff as anything other than primus inter pares, either.)
Sorry. I got too oblique it seems. When you make such dogmatic claims prohibiting Mormons from being recognized as ANY sort of Christian, I make references to the earlier denominations of Christianity which have never been part of the RCC. I never heard you say that they are not Christians, which seems like a double standard to me. And you are saying that they ARE Christians. I want to know why. Since their doctrines and scriptures and org do not descend from nor partake of the Roman persuasion (from which your denomination derives as part of Protestantism.
And no, afaik, most or all of these eastern Christian denominations do not acknowledge any authority of the Roman pontiff over their affairs.
quote:
A few Protestant denominations may claim that Roman Catholics aren't Christian; they're wrong.
I agree. Logically that is impossible, for an offshoot to claim that the "tree" isn't authentic. But that's the whole original schtick with Protestant sects: they originally broke away because the RCC was the antiChrist. When did this change? And if so, why do the Prots continue to remain aloof? If the RCC has gained favor, then why remain apart at all?
quote:
How much do you know about Christianity?
Some. A lot of people I know say I know a lot. I don't think I know that much.
quote:
There is no "blood atonement" in our religion either....
quote:
Sure there is. I trust you would consider 1984 "modern." Additionally, more recently, Mr. Hofmann senior -- a good non-fundamentalist Mormon with a Temple recommend -- reportedly told his boy the bomber that he needed to suffer blood atonement for his sins. (Mr. Hofmann junior declined.)
For heavensakes. Any MEMBER can say or believe whatever s/he chooses. That doesn't make it doctrine. And the Laffertys are FLDS types, not LDS.
I have in front of me a little book called "Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage." It is authored by "Elder Joseph F. Smith Jr" (better known as Joseph Fielding Smith), son of then-president of the LDS church, Joseph F. Smith, and future president of the LDS church. The publishing date is 1905. The booklet is a reprint of a newspaper exchange between Smith and a Mr. R. C. Evans, then-second counselor in the presidency of the RLDS church. Evans accused the LDS church of having practiced (and still believing in) Blood Atonement: "This doctrine was introduced by Brigham Young", and that it meant "death to anyone who left the Church .... that the apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear .... saved his soul."
To which Smith replied: "Why you made this statement you best know; but were you not aware that it was but the repetition of the ravings of enemies of the Church, without one grain of truth? Did you not know that not a single individual was ever 'blood atoned', as you are pleased to call it, for apostasy or any other cause? Were you not aware, in repeating this false charge, that it was made by the most bitter enemies of the Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you know anyone whose blood was ever shed by the command of the Church, or members thereof, to 'save his soul?'"...."The Latter-day Saints believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ. They believe that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel they obtain a remission of sins; but this could not be if Christ had not died for them. If you did believe in blood atonement, I might ask you why the blood of Christ was shed? and in whose stead was it shed? I might ask you to explain the words of Paul: 'Without shedding of blood is no remission."...."Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon? And is not this further reason why you should discard the Book as well as the name? Is it not safe for us to rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of this kind?"
Smith then quotes from 2 Nephi 9:35, Alma 1:13,14, and Alma 42:19. Then from the Bible: Genesis 9:12,13; Luke 11:50 Hebrews 9:22; and Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 John 3:15 and 5:16. Then from the Doctrine and Covenants, 87:7; 101:80; 42:18,19,79. He shows that capital punishment is the law of the State of Utah for murder: "this law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death. This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the 'Mormon' legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing 'blood atonement' on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God."
A rebuttal by Evans followed, in which he quoted copiously from B. Young, et al, on "blood atonement". In Smith's rebuttals to those quotations, he showed how Evans had taken them out of context, and disproved all his accusations and "evidence". Smith reiterated exactly what "blood atonement" is in church doctrine:
"Unadulterated if you please, laying aside pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made. It is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. This salvation is two-fold: General, -- that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief in Christ -- and Individual, -- that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. But man can commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone -- so far as in his power lies -- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under circumstances will not avail."
quote:
It is in the Bible. Paul is not talking about paganism, because he specifically applies this doctrine to the resurrection of the dead.
quote:
Nope. I'm afraid not. He's not talking about "paganism," but of a Classical world view. We went through this already.
And just what in heck is "a Classical world view", if not PAGAN? If Paul sums up with "so also is the resurrection of the dead", etc. He is NOT talking about an incorrect "classical world view."
quote:
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?
quote:
Nope, as LC has demonstrated. We went through that already, too.
To what purpose? So that you can side-step the evidence that early Christianity is a lot like your denigrating view of Mormonism? I give biblical quotations of its doctrines, of its history; show that they are very alike, and you only say, "we went through that already."
quote:
And Peter and Paul didn't send out assassins to murder one another. Yes, they argued -- but no blood was shed, and Peter came around to Paul's point of view. Again, how much do you know about Christianity?
Enough to know that Mormonism a lot more LIKE than different from "it." Mormonism resembles early Christianity in ways that "orthodoxy" has drifted far from. The Ananias and Sapphira deaths sure look like what you accuse Smith and Young of doing. But in fact, Utah was never a "field of blood" as Mr Evans (and you) accuse the church of perpetrating (I am associating you with the links you've provided before). I cannot come up with a single example in Mormon history to compare to the face to face deaths of Ananias and his wife. Can you? Oh yeah, the links to spurious rumors, STILL continued today by people who believe the enemies of the church over its own peoples' testimonies.
Look, there were enemies, apostates and non Mormons, living in Utah territory the entire time that Mormons "in good standing" were. They did not disappear mysteriously; they were not "blood atoned" or assassinated. You are duped by lies to keep making the same unfounded accusations.
quote:
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.
quote:
What ARE you talking about? Polygamy was long gone from Judaism (along with polytheism, as it happens) by Roman times. There were no "secret" practices of the sort; that one would have been considered an abomination.
Similar rites to those of the Mormon temple, prayer circles, etc., are shown in the various apocryphal writings of the early Christian period. Polygamy would not have been admitted openly. I am not saying that it was a legit Christian doctrine; but I feel safe in claiming (without going to look this up) that some sectaries practiced it, and a lot of other "non Christian" stuff besides. If the Cathars of Southern France went for that sort stuff, you can bet that earlier Christians did at least as much.
quote:
Where are you getting this information? Please give your sources. (Let me guess....one of Smith or Young's or Smith's lechery-fueled "revelations"?) Remember, "A bishop should be the husband of one wife," as in "only one wife," as in "monogamy."
True, and openly Smith denied anything like plurality of wives. To the end, he lied and claimed that he has always taught that a man should have only one wife.
After I get off here, I will go look for some sources for early Christianity's "oddball" practices.
quote:
And do you really think that if some 12-year-old "priesthood holder" had challenged Smith or Young with a "revelation," that he would have been taken seriously? Do you think that anyone who challenged a "prophet" would be taken seriously? Nahh, their "revelations" are just in regard to telling their wives and children what to do.
Do you think that Stephen had authority to tell Peter what to do? Was Stephen any less gifted with revelation?
quote:
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:
Oh, I read it on the Internet, so it must be true!
Who's Jim Walker? What are his credentials? He seems to be an atheist who has sorted through some things to pick and choose squiblets that seem to support his thesis, but they really don't.
I wasn't referring to the author of the Webpage; but to his source material. Entire books authored by others. I asked if there are not any reputable scholars in that rather lengthy list of books.
quote:
No, we don't know who wrote the Gospels, and some of the epistles attributed to Paul are almost certainly by other hands. That doesn't mean Jesus never lived.
You're starting to preach to the choir now. I am NOT one of those who says Jesus never lived at all. I believe that the later religious claims surrounding the growth of the religion are fabricated and exaggerated. But Jesus lived. Exactly what he was is and will always remain arguable. But other scholars can give reasons why they even doubt his existence at all.
quote:
Mr. Walker hasn't found any reputable scholars who say that. Elaine Pagels and John Shelby Spong question a lot of things (frequently while on a hunt for headlines and book sales), but not the existence of Jesus.
Fair enough. I am not interested enough in providing a reputable scholar, even one, to show that there are "plenty" of them who doubt Jesus' very existence. We can drop this.
quote:
...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:
I don't know of any Christian denominations that have been allowed to "tell their own history" without input -- sometimes vitriolic -- from their critics. I don't know of any Christian denomination that frantically tries to control history and reinvent itself on a regular basis.
