|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Mormonism true?
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If Jesus was mad, bad or everything He claims, what was Joseph Smith?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
What are those things that you are all in agreement on? I have been told that for a long time but haven't seen anything here or elsewhere that lists them, or anything to indicate that such a list exists.
The List
Except for those of us that don't (agree with the all of the creeds statements, that is). Unitarians, Spong, and a whole bunch of individuals.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sub-Christians? Pre-Christians? Post-Chrsitians?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
<Raises Sarcasm Flag>
Yes, because we need to label and dismiss anyone that does not perfectly fit within every single one of the lines.
<Lowers Sarcasm Flag>
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 11. May 2005, 14:13: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
As has been argued to the point of ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) you have to draw the line somewhere or the word Christian is useless.
Traditionally, the Nicene Creed has been used as a standard.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
As has been argued to the point of you have to draw the line somewhere or the word Christian is useless.
Traditionally, the Nicene Creed has been used as a standard.
Absolutely, the tradition of division, seperation, and legalism should be continued at all costs. Absolutely.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Sounds to me like the Christians, not the Archaeologists, are interpreting the Archaeology. You know, kinda like what they do with Geology and Genesis.
Except that, of course, most Christians don't do that with geology and Genesis. If your well known stance about the truth of Christianity is based on that assumption, then it doesn't correspond to reality. Better take an intro course in Christianity and find out what we really do believe, then criticize that if you want.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Maybe Canadian Christians don't, but I am ass-deep in them here. I'm afraid I have enough World Religion, and Christianity courses I need for this one's lifetime, thanks.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am ass-deep in them here.
Get out there and teach the little buggers some geology then!
Isn't this a failure of the scientific community in the USA to communicate effectively with non-scientists?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmm. The Sword of the Spirit does divide, doesn't it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Absolutely, the tradition of division, seperation, and legalism should be continued at all costs.
I presume you'll be starting a new tradition of calling every human, every faith, every belief and every truth claim Christian on the grounds of a refusal to exclude?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am ass-deep in them here.
Get out there and teach the little buggers some geology then!
Isn't this a failure of the scientific community in the USA to communicate effectively with non-scientists?
Ken, the U.S. of A. is a big place. It's a diverse place. All the scientists in the world can't keep up with a bunch of fundeliteralists teaching their kids that the world was created in seven days and Noah did, in fact, float the entire ecosystem we see today on a barge during the big earthwash.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Absolutely, the tradition of division, seperation, and legalism should be continued at all costs.
I presume you'll be starting a new tradition of calling every human, every faith, every belief and every truth claim Christian on the grounds of a refusal to exclude?
No by all means continue to seperate, divide, and conquer. Please. Be sure to throw in a few pogroms and Crusades too! I mean if we are going to do it right......
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Mad Geo, I suspect what [some] people are talking about is a simple definitional issue. It's not about dividing, for me, anyway. I'd say, if you buy the resurrection and atoning death of Jesus Christ for us all, then you're a Christian. Most people who do not accept the resurrection and atonement (however that worked) are definitionally not Christian, and most would say so. I know lots of Quakers, for example, who don't consider themselves Christians for this reason.
Now, that's a totally different question from the princple of universality -- that is, whether God reaches people where they are. As to that, I think God can reach people, universally, on the (for want of a better word) wavelength they're on. Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Mormon.
The LDS has been very wise about selecting for a prime mission focus this deal about being with family forever (after death) because I think this is a huge concern for a lot of people in life. A lot of folks can't imagine wanting a heaven away from spouse, kids, etcetera. The way I see it, Christian scripture is pretty clear that this is not promised, rather, what is promised is some unknown status during a period after death until we are resurrected at the Last Day to eternal life. However, based on Mormon teachings, what happens after death is far clearer and more comforting to people on earth. In the end, I think to the extent that something happens after death (heaven-like, that is) it will be so wonderful that earthly desires won't matter much.
Now, for those folks who want that sort of reassurance that the Mormons (or the Buddhists, or the Siks, or the Orthdox Church) offer, I'd say God gets to them that way. As long as the fruit is generally good, I haven't got a problem with it.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Stop avoiding the question please, Mad Geo.
Are you prepared to accept any definition of the term "Christian" or not? If not, do I have to stop using it? Are there any other words you object to for similar reasons?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Laura, as usual, you are the voice of reason. I have to point out that you said:
"It's not about dividing, for me, anyway."