Just the lot, imho. But you and I are contributing, in some small way, to the "writing" of Mormon history. The critics have been breathing down Mormonism's neck from the getgo. The first anti-Mormon book, complete with affidavits of witnesses, was published two years after the LDS church was legally organized. There hasn't been a letup since. That doesn't stop any religion from continuing to issue its own "faith promoting" version of history. Christianity at large does this constantly.
Look at any Muslim flack over the crusades: if it means admitting that "we" were wrong, and had no justification in responding to their jihad through crusade, i.e. admitting that "Christianity" is wrong, ergo, Islam is right, then watch and see how Christian historians will fight to keep from admitting that. It's because such an admission isn't justified by the whole historical picture. Extremists on both sides will paint the other religion black, through a slanted version of history. It's just part of being a human religious bigot.
quote:
Christians aren't perfect. Human beings do bad things, and sometimes they claim they're doing them in the name of God. However, if you'll tell me which of my "own denomination's outrages" you have in mind, perhaps I can address them.
I am reading at this time, a book on the period 1389 to 1699: the crux of which is all about the rise of Protestantism in England. The entire "mess" is so steeped in politics and intrigue and factionalism as to render religion, "English style", thoroughly unreliable, if one is seeking genuine oracles. I don't care. People do the best they can with what they are given. Mormons are no different: no better (despite their fundamentalist claims otherwise), and certainly no worse. That is the only point I was making to you, by referring to what your religious history is like.
quote:
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 Psalmist for a legit claim. Why bring up a bogus meaning of the scripture if it doesn't prove Jesus' point? ...
quote:
First of all, there's no such critter as "Jehovah." That name is a corruption of YHWH ("Yahweh"). I'm not sure what else you're trying to say here.
Why did I know that if I let "Jehovah" stand, that that's all you would notice? I was tempted to go with YHWH, but live and learn.
You don't get it? Jesus quotes David, his progenitor, saying we are gods and children of the Most High: in order to justify his use of "Son of God". If the Psalm was incorrect doctrine, then Jesus would not have resorted to it as a direct justification of his assumed title.
quote:
...How, I wonder, do they justify their "branch" of Christianity being healthy, if it came from a corrupt "tree?"
quote:
It's too bad that all Christians can't agree on all things. On the other hand, we know that all Mormons haven't agreed on all things, given all the breakaway Mormon sects that have proliferated in the relatively short time since Smith announced himself as a prophet.
You really think that primitive Christianity had not broken up into literally hundreds if not thousands of sects after nearly 200 years?
quote:
And then how can you justify Mormonism given the corruption of its "tree's" roots? You hate it when I bring up history (and for good reason), but you know them by their roots as well as their fruits -- and Mormonism's roots are pretty corrupt.
I don't hate it when you bring up history. I take exception to your bringing up what I know to be enemy-originated "history."
I don't justify anything. To me, ALL religions are exactly alike together: corrupt, fallible, manmade, and wonderful. Why do so many people (I was there, once) think that their "brand" is the ONE that God loves most?
quote:
And now I have to leave this discussion for a while -- I have a serious family crisis going on, and I don't have the time or energy for debate just now. (See the prayer thread if you're interested.) See you later.
Ross
I know about family crises. And I am interested. I will head on over to the prayer thread at once.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
OT, includes the Ten Commandments, you know, part of THAT Law that Jesus said he had come to "fulfil" but not do away with. Something that "gentile" Christians gloss over for over 2,000 years now. Looks to me, like Judeo-Christianity should be insisting that wives not following their husbands is rank rebellion and apostasy.
Where in the 10 commandments is wives following their husbands? Do not commit adultery is in there, but that's the only one concerning marriage. (Well, maybe Do not covet...)
quote:
Sorry. I got too oblique it seems. When you make such dogmatic claims prohibiting Mormons from being recognized as ANY sort of Christian, I make references to the earlier denominations of Christianity which have never been part of the RCC. I never heard you say that they are not Christians, which seems like a double standard to me. And you are saying that they ARE Christians. I want to know why. Since their doctrines and scriptures and org do not descend from nor partake of the Roman persuasion (from which your denomination derives as part of Protestantism.
And no, afaik, most or all of these eastern Christian denominations do not acknowledge any authority of the Roman pontiff over their affairs.
Why are you deciding that the RCC is the original "Christian Church"? The Eastern Orthodox have a legitimate claim to be the original, as much as Western thought doesn't like the idea, historically they have as good of a claim as the RCC, if not better...
quote:
quote:
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.
quote:
What ARE you talking about? Polygamy was long gone from Judaism (along with polytheism, as it happens) by Roman times. There were no "secret" practices of the sort; that one would have been considered an abomination.
Similar rites to those of the Mormon temple, prayer circles, etc., are shown in the various apocryphal writings of the early Christian period. Polygamy would not have been admitted openly. I am not saying that it was a legit Christian doctrine; but I feel safe in claiming (without going to look this up) that some sectaries practiced it, and a lot of other "non Christian" stuff besides. If the Cathars of Southern France went for that sort stuff, you can bet that earlier Christians did at least as much.
Huh? What writings? Can you back this up, because this is the first I have heard of it. And I don't consider the Cathars of France as Early Christians. Early Christians are the one before the split between East and West in my opinion.
--------------------
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 PataLeBon:
Where in the 10 commandments is wives following their husbands? Do not commit adultery is in there, but that's the only one concerning marriage. (Well, maybe Do not covet...)
The NT teachings of Paul about female subservience are not spun out of thin air. They are founded on the existing culture, which was predominantly Jewish. Any reading of the OT shows women taking the secondary role to men, starting with Mother Eve.
quote:
Why are you deciding that the RCC is the original "Christian Church"? The Eastern Orthodox have a legitimate claim to be the original, as much as Western thought doesn't like the idea, historically they have as good of a claim as the RCC, if not better...
I'm not deciding anything. The RCC claims to be the original back to Peter. Other denominations take exception, of course. But Ross's denomination, and all Protestants, derive from the RCC. Therefore, they cannot be correct in their definition of who or what is "Christian", if the RCC is wrong: it was the RCC which gave us the Nicean Creed, etc.
I read somewhere, that the English church actually can show an apostolic succession independent of the Roman one, ergo, they do have a "legit" claim to independence which they have argued from since Henry VIII.
quote:
Similar rites to those of the Mormon temple, prayer circles, etc., are shown in the various apocryphal writings of the early Christian period. Polygamy would not have been admitted openly. I am not saying that it was a legit Christian doctrine; but I feel safe in claiming (without going to look this up) that some sectaries practiced it, and a lot of other "non Christian" stuff besides. If the Cathars of Southern France went for that sort stuff, you can bet that earlier Christians did at least as much.
quote:
Huh? What writings? Can you back this up, because this is the first I have heard of it.
The Mormon temple endowment includes a "play" enacting the creation of the world, the planning before the world came to be, the relationship of the first man to God, the classic battle between good and evil in the beginning. The early prayer circle is replicated in the Mormon temple. Some of the sources showing this stuff existed at the time of early Christianity, and before are given and expounded upon in the works of Hugh Nibley: especially the FARMS collection of his works, in the two volumes entitled "Mormonism and Early Christianity", and, "Temple and Cosmos." Nibley covers the connections to and origins of such things as: the temple drama, the creation motif, the combat, the archaic background, work for the dead, the ancient significance of the veil, the early Christian prayer circle, and temple vestments, etc.
quote:
And I don't consider the Cathars of France as Early Christians. Early Christians are the one before the split between East and West in my opinion.
I referenced the Cathars simply to show that "oddball" doctrines are capable of arising at any time, based on perceived legitimacy from the writings/traditions of early Christianity.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'm not deciding anything. The RCC claims to be the original back to Peter. Other denominations take exception, of course. But Ross's denomination, and all Protestants, derive from the RCC. Therefore, they cannot be correct in their definition of who or what is "Christian", if the RCC is wrong: it was the RCC which gave us the Nicean Creed, etc.
not quite so.
for the sake of factual accuracy, the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, etc.) are all unequivocally spawned from the ancient unified Church that gave us Nicaea, and each of them have an equally valid claim to being the 'original' Church. They all claim, with exactly the same pedigree, to 'go back to Peter' (and every one of the other apostles), but Rome claims more overall authority for the Petrine See than the others will allow for (hence, the disputes and eventual splits).
Ross's denomination (and mine) is arguably not Protestant in the continental (and usual North American) sense. Although that particular discussion is one for the DH boards.
Our apostolic succession, which is of questionable pedigree in Rome's eyes, but which does indeed go 'back to Peter' et al., goes through the RCC primarily, though there may be several Eastern and Old Catholic strands that have come in over the years.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Where in the 10 commandments is wives following their husbands? Do not commit adultery is in there, but that's the only one concerning marriage. (Well, maybe Do not covet...)
The NT teachings of Paul about female subservience are not spun out of thin air. They are founded on the existing culture, which was predominantly Jewish. Any reading of the OT shows women taking the secondary role to men, starting with Mother Eve.
You said that the secondary role of women were in the OT including the 10 Commandments. I was asking where in the 10 Commandments you were reading that. Paul did not write the 10 Commandments, but was interpreting the OT for the Early Christians. And he didn't mention the 10 Commandments at all, as far as I know...
quote:
I'm not deciding anything. The RCC claims to be the original back to Peter. Other denominations take exception, of course. But Ross's denomination, and all Protestants, derive from the RCC. Therefore, they cannot be correct in their definition of who or what is "Christian", if the RCC is wrong: it was the RCC which gave us the Nicean Creed, etc.
I read somewhere, that the English church actually can show an apostolic succession independent of the Roman one, ergo, they do have a "legit" claim to independence which they have argued from since Henry VIII.
The RCC did not "give" us the Nicene Creed. The Early Church, before the split between East and West, did. The Ecumenical council of the church wrote the creed in order to define what was Christian and what was not.
quote:
The Mormon temple endowment includes a "play" enacting the creation of the world, the planning before the world came to be, the relationship of the first man to God, the classic battle between good and evil in the beginning. The early prayer circle is replicated in the Mormon temple. Some of the sources showing this stuff existed at the time of early Christianity, and before are given and expounded upon in the works of Hugh Nibley: especially the FARMS collection of his works, in the two volumes entitled "Mormonism and Early Christianity", and, "Temple and Cosmos." Nibley covers the connections to and origins of such things as: the temple drama, the creation motif, the combat, the archaic background, work for the dead, the ancient significance of the veil, the early Christian prayer circle, and temple vestments, etc.
Considering how many sects claim that they know what happened in the Christian church at its founding, I would need someone other than a Mormon theologian to back up that claim. Just like I would need someone other than a Baptist theologian to back up that they come directly from the Early Christian church...
quote:
I referenced the Cathars simply to show that "oddball" doctrines are capable of arising at any time, based on perceived legitimacy from the writings/traditions of early Christianity.
Yep. And I'm afraid that you will have to prove, just like any other sect, that you haven't made stuff up either.
--------------------
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 PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Where in the 10 commandments is wives following their husbands? Do not commit adultery is in there, but that's the only one concerning marriage. (Well, maybe Do not covet...)
The NT teachings of Paul about female subservience are not spun out of thin air. They are founded on the existing culture, which was predominantly Jewish. Any reading of the OT shows women taking the secondary role to men, starting with Mother Eve.
You said that the secondary role of women were in the OT including the 10 Commandments. I was asking where in the 10 Commandments you were reading that. Paul did not write the 10 Commandments, but was interpreting the OT for the Early Christians. And he didn't mention the 10 Commandments at all, as far as I know...
My reference to the 10 Commandments was to show that the "Law" was still in force: Christ did not dump it, he fulfilled it. Therefore, the cultural subservience of women was not changing. I didn't mean to claim that there is something mentioned about THAT in the 10 Commandments.
quote:
I'm not deciding anything. The RCC claims to be the original back to Peter. Other denominations take exception, of course. But Ross's denomination, and all Protestants, derive from the RCC. Therefore, they cannot be correct in their definition of who or what is "Christian", if the RCC is wrong: it was the RCC which gave us the Nicean Creed, etc.
I read somewhere, that the English church actually can show an apostolic succession independent of the Roman one, ergo, they do have a "legit" claim to independence which they have argued from since Henry VIII.
quote:
The RCC did not "give" us the Nicene Creed. The Early Church, before the split between East and West, did. The Ecumenical council of the church wrote the creed in order to define what was Christian and what was not.
Of course this is true, and I have been corrected by Doc Frog. The RCC, et al the other denominations, gave us the Creed; since, as you say, there had not been a split yet with the other patriarchies. It doesn't change what I meant to say, however: that early Christianity split along doctrinal differences, and that means that since then they have upheld different reasons for remaining separated. Which has included mutual excommunications and claims that the "other" is "antiChrist", etc. AntiChrist cannot be Christian.
I am aware, that the Anglican church considered itself "Catholic" in every particular, except following the Roman pope. But its subsequent behavior was clearly Protestant, and the 17th century saw Protestant influences to the CofE which changed its original character as "the Catholic Church in England." Papists completely lost control of the CofE in the process, and have remained ever since, RCC. I think the distinction between the Anglicans and other Protestants is a very fine line that probably only they recognize.
quote:
The Mormon temple endowment includes a "play" enacting the creation of the world, the planning before the world came to be, the relationship of the first man to God, the classic battle between good and evil in the beginning. The early prayer circle is replicated in the Mormon temple. Some of the sources showing this stuff existed at the time of early Christianity, and before are given and expounded upon in the works of Hugh Nibley: especially the FARMS collection of his works, in the two volumes entitled "Mormonism and Early Christianity", and, "Temple and Cosmos." Nibley covers the connections to and origins of such things as: the temple drama, the creation motif, the combat, the archaic background, work for the dead, the ancient significance of the veil, the early Christian prayer circle, and temple vestments, etc.
quote:
Considering how many sects claim that they know what happened in the Christian church at its founding, I would need someone other than a Mormon theologian to back up that claim. Just like I would need someone other than a Baptist theologian to back up that they come directly from the Early Christian church...
Well, Nibley's particular talent was researching the original documents mainly through the previous copious studies of the eminent doctors of theology in the 19th century: dudes that I have never personally read, but Nibley's quoting of them and referencing their work clearly shows that he is not simply some "Mormon theologian." You would need to check out those books yourself, in order to be able to tell if you can agree on Nibley's use of the original sources and the non Mormon scholars that he cites. He is, of course, a Mormon apologist. But I accept that most of his work doesn't need any apologetics itself: he was an honest man pursuing the truth.
quote:
I referenced the Cathars simply to show that "oddball" doctrines are capable of arising at any time, based on perceived legitimacy from the writings/traditions of early Christianity.
quote:
Yep. And I'm afraid that you will have to prove, just like any other sect, that you haven't made stuff up either.
You know, that was Hugh Nibley's life-long work: to prove exactly that.
[ 29. May 2007, 22:28: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Looks to me, like Judeo-Christianity should be insisting that wives not following their husbands is rank rebellion and apostasy.
Nope. You're mistaken: it's not in the Big 10.
quote:
A few things. Right. Like voting before American women could. ...
As ordered by their husbands.
quote:
Sorry. I got too oblique it seems. When you make such dogmatic claims prohibiting Mormons from being recognized as ANY sort of Christian, I make references to the earlier denominations of Christianity which have never been part of the RCC. I never heard you say that they are not Christians, which seems like a double standard to me. And you are saying that they ARE Christians. I want to know why. ...
What does the RCC have to do with anything? I'm not a Roman Catholic, and Orthodoxy is really the "original." Besides, they all subscribe to the Creeds. No double standard here.
quote:
...But that's the whole original schtick with Protestant sects: they originally broke away because the RCC was the antiChrist....
Nope. Please read some Church history.
quote:
Some. A lot of people I know say I know a lot. I don't think I know that much.
Nor do I think you know very much about it, I'm afraid.
quote:
...It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. ...
You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't stand up to the facts of history or the present day -- as I've already demonstrated. And Christians, of course, do not believe that there's ANYTHING that can place us "beyond the atoning blood of Christ."
quote:
And just what in heck is "a Classical world view", if not PAGAN? If Paul sums up with "so also is the resurrection of the dead", etc. He is NOT talking about an incorrect "classical world view."
I suggest you look it up: it's a view of how the universe is structured, not of gods. And Paul is using it as an example, not as a theology.
quote:
To what purpose? So that you can side-step the evidence that early Christianity is a lot like your denigrating view of Mormonism?
I'm sorry, but your statement makes no sense.
quote:
Enough to know that Mormonism a lot more LIKE than different from "it." Mormonism resembles early Christianity in ways that "orthodoxy" has drifted far from.
No, that's the Mormon organization attempting to rewrite history in order to mislead people. Mormonism is nothing like early Christianity -- or late Christianity, for that matter. We never did have murderers acting under orders from "prophets" (and Christians don't believe in "latter-day prophets"), either.
quote:
Similar rites to those of the Mormon temple, prayer circles, etc., are shown in the various apocryphal writings of the early Christian period. Polygamy would not have been admitted openly.