I absolutely believe you that you are not about dividing. I do not agree that others present on this thread and others spewing divisiveness on the threads this week, are not.
GreyFace
I do not like creeds. I see the "definition" of Christian as "Follower of Christ". And THAT is a mighty, mighty wide tent. I think Creeds are of the devil. If there was a devil.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
As a credal Christian, I find that divisive.
You see what I mean. If you make a judgement that something is true or false you bracket some people into the 'false' category. On the other hand it is impossible not to make such distinctions. The overwhelming majority of Christians have made their distinction of what a Christian is on 'acceptance of the doctrines set forth in the Nicene Creed'. The Mormons make theirs (rather more narrowly) on 'acceptance of the LDS interpretation of scripture and the doctrines set forth in later additions to the canon since the invention* of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. The Muslims make theirs on 'acceptance of the doctrines set forth in the Quran'. I could multiply examples. Any body of thought or doctrine is going to have a limit that one eventually runs up against. I fail to see why Christians should be an exception to this rule.
*Which you can interpret in the modern or archaic sense depending on your POV.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
<Whips out Webster's Collegiate dictionary>
Christian n. a follower or disciple of Christ; a professed adherent of the Church of Christ
Christianity n. the religion of the followers of Christ.
Maybe I'm relying on Webster's too much, but it seems to me that good ole Webster knew something about Christians that they might not want to admit in their zest for dividing themselves up into neat little antagonistic packages. Namely, the definition of the very word Christian itself doesn't go:
Christian n. a follower or disciple of Christ, the Nicene Creed, the Apostle's Creed, and the individual congregations esoteric little squablings over theology.
No.
It is "Follower or Disciple of Christ". More inclusive, more loving, less hostile. All good.
But that's just my opinion. Asked and answered GreyFace.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
They're synonymous.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I'm with you all the way on that, MG. If someone is following Christ to the best of their ability and understanding, they're a Christian as far as I'm concerned. Even if I think they've got him wrong.
Timothy
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
I do think that the point is being missed here with many people wishing to be conciliatory. Mormonism is not true! Why? Because the whole theology is against Christian belief. Oh say you, why?
The god of Mormonism, Elohim, is an exalted man who became god over this planet by living as a Mormon man on another planet. He is one of many splendiferous god's who achieved their godhood the same way. They are all masculine and they all have many Mormon wives. Elohim came down to earth and had sexual intercourse (over shadowed) the virgin Mary who had a son, the Mormon Jesus. Mormon Jesus achieved his godhood by living a good Mormon life. The way of salvation is not his crucified sacrifice but to live to the Mormon way of life and achieve the same state of exalted manhood. Please correct me if I have it wrong, but where is the Christianity in this religion? If we are talking about gospel "true", then I respectfully submit that Mormonism is as much another religion as any of the other world faiths who have a view of Jesus (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism). I do not wish to be as divisive as GM says in theological argument between Christian people. I can accept the broad diversity in ways of Christianity. But when it comes to who Jesus is (his nature) and how we are to be reconciled with God (his cross) Mormonism does not fit any breadth.
[ 11. May 2005, 19:11: Message edited by: plaintif cry ]
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Plaintif Cry, do they or do they not follow Christ? If so, then I call them Christian. If not then not.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
That's going to make the group even smaller, MG. How many of us can claim that we truly follow Christ? At best I can claim that I make the effort sometimes.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Judas.
"To follow" has broader meaning than "To perfectly replicate", does it not?
Webster is just plain useful today:
follow: v.t. to go after; to move behind; to succeed (in a post); to adhere to (a belief); to comprehend; to watch carefully; to keep in touch with; v.i. to come after to pursue; to occur as a consequence; n. the act of following
So to websterize my earlier post:
quote:
Plaintif Cry, do they or do they not pursue/go after Christ? If so, then I call them Christian. If not then not.
Those of you that are advocating creedalism: doesn't it bother you that you are actively trying to exclude people that want to be Christians?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...
I do not like creeds. <snip!> I think Creeds are of the devil. If there was a devil.
Why?
[ 11. May 2005, 23:34: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
P.S. The "Judas" in my earlier post was a swear directed to the winds, not at Ruth lest there be any confusion......
I am not feeling betrayed, currently.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
... In the end, I think to the extent that something happens after death (heaven-like, that is) it will be so wonderful that earthly desires won't matter much.
Excellent. This has a ring of truth for me. A heaven so profound that the earthly experience of love would seem a shadow; so universal that it couldn't be limited to just your family.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Sounds to me like the Christians, not the Archaeologists, are interpreting the Archaeology. You know, kinda like what they do with Geology and Genesis.