Polygamy was never practiced in orthodox Christian circles. That's just absurd. So is the rest of this fiction about "temple rites;" Masonry hadn't been invented then. You really need to show a legitimate, non-Mormon source for these outlandish statements -- but I very much doubt you'll find one.
quote:
...We can drop this.
Thank you.
quote:
You don't get it?...
No -- you don't. Please reread my post.
quote:
I don't hate it when you bring up history. I take exception to your bringing up what I know to be enemy-originated "history." ...Why do so many people (I was there, once) think that their "brand" is the ONE that God loves most?
You have not been able to disprove a single point that I have made about Mormon history; your best response is to tell me to "get with the modern program." People who publish the truth are not "enemies" of God.
And I've never claimed that God "loves (Christianity) most," although my testimony to you is that Jesus Christ is Lord, and the Book of Mormon is the work of a corrupt and foolish man. My theme throughout this discussion has simply been that Mormonism is not Christian. Period.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The NT teachings of Paul about female subservience are not spun out of thin air.
As already demonstrated, they are almost certainly interpolations into the original Pauline texts, or by later pseudo-Pauline authors. You want authentic Paul? Galatians 3:28 says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
quote:
...Some of the sources showing this stuff existed at the time of early Christianity, and before are given and expounded upon in the works of Hugh Nibley...
I'm afraid that Hugh Nibley is a notorious liar. Here's just one citation; search the site for more evidence of Nibley's attempts to rewrite history.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Merlin, I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the Anglican church...
I'm a member of the TEC. A part of the Anglican communion that may (or may not) be thrown out in the next, er, year? (It all depends upon one's point of view)
I am not claiming and have never claimed to belong to the "correct" Christian church. I do believe that I belong to the sect that meets my spiritual needs. (My mother often comments that no other church would have me. ) I believe that there are many many sects that are well and truly Christian. They just aren't for me.
I believe that the sect I currently belong to is doing the best that it can to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. I don't believe that we do things exactly the way that the Early Christians did. And I'm not sure that would be the best way today.
What is good for one may not be good for all.
From what I can find on Nibley from what I would take as unbiased sources (of which I have found very few), it seems that he reads into "source" material what he wants to see. And when someone starts quoting the Gnostics as true Christians, I get very concerned.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I would also have some serious concerns about anyone who claims to research the early church through the studies of 19th century scholars. I mean, really. It's not that hard to learn Greek and Latin. I did it! Go to the original sources.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Merlin, I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the Anglican church
Because I know Ross is Anglican, and I am just trying to *slap* some sense into her (futile though it has been), by making comparisons between her persuasion and Mormonism. They are not that different: both dogmatic, with hardline views on what is and isn't bonafide Christianity. Members and leaders of both view the other askance.
.... quote:
I don't believe that we do things exactly the way that the Early Christians did. And I'm not sure that would be the best way today.
What is good for one may not be good for all.
This is a good attitude. I agree completely. One's choice of religious association is made according to personal needs. If it isn't, then we are bowing to family or social pressure, which is never a good thing.
quote:
From what I can find on Nibley from what I would take as unbiased sources (of which I have found very few), it seems that he reads into "source" material what he wants to see. And when someone starts quoting the Gnostics as true Christians, I get very concerned.
That's just it: Nibley was interested in reading anything he could get his teeth into. There is evidence in the Gnostic writings; and he pulled it out. Anyone looking for evidence is already looking to make a case. If the sources can make it, then good enough. Another will look at the very same material and come up with their case too. Thus, Ross sees that Nibley is a "notorious liar." (And Christ was a madman, in league with Satan, or was Beelzebub himself. Joseph Smith was a simple con artist; wave your hand, and it all goes away. End of discussion.)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um, Rossweisse is in the United States. Therefore NOT Anglican, if I understand correctly.
Now, if we can drag your attention away from Ross for just a moment...
"Anyone looking for evidence is already seeking to make a case."
If you mean by that,
"Anyone looking for evidence has already made up his mind, and is only looking for ways to shore up that preconceived notion,"
then I'm wasting my time here. (Y'all in the peanut gallery: I KNOW. I've just got a little free time on my hands, K?) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chicklegirl
Shipmate
# 11741
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um, Rossweisse is in the United States. Therefore NOT Anglican, if I understand correctly.
I’ve been sitting on my hands for the last few minutes in a futile attempt to stifle the urge to type something semi-snarky. But the small irony here is too delicious to pass by unremarked.
According to Ross’s profile, she is a “hardcore Anglican”.
So unless being Anglican is another one of those situations (like claiming to be Christian) in which one is not allowed to self-identify unless one lives in the “correct” country or believes in the “correct” Jesus, you may have to admit that Merlin is actually… correct. At least, about which church Ross belongs to...
--------------------
If you want to be happy, be.
~ Henry David Thoreau
Posts: 916 | From: Sixth Circle of Hell | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
(Says Lamb Chopped, mildly):
I've no problem with admitting I was wrong. Or that Merlin was right, for that matter. As I mentioned, I'm a Lutheran, and I don't know the ins and outs of the Anglican communion. So I'll chalk that up as something else learned today.
--------------------
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
|
|
chicklegirl
Shipmate
# 11741
|
Posted
LC, you are truly lamb-like in your mildness. And I didn't mean that in a personal way; I just found it all rather amusing.
--------------------
If you want to be happy, be.
~ Henry David Thoreau
Posts: 916 | From: Sixth Circle of Hell | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
<anglican tangent>
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Merlin, I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the Anglican church
... They are not that different: both dogmatic, with hardline views on what is and isn't bonafide Christianity. Members and leaders of both view the other askance.
Based on what I have read on the Ship, the few Anglicans who have expressed hardline views on what is/isn't Christianity are mostly Anglicans in a particular diocese in a particular country. (That should be enough hints.) So I don't think that's a fair observation the Anglican church or its members as a whole (although this thread might lead one to think otherwise). OliviaG (not Anglican, as if it needed to be said)
</anglicans>
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Thanks. I've always wondered, in fact, what the differences were between Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc. etc. If it's anything like as complicated as the Lutheran situation, it'll take practically being born into it to comprehend!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Thanks. I've always wondered, in fact, what the differences were between Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc. etc. If it's anything like as complicated as the Lutheran situation, it'll take practically being born into it to comprehend!
The same is oh-so-true of Mormonism as well. That is perhaps the foundation of my annoyance with Ross's, et al. attitude toward Mormons, vis-a-vis "they are not Christians." She bases her decision on a brief brush with Mormon missionaries (and demonstrably ignorant ones at that), and a couple of prejudiced readings of the Book of Mormon ("soporific", I believe she called it: while accurate in a way, it is obvious she was not reading to learn about the book, but to confirm a judgment she already had about it), and continued "study" into why the religion is not going to pass muster as "Christian." She thinks of herself as expert enough in Mormonism to make these judgments from the outside.
In my life-long experience, I have not met even ONE person who studied the Mormon church who knew what they were talking about when they make critical observations about it. Because they are always judging what they see from the perspective of an outsider, with preconceptions and prejudices. It is inescapable.
Now that I am no longer "in" the church, that is to say, a believing member, I can view its doctrines, scripture, dogmatic claims to exclusive priesthood authority and revelation, and history, with complete neutrality. I take ALL religions as pieces of the same puzzle: none of them holding a candle over another. And that makes my view more trustworthy from the getgo than that of any apologist or critic of the church. I am very well informed about the church: both as a life-long member of it, and a student of it. But I have no axe to grind, and no motivation to justify the unjustifiable.
I will be the last person to say anything about living as a CofE member, or any other Christian denomination: because, in spite of any study I do, I have never lived within the culture and society of said-denomination. It takes that kind of intimacy, in order to be able to judge the attributes of religion.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Me: In my life-long experience, I have not met even ONE person who studied the Mormon church who knew what they were talking about when they make critical observations about it.
I mean, of course, no non Mormon who studies the church.
"Insiders" who are critical, as yours truly, can and do make accurate observations about the church. In the case of [url= http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insider's2.htm]Grant H. Palmer[/url] , you have a church educator who published his views on the origins of Mormonism in the most pragmatic and lucid manner. I can't think of a single item of origin history that he covered that I disagree with.
[ 30. May 2007, 21:09: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
That link is bad: because, apparently, you cannot link from the Ship to URL's with apostrophes in them!? So, copy and paste the URL, apostrophe and all, and you should be able to get to the page about Palmer and his book on "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins."
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ugh! Merlin, you're not making sense again. You HAVE passed judgement on Anglicans, you've made dogmatic (and wrong) statements about any number of Christian groups, and you've blithely ignored any number of uncomfortable questions. Such as mine, about why a supposedly notable scholar doesn't bother to access original sources in their original languages, and instead prefers to use bits and pieces filtered through 19th century theologians. Any grad student in my denom would fail for such a lazy practice. Surely you're not telling me LDS standards are lower?
And to repeat again: I AM NOT ROSS. SHE IS NOT HERE. I AM.
Like, can we talk?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ugh! Merlin, you're not making sense again. You HAVE passed judgement on Anglicans, you've made dogmatic (and wrong) statements about any number of Christian groups, and you've blithely ignored any number of uncomfortable questions. Such as mine, about why a supposedly notable scholar doesn't bother to access original sources in their original languages, and instead prefers to use bits and pieces filtered through 19th century theologians. Any grad student in my denom would fail for such a lazy practice. Surely you're not telling me LDS standards are lower?
And to repeat again: I AM NOT ROSS. SHE IS NOT HERE. I AM.
Like, can we talk?
What judgment have I passed on Anglicans? I have said that their history isn't anything superior to Mormonism's, in terms of "sanctity" or for making a claim of legitimacy from. Both are palpably manmade institutions out to protect themselves from detractors.
What wrong statements (judgments) of other Christian groups? The most you can call me on is being too simplistic in my phraseology: e.g. saying the RCC gave us the Nicaean Creed (true enough, but not the whole truth: sufficient, I thought, for making the point, but obviously not, to judge by the reaction).
Nibley, as I said, knew the languages. His writing was for the common church audience. His peer reviewed stuff is different than the Mormon consumption stuff. You make it sound like Nibley was some quack masquerading as a bonafide scholar. That isn't true. He had a specific audience and wrote for it. And his purpose was to show from the ancient writers and archeology, that Mormon origins extend to the other "dispensations" that God has revealed his gospel to men: i.e. Mormonism is the revealed religion it claims to be. He demonstrated that; by going into the ancient evidence and finding the bits and pieces which survive that are the same or very similar to Mormon doctrines and ordinances.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Two of the big anti-Mormon themes here are the Mormon's denial of their nasty violent history and the subjugation of women which makes them non-Christian, these views coming from Christians with some of the bloodiest history of Christian persecution against those holding different doctrines and the still in its infancy women priesthood after 1900 years or so denying their capacity for this role because subservient to the male.
Do the posters here holding these particular anti-"Mormon are Christians" views also admit they are thus not Christians from their origins?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Two of the big anti-Mormon themes here are the Mormon's denial of their nasty violent history and the subjugation of women which makes them non-Christian, these views coming from Christians with some of the bloodiest history of Christian persecution against those holding different doctrines and the still in its infancy women priesthood after 1900 years or so denying their capacity for this role because subservient to the male.
Do the posters here holding these particular anti-"Mormon are Christians" views also admit they are thus not Christians from their origins?
Myrrh
Personally?
I don't care if they do odd things in their temple.
I don't care if woman aren't "equal" as I understand equality.
Yes, Christian history is violent in the extreme. We haven't always been what we should be, and I doubt we are what we should be now.
BUT...
When you add a whole book to the Bible, when I hold that the Bible to contain everything that is needed for salvation, and you don't seem to worship the same Triune God, then I think that you are a whole other religion entirely.
And, FYI, that also means that when the Eastern Orthodox church claim that the western Church isn't Christian, I can see their point. They don't hold that we exactly worship the same God due to the change in the Creed. Not that I agree with that POV, but it is legitimate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Personally?
I don't care if they do odd things in their temple.
I don't care if woman aren't "equal" as I understand equality.
Yes, Christian history is violent in the extreme. We haven't always been what we should be, and I doubt we are what we should be now.
BUT...
When you add a whole book to the Bible, when I hold that the Bible to contain everything that is needed for salvation, and you don't seem to worship the same Triune God, then I think that you are a whole other religion entirely.
And, FYI, that also means that when the Eastern Orthodox church claim that the western Church isn't Christian, I can see their point. They don't hold that we exactly worship the same God due to the change in the Creed. Not that I agree with that POV, but it is legitimate.
Well sure, but in that case are you saying it's perfectly legitimate for the Orthodox to say that everyone not Orthodox is not a Christian which is the OP here.
So which Bible? For example most Protestant Christians have a Bible minus books that are still included in the RCC and Orthodox books, and didn't Luther want to get rid of James because of the "faith without works is dead"?
Seems to me you're adding another definition of what it is to be Christian that the Mormons need to prove that can't be said of you.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Personally?
I don't care if they do odd things in their temple.
I don't care if woman aren't "equal" as I understand equality.
Yes, Christian history is violent in the extreme. We haven't always been what we should be, and I doubt we are what we should be now.
BUT...
When you add a whole book to the Bible, when I hold that the Bible to contain everything that is needed for salvation, and you don't seem to worship the same Triune God, then I think that you are a whole other religion entirely.
And, FYI, that also means that when the Eastern Orthodox church claim that the western Church isn't Christian, I can see their point. They don't hold that we exactly worship the same God due to the change in the Creed. Not that I agree with that POV, but it is legitimate.
Well sure, but in that case are you saying it's perfectly legitimate for the Orthodox to say that everyone not Orthodox is not a Christian which is the OP here.
I would not have a problem with the Mormons saying that I am not a proper Christian. But that is not what is being said there. What they are claiming is that they are the same as us. Which just isn't the case as far as I can see.
quote:
So which Bible? For example most Protestant Christians have a Bible minus books that are still included in the RCC and Orthodox books, and didn't Luther want to get rid of James because of the "faith without works is dead"?
Seems to me you're adding another definition of what it is to be Christian that the Mormons need to prove that can't be said of you.
Myrrh
Admittedly, there are many "Bibles" in existance. I tend to believe in the NT (as there isn't much arguement there), and the OT as complied by the Jewish authorities.
If the BOM was accepted by the Jews as a legitamte scripture, then it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not.
And I'm not sure what added definition of Christianity that you are saying that I'm adding. That's my standard for ANY sect or church.
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
....BUT...
When you add a whole book to the Bible, when I hold that the Bible to contain everything that is needed for salvation, and you don't seem to worship the same Triune God, then I think that you are a whole other religion entirely.
When people justify their prejudice by saying such things as, "Words have meanings; you're not allowed to change the meanings of words to suit yourself," then they are simply showing that they are prejudiced. The reason why many words in the dictionary have multiple meanings and applications, is precisely because words change in how they are used.
"Christian" can only mean someone who believes in Jesus Christ. "Believes" means different levels of assumed belief: a Muslim believes Jesus of Nazareth lived and was a great prophet, second only to Muhammed: they even believe in the miraculous virgin birth! But, they are NOT "Christians", because they deny that Jesus of Nazareth was "the Christ": and they absolutely refuse to allow the "Son of God" appelation which Jesus Christ applied repeatedly to himself. Muslims claim that all such "Christian" stuff was added on by Jesus's later followers, i.e. they claim the NT is corrupt. They also claim a more truthful, albeit later, understanding of Jesus of Nazareth based on said-later sources.
Mormonism can be judged by a similar yardstick. All of its added scipture is blatantly biblical targumizing, with claims of modern-day revelations of previous doctrines and ordinances. In short, Mormons claim to have access to "the full monty" direct from God. In this respect, they are exactly like Muslims with their later "authority" to know the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
The significant difference is, Mormons accept that Jesus IS the Christ. They claim fresh revelation from Christ directly to a prophet. They claim exactly what Christendom as a whole claims: that without the atoning blood of Christ, all creation would be lost forever: but with the atoning blood of Christ, God saves his people. This is the core belief that defines a Christian.
So your (repeated) claim, that Mormonism is "...whole other religion entirely" is utterly bogus. It can't be entirely non, or un, or anti Christian, because it follows the Bible (a Prot one anyway), professes Christ as Savior, and targumizes the daylights out of the Bible. "Different", yes, but still Christian.
quote:
And, FYI, that also means that when the Eastern Orthodox church claim that the western Church isn't Christian, I can see their point. They don't hold that we exactly worship the same God due to the change in the Creed. Not that I agree with that POV, but it is legitimate.
"Legitimate" division. Gotta love that one. That will get us far. How about, there is no such thing legitimate about any outsider judging the beliefs and faith of another religion? Mind your own business. And as long as another religion isn't miding yours, then everyone can travel together comfortably enough on the same Ship.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Merlin, you can say you are a Christian all you want.
It doesn't bother me.
But, if you want my opinion, then Mormons, in general, aren't.
I'm sorry that annoys you.
It annoys me that there are people that I truly believe are Christians, who think that I am some kind of witch.
But I don't rant and rail over it. That's they way humans are and will always be until Kingdom Come. It's not worth my time and effort. God will either help them to the truth, or me. Or both.
Apparently you believe that it is, and I wish you luck.
[ 31. May 2007, 14:59: Message edited by: PataLeBon ]
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Merlin, you can say you are a Christian all you want.
It doesn't bother me.
But, if you want my opinion, then Mormons, in general, aren't.
I'm sorry that annoys you.
It doesn't. You admit that you have an opinion which differs from mine. But you are not arguing to change my mind. Perhaps Ross and I are like incompatable agents in the same test tube: both too dogmatic by nature (and education?). I don't get "vibes" from you that I feel need addressing/correcting.
quote:
It annoys me that there are people that I truly believe are Christians, who think that I am some kind of witch.
I would enjoy knowing more about that ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
But I don't rant and rail over it. That's they way humans are and will always be until Kingdom Come.
I do know THAT much at least.
quote:
It's not worth my time and effort. God will either help them to the truth, or me. Or both.
I have plenty of time on my hands. I am currently a "shiftless bum." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) But I see the fascination of constant gab with faceless denizens of cyberspace wearing off, slowly, finally.....
quote:
Apparently you believe that it is, and I wish you luck.
Thank you. Same to you.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because I know Ross is Anglican, and I am just trying to *slap* some sense into her (futile though it has been), by making comparisons between her persuasion and Mormonism. They are not that different: both dogmatic, with hardline views on what is and isn't bonafide Christianity. Members and leaders of both view the other askance.
Gee, that's offensive, Merlin. Do you always *slap* women around?
I'm afraid you don't know anything about Christian Church historythat hasn't been filtered through Mormon authorities, and you certainly don't know squat about Anglicanism. I can't recall ever reading anything more ridiculous about the Church, and I've been reading the RC converts on the Ship for several years now.
.... quote:
That's just it: Nibley was interested in reading anything he could get his teeth into. ... Thus, Ross sees that Nibley is a "notorious liar." (And Christ was a madman, in league with Satan, or was Beelzebub himself. Joseph Smith was a simple con artist; wave your hand, and it all goes away. End of discussion.)
Nope. Nibley was just an apologist -- period. His whole professional purpose was to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon, and the rest of Smith's inventions, were true.
So you find some scratchings on rocks out in your part of the country -- like the ones Myrrh was so excited about -- and, gee, they look a little bit like some scratchings on rocks in the Middle East, and -- hey! that's proof that the Book of Mormon is really true! Ta-da!
Except, as you've already admitted, most of the BofM is pure fiction. Nibley lied for Mormonism and for his own personal profit. He pushed coincidence just as far as it would go, to the point where even the most devout Mormon should have said, "Hey....that doesn't make sense."
quote:
That is perhaps the foundation of my annoyance with Ross's, et al. attitude toward Mormons, vis-a-vis "they are not Christians." She bases her decision on a brief brush with Mormon missionaries (and demonstrably ignorant ones at that), and a couple of prejudiced readings of the Book of Mormon ("soporific", I believe she called it: while accurate in a way, it is obvious she was not reading to learn about the book, but to confirm a judgment she already had about it), and continued "study" into why the religion is not going to pass muster as "Christian." She thinks of herself as expert enough in Mormonism to make these judgments from the outside.
Boy, Merlin, you're on a roll, aren't you. When you're wrong, you're REALLY wrong....and personally insulting. The insults are getting pretty tiresome.
No, it wasn't a "brief brush" with "ignorant" Mormon missionaries. It was a prolonged encounter with Mormonism that involved going to meetings, reading all the slick brochures, reading the BofM and praying "the prayer of Moroni" (of which you have my testimony), and dealing with several levels of "elders" and their supervisors.
I read the Book of Mormon with an open mind, but I'm afraid that it makes the most turgid of the Russian novelists in a bad translation look scintillating. I read it again in my 30s, to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Well, I HAD missed a few of Smith's thefts from the Bible -- but it was still intensely soporific.
I have made a deep study of Mormonism, from its scriptures to its history to its theology to its missionaries' habit of preying on vulnerable adolescents.
You yourself have admitted that I know a lot about it. You just don't like my conclusions. Kindly have the decency to admit that, and stop the personal insults.
quote:
When people justify their prejudice by saying such things as, "Words have meanings; you're not allowed to change the meanings of words to suit yourself," then they are simply showing that they are prejudiced. The reason why many words in the dictionary have multiple meanings and applications, is precisely because words change in how they are used.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
No, when I say "Words have meanings," I'm speaking a simple truth. You can't just change those meanings to suit your purposes, or those of a particular religion. You can't just unilaterally redefine Christianity because the Mormon organization decided it could suck in more people (and more money) by claiming to be Christians.
Learn to read for comprehension, Merlin, lose the anti-intellectualism, and please stop lying about me.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrhh:
Two of the big anti-Mormon themes here are the Mormon's denial of their nasty violent history and the subjugation of women which makes them non-Christian, these views coming from Christians with some of the bloodiest history of Christian persecution against those holding different doctrines and the still in its infancy women priesthood after 1900 years or so denying their capacity for this role because subservient to the male.
Do the posters here holding these particular anti-"Mormon are Christians" views also admit they are thus not Christians from their origins?
Myrrh, thanks for coming out of the closet here.
The biggest problem with Mormonism's view of women is that it isn't content to see women as somehow second-class souls just on Earth; that view extends to the afterlife. I don't know of any other religion with a pretense to being Christian that does that. Do you even understand why it's so appalling a concept?
Yes, Christians have behaved abominably toward one another, and toward outsiders. But in its relatively short history, Mormonism has been absolutely horrific. Too bad they can't be honest about it.
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:
Because I know Ross is Anglican, and I am just trying to *slap* some sense into her (futile though it has been), by making comparisons between her persuasion and Mormonism. They are not that different: both dogmatic, with hardline views on what is and isn't bonafide Christianity. Members and leaders of both view the other askance.
quote:
Gee, that's offensive, Merlin. Do you always *slap* women around?
Only virtually
quote:
I'm afraid you don't know anything about Christian Church history that hasn't been filtered through Mormon authorities, and you certainly don't know squat about Anglicanism.
Oh, I think you are quite mistaken. But the same can be said of you. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say, "you don't know squat about Mormonism". You just have some weird (skewed) ideas about it.
quote:
I can't recall ever reading anything more ridiculous about the Church, and I've been reading the RC converts on the Ship for several years now.
"The church", being yours? And what exactly did I say that is ridiculous? I haven't said much about it, other than to make the obvious comparison about respective church history, yours and ours: how the pots and kettles should really be getting along, since neither has a leg to stand on.
.... quote:
That's just it: Nibley was interested in reading anything he could get his teeth into. ... Thus, Ross sees that Nibley is a "notorious liar." (And Christ was a madman, in league with Satan, or was Beelzebub himself. Joseph Smith was a simple con artist; wave your hand, and it all goes away. End of discussion.)
quote:
Nope. Nibley was just an apologist -- period. His whole professional purpose was to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon, and the rest of Smith's inventions, were true.
True! No denying that. However, that fact doesn't reduce his scholarship methods to nothing. He was very thorough, and honest! He had a preconceived testimony of the truth, and went about finding proof that it was genuine. He liked to encourage people to use their minds and not just their feelings. He expected the truth to have physical evidence. And he found plenty of it to satisfy himself and millions of others. Call it self-delusion or whatever: but Nibley's methods of research utilized non Mormon sources, turning it to Mormon advantage. He gets attacked personally (e.g. "liar") without any foundation or proof: and personal attacks are a sure sign that the "enemy" has been routed and resorts to guerrilla warfare, the only tactic remaining to them.
quote:
So you find some scratchings on rocks out in your part of the country -- like the ones Myrrh was so excited about -- and, gee, they look a little bit like some scratchings on rocks in the Middle East, and -- hey! that's proof that the Book of Mormon is really true! Ta-da!
"Scratchings on rocks, etc.", that doesn't signify anything specific to me.
Nibley was into examining the Old World stuff; especially the early Christian period and ancient evidence. I think he would have been the first to admit that the Kinderhook plates were a problem for Joseph Smith.
quote:
Except, as you've already admitted, most of the BofM is pure fiction. Nibley lied for Mormonism and for his own personal profit. He pushed coincidence just as far as it would go, to the point where even the most devout Mormon should have said, "Hey....that doesn't make sense."
My reasons for believing (accepting) the Book of Mormon as mostly fiction, do not disprove Nibley's facile collection of evidence and conclusions. That's the great secret of pushing physical evidence to prove your point: you can do that far more easily than you can prove a negative: i.e. disprove the use of the evidence to make a bogus conclusion. When you go that route, all you do is wind up lumping ALL religions into the same Ship: they all use physical evidence that can be taken wrong. I have been reading fundie evidence that the Bible is literally true history for most of my life. And it squares with Nibley's approach to a tee.
quote:
That is perhaps the foundation of my annoyance with Ross's, et al. attitude toward Mormons, vis-a-vis "they are not Christians." She bases her decision on a brief brush with Mormon missionaries (and demonstrably ignorant ones at that), and a couple of prejudiced readings of the Book of Mormon ("soporific", I believe she called it: while accurate in a way, it is obvious she was not reading to learn about the book, but to confirm a judgment she already had about it), and continued "study" into why the religion is not going to pass muster as "Christian." She thinks of herself as expert enough in Mormonism to make these judgments from the outside.
quote:
Boy, Merlin, you're on a roll, aren't you. When you're wrong, you're REALLY wrong....and personally insulting. The insults are getting pretty tiresome.
I haven't said anything that can be taken as insulting, unless I have touched on a nerve somewhere. That's for you to know and me to find out.
quote:
No, it wasn't a "brief brush" with "ignorant" Mormon missionaries. It was a prolonged encounter with Mormonism that involved going to meetings, reading all the slick brochures, reading the BofM and praying "the prayer of Moroni" (of which you have my testimony), and dealing with several levels of "elders" and their supervisors.
I read the Book of Mormon with an open mind, but I'm afraid that it makes the most turgid of the Russian novelists in a bad translation look scintillating. I read it again in my 30s, to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Well, I HAD missed a few of Smith's thefts from the Bible -- but it was still intensely soporific.
I have made a deep study of Mormonism, from its scriptures to its history to its theology to its missionaries' habit of preying on vulnerable adolescents.
You yourself have admitted that I know a lot about it. You just don't like my conclusions. Kindly have the decency to admit that, and stop the personal insults.
Again, not one personal insult have I made. I can be as mistaken in my ignorance of your life as you are "obviously" about mine. That's the trouble here.
Okay, so you've studied, to your satisfaction, and drawn "expert" conclusions about Mormonism. I have pointed out several, glaring mistaken notions that you have about it. Because in your reading, you have not been "equipped" to tell the difference between anti Mormon and pro Mormon, or even neutral, sources. You have imbibed the sewer with the elixir, and what a mixture that must turn into! I, on the other hand, CAN tell the difference between anti and pro and neutral.
And I suspect the same would be true if I made a study of Anglicanism. All I can tell from the outside, is that the Anglican church bears much the same human stamp as my own. But life within it is impossible to judge. And it is that life within which you lack utterly, so cannot judge reliably what sources are bogus and which genuinely approaching the truth about Mormonism.
quote:
When people justify their prejudice by saying such things as, "Words have meanings; you're not allowed to change the meanings of words to suit yourself," then they are simply showing that they are prejudiced. The reason why many words in the dictionary have multiple meanings and applications, is precisely because words change in how they are used.
quote:
No, when I say "Words have meanings," I'm speaking a simple truth. You can't just change those meanings to suit your purposes, or those of a particular religion. You can't just unilaterally redefine Christianity because the Mormon organization decided it could suck in more people (and more money) by claiming to be Christians.
Wrong on every point here (amazing): You have not shown that a "polytheistic" understanding of biblical passages (of which we have a fair amount) disqualifies a person from being Christian: "Orthodox Christian", certainly: but where have I EVER said Mormonism is to be defined as "Orthodox Christian?" I have put forward "Mormon Christian", or, "Christian Mormon", but that's not good enough for you. Leave "Christian" in any shape or form out of it, and that will satisfy you. And the church, from the getgo, was a Christian religion: Joseph Smith added the suffix "of [the] Latter-day Saints", to distinguish it from the "former-day Saints" of the Bible. That concept was up front right at the start: so the church doesn't "pretend/claim" to be Christian just so it can get more converts! It isn't "redefining Christianity", it's having a different understanding of what the word means.
quote:
Learn to read for comprehension, Merlin, lose the anti-intellectualism, and please stop lying about me.
"Anti-intellectualism?" That's interesting. Should we go away from this discussion, both convinced that we should stop studying and questing for the truth?
I have told no lies about you. To do that, I would have to deliberately misquote you, say things about you that I KNOW are untrue. You have defended your study into Mormonism. I have countered with, "That isn't good enough to judge the religion properly." That isn't saying a thing about you personally.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrhh:
Two of the big anti-Mormon themes here are the Mormon's denial of their nasty violent history and the subjugation of women which makes them non-Christian, these views coming from Christians with some of the bloodiest history of Christian persecution against those holding different doctrines and the still in its infancy women priesthood after 1900 years or so denying their capacity for this role because subservient to the male.
Do the posters here holding these particular anti-"Mormon are Christians" views also admit they are thus not Christians from their origins?
....
quote:
The biggest problem with Mormonism's view of women is that it isn't content to see women as somehow second-class souls just on Earth; that view extends to the afterlife. I don't know of any other religion with a pretense to being Christian that does that. Do you even understand why it's so appalling a concept?
You STILL have it wrong, Ross! Women and men in mortality have different roles. Mormons routinely joke that men have the priesthood so that they will be compelled to do something; if the women had it, the men would just not amount to anything. Good men, of which the church predominates (but not to listen to your view of it), do not joke when they often claim that they "married above" themselves, i.e. they publically admit that their wives are better people than they themselves are. My own father talks like that each time I visit with him: he has nothing but praise for his wife, and says she is a far better person than he is. I know of countless examples of this, from the "general authorities" right through the entire church. American Mormons, at least, are not dominantly male superiority types. That hasn't always been the case: in former days, before female suffrage, men all over America tended to view women as second class in everything that was considered MALE role stuff. But in the Mormon afterlife (get it this time, please): men and women are EQUALS. There isn't anything in the doctrine, as taught and practiced today (call that improvement, lady) that puts men above women. They require each other to get as far as human destiny is intended. And there is lately not one whiff of polygamy or "harems" mentioned in any of the LDS teachings. (E.g. the latest Ensign has an article on P. P. Pratt: not a letter of a word about polygamy: not even when they say how he died!? "Murdered", but the reason is not given ![[Confused]](confused.gif) What utter bollocks, imho. Any LDS reader worth half his/her salt will wonder what the motive was, surely? And the first reading on the Internet will provide the answer: Pratt was murdered by the jealous husband of his last (sixth?) wife!!!! Put that in your rolled up Ensign and smoke it, boys and girls.)
So yes, the LDS church is far different than the one you keep harping on about: dependent on a historical flogging by taking the rarest words of B. Young, et al, and portraying that as the modern church's doctrine.
quote:
Yes, Christians have behaved abominably toward one another, and toward outsiders. But in its relatively short history, Mormonism has been absolutely horrific. Too bad they can't be honest about it.
Ross
Horrific? I don't know about that. You do use expressive lingo freely, Ross. Demonstrably mistaken, and even fanatical at times, yes. But "horrific" is certainly no worse than any other Christian history you might compare it to. And Mormonism stands up to that pretty well. In less than 200 years, it has gone from Millennialism/Zionist fear mongering, multiple wives, and collectivist/communistic community living, to living like any other mainstream religious people: the polygamy is gonzo (permanently, if you want my guess); the words of B. Young, et al, are only quoted in the main, not the weird, 19th century bits; and all the human development bits are retained and have received emphasis, e.g. the Word of Wisdom requirements in order to get into the temple. Women are more cherished in typical Mormon families than they are in many "Christian" communities that you don't mind attaching that title to.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Merlin, you are a bigot, a bully, and a liar; you roll right over the evidence and just keep going like a demented Energizer Bunny, without acknowledging what others have said and demonstrated. Others give scholarly links; you ignore them, and go on what you feel in your gut. You're on the wrong forum, sir.
For the record: Joe Smith was a lecher and a fraud.
Brigham Young was a lecher and a fraud.
They were both liars, and, through their use of hitmen, murderers.
Mormonism is not Christian, for the following reasons:
1) It's polytheistic, and Christians believe in only ONE God, in three Persons.
2) Smith's wretched "scriptures," cobbled together out of various novels and Bible bits, are demonstrable fictions.
3) Human beings can't become gods.
4) We're all equal in God's sight -- men, women, Jews, Gentiles (real Gentiles), gays, straights -- you name it. We all go to one heaven if we accept God's grace.
5) The bizarre Mormon Jesus isn't the same as the Christian Jesus.
6) I know more about Mormon history and theology than you do -- and it's pretty ugly stuff.
Goodbye.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
What was so wonderful about Luther?
(Martin Luther)
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Trying to lure me out again, Myrrh? Won't work here. If you start a new and separate thread, I'll see you there.
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Trying to lure me out again, Myrrh? Won't work here. If you start a new and separate thread, I'll see you there.
I was really only asking in context of this discussion where the Mormons are bombarded with specific accusations to show they're far too uppity in daring to think themselves Christians, nasty murdering bigots from the beginning as it were is one these.
Luther the great reformer it seems didn't reform anything much except in whose control all the murdering bigotry was vested, himself v the established Church of his time. Even if you think the history of the Mormons as given here shows them falling well short of Christ's teaching on this all you can legitimately say is this makes them no different from those who take their beginning from Luther or Calvin or the RC Church they came out of which can't then be used as an argument to prove the Mormons aren't Christian, unless you admit that makes Lutherans and the rest non-Christians either.
There's an extremely low limbo pole given for the Mormons to get under to prove they're Christian and no pole at all for those arguing this.
The inequality of women has been another constant theme running through the thread, but Luther it seems gave only lip service to the equality of women, a great idea and change of direction but he couldn't quite bring himself to believe it himself. (The Less Noble Sex by Nancy Tuana). Is there anything in the doctrines as his brand of Christianity envisaged women that shows any different? Were they allowed to speak in Church?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Very interesting quotes from Luther's works in that page you linked us to Myrrh... http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/Martin%20Luther.htm
I would like to make a quote also, on Anthropomorphism, the idea that God is like man. Unlike what some people might think, this is a very ancient Christian heresy. In Saint Cassian's work Conferences, we read the story of Abbot Serapion, a very holy man, that didn't know that the Godhead is not like manhood, because he had been taught differently and worshipped as if the Godhead was similar to manhood... He realized his mistake, only when a learned man explained to him that the catholic churches in the East interpret the verse "Let us make man after our image and likeness" in a different way, and was presented with evidence from the scriptures that God is not like that.
http://www.osb.org/lectio/cassian/conf/book1/conf10.html#10.3
I find the last words of that chapter very touching, when the old man is stripped of the God he knew and does not know the God He addresses.
quote:
......and when we arose to give thanks, and were all together offering up our prayers to the Lord, the old man was so bewildered in mind during his prayer because he felt that the Anthropomorphic image of the Godhead which he used to set before himself in prayer, was banished from his heart, that on a sudden he burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groanings: "Alas! wretched man that I am! they have taken away my God from me, and I have now none to lay hold of; and whom to worship and address I know not." By which scene we were terribly disturbed......
[ 03. June 2007, 15:34: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Merlin, you are a bigot, a bully, and a liar; you roll right over the evidence and just keep going like a demented Energizer Bunny, without acknowledging what others have said and demonstrated. Others give scholarly links; you ignore them, and go on what you feel in your gut. You're on the wrong forum, sir.
I've given plenty of sources. I haven't ignored anything: as I said, I've already read that stuff before, and you are buying into anti Mormon spin.
Personal attacks are for HELL, as far as I understand how the Ship is ordered. So, sweetie, you are the one on the wrong forum.
quote:
For the record: Joe Smith was a lecher and a fraud.
"Joe" Smith was human, and never claimed to be perfect. But did claim that there was nothing untrue about the doctrines that he taught. He believed them and lived them himself. He also claimed that in his heart, he had never desired to do a wrong. He never claimed that he had not done any wrong, only that it was not premeditated.
quote:
Brigham Young was a lecher and a fraud.
Fraud is such a cheap shot. How do you prove that you are not beating your wife?
quote:
They were both liars,...
And lying makes everything you teach automatically invalid? Rahab and Abraham are going to hell with Joe and Brigham? Only perfect teachers have the right to set up a religion?
quote:
... and, through their use of hitmen, murderers.
Wrong, lady, simply wrong. You believe the lies that enemies of the church have always spread around. (Remember reading about the wild stuff that detractors of early Christianity spread around? And Muslims commonly once believed -- some probably still do -- that Christians EAT their God: transubstantiation misunderstood.)
quote:
Mormonism is not Christian, for the following reasons:
1) It's polytheistic, and Christians believe in only ONE God, in three Persons.
Wrong. ORTHODOXY requires the Trinity. There are other understandings within Christianity besides YOUR requirements.
quote:
2) Smith's wretched "scriptures," cobbled together out of various novels and Bible bits, are demonstrable fictions.
A sweeping statement. The NT is a targum itself of the OT in many parts. Jesus' own teachings were OT based, with a slant toward charity and "love your enemies", quite unique for the time. His own "golden rule" was not unique to him. He "cobbled" a lot of earlier stuff together and gave it a new "spin." (Or, we can accept the sage who said "there is nothing new under the sun".)
quote:
3) Human beings can't become gods.
You say it and therefore Jesus' own words are untrue. The Psalmist he quoted is wrong. Muslims are right: Christian teachings about us being the "children (sons)" of God are false doctrine, because the ONE God has no children. You should become Muslim, then, and eliminate all these inconsistencies (their God doesn't require a "son" to do his work of salvation for him; or volumes of rhetoric attempting to explain "the mystery" of the Triune God).
quote:
4) We're all equal in God's sight -- men, women, Jews, Gentiles (real Gentiles), gays, straights -- you name it. We all go to one heaven if we accept God's grace.
True statement. Why not cite the Book of Mormon references for that belief? (I did earlier.) Mormons teach that better than anyone else I know of. (you've left out "fake Gentiles", so I am assuming that there IS a category of self-deluded people that you are sure are hell-bound)
quote:
5) The bizarre Mormon Jesus isn't the same as the Christian Jesus.
But, it IS Jesus Christ being taught and believed. The only thing "bizarre" about the "Mormon Jesus" is, that he is our elder brother, period. Otherwise, everything Mormons believe about Jesus Christ's message and mission falls into place comfortably with mainstream Christianity.
quote:
6) I know more about Mormon history and theology than you do
How can you make a claim like this, when you cannot possibly know?
quote:
-- and it's pretty ugly stuff.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: the reverse is also true.
And, for the record, I think that dogmatic, organized religion across the board is pretty ugly stuff. It produces vituperative attitudes like yours.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
......and when we arose to give thanks, and were all together offering up our prayers to the Lord, the old man was so bewildered in mind during his prayer because he felt that the Anthropomorphic image of the Godhead which he used to set before himself in prayer, was banished from his heart, that on a sudden he burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groanings: "Alas! wretched man that I am! they have taken away my God from me, and I have now none to lay hold of; and whom to worship and address I know not." By which scene we were terribly disturbed......
Very interesting quote, andreas. I have had, quite recently (and by gentle degrees) "my anthropomorphic God" stripped away from me as well. I cannot pray comfortably "Our Heavenly Father", and end, "In Jesus Christ's name, Amen". Because the concept of "God" that I currently hold is not of any shape, size, dimension, or comprehension within space-time. I can pray toward a manifestation of "God" as anthropomorphic; but it feels one full step removed to me. I want my own "reunion" with THE One God of all creation. I don't want to worship some intermediary, no matter how much "they" know.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I understand mate, I understand. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[qb] Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE][qb]The biggest problem with Mormonism's view of women is that it isn't content to see women as somehow second-class souls just on Earth; that view extends to the afterlife. I don't know of any other religion with a pretense to being Christian that does that. Do you even understand why it's so appalling a concept?
You STILL have it wrong, Ross! Women and men in mortality have different roles. Mormons routinely joke that men have the priesthood so that they will be compelled to do something; if the women had it, the men would just not amount to anything. Good men, of which the church predominates (but not to listen to your view of it), do not joke when they often claim that they "married above" themselves, i.e. they publically admit that their wives are better people than they themselves are. My own father talks like that each time I visit with him: he has nothing but praise for his wife, and says she is a far better person than he is. I know of countless examples of this, from the "general authorities" right through the entire church.
Men throughout history have made statements like this about women, Merlin, usually while depring them of autonomy, authority, rights to control their own lives, income , property, and a place in society. The Victorian term was 'The Angel in the House', who had no rights other then those her husband allowed her. So that is what Mormonism is like if you are a woman? And I find it hard to take seriously any views on women from a man who will 'slap' them even virtually
G
G
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