Theologians really shouldn't try to play with the Science. It almost always gets embarrassing for the Theologians.
Nope, sorry -- sounds to me as though you're trying to carry a certain Hellish fight up to Purgatory. You have no basis for your statements. (The scholars in question, incidentally, are Jews, Christians, and None of the Above.)
Rossweisse // theologians are not really involved
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...The LDS has been very wise about selecting for a prime mission focus this deal about being with family forever (after death) because I think this is a huge concern for a lot of people in life. A lot of folks can't imagine wanting a heaven away from spouse, kids, etcetera. The way I see it, Christian scripture is pretty clear that this is not promised, rather, what is promised is some unknown status during a period after death until we are resurrected at the Last Day to eternal life....In the end, I think to the extent that something happens after death (heaven-like, that is) it will be so wonderful that earthly desires won't matter much. ...
Brava, Laura. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.
Mad Geo, who is this Christ you speak of following?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.
Mad Geo, who is this Christ you speak of following?
Sine, was that a bit unpurgatorial, or was there a real question in there?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Plaintif Cry, do they or do they not follow Christ? If so, then I call them Christian. If not then not.
For Christians understanding the nature of Christ has always been a key to orthodoxy. To promote a way of following Christ that does not see the Tri-unity and incarnation of Christ as an essential belief is unorthodox. While I can accept those more liberal in their Christianity than I, as well as those more fundamental, I respect the right of other faiths to hold another understanding of Jesus (prophet, heretic, not-son of God, good religious teacher etc). To say of a "Church" that it is Christian takes a common understanding of who Jesus is in being and purpose. Mormonism does not share this and so the Mormon Jesus is not orthodox and, therefore, not Jesus. Mormonism can not be "true" as a Christian faith because of this sad, misguided representation of Christ. In the opinion of most of simple Christians they are following a different "Christ" to those for whom Jesus is both Lord and Christ.
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
quote:
by Mad Geo:
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.
That they are used as methods of exclusion can be learned from history. Those who do not ascribed to them are anathematized if not burned at stake.
If we were to categorized those who have not ascribed to these Creeds today, wouldn't we find some of them as Christians?
--------------------
I am, therefore I think.
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Those of you that are advocating creedalism: doesn't it bother you that you are actively trying to exclude people that want to be Christians?
I don't even admit to the charge, because I think that to a large extent, we choose whether or not to accept propositional truths such as we find in the Creed - for various reasons of course.
I note that you yourself appear to be applying a definition of something like "Christian = someone who is a follower of Christ." Would you like to qualify this? Do you think Muslims are following Christ, as they believe he is the second most important Prophet? Can an extreme atheist be said to be a follower of Christ even though her response to the question might be "Hell, no, he didn't even exist and was made up as a means of control by the evil Church" or some such strange rationalisation? If you let these fall within your functional definition, your definition is useless for communication.
Can someone be said to be a follower of Christ if they believe Christ to be a seven-headed turtle-like alien from Andromeda who orders us to exterminate ginger-haired people? I think not. I wouldn't make a judgement on the eternal destination of this person, though.
So the purpose of the Creed isn't to exclude people. It's to exclude wrong beliefs about Christ. People are free to change their beliefs accordingly to match what the Church teaches, or not. Or they would be if you'd all vote for me.
Where this becomes divisive is if you start persecuting those who don't accept the Creed. This has certainly been done but if you think I'm advocating that, you can take it to Hell.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
They are used as methods of exclusion. They imply that to be a follower of Christ is not enough. I find that sad.
Mad Geo, who is this Christ you speak of following?
Sine, was that a bit unpurgatorial, or was there a real question in there?
Plaintif Cry and GreyFace saw where I was going with that. That was the very first question people asked and as soon as you start answering it you are setting up boundaries. If your Christ is a really neat Jewish rabbi with a great set of ethics and someone else's is a person of the Holy & Undivided Trinity if you both call yourself "Christians" then the definition becomes so loose as to be virually meaningless, in my opinion.
Unless of course one is extremely PoMo, in which case I guess it doesn't really matter, but then what would?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
(BTW, Mad Geo, I'm shocked and hurt you'd think I'd post anything that wasn't Really Heavy and simply packed with meaning.)
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How can one declare one is following Christ - stumbling, distracted, ignorant, stupid, weak as we are - and NOT say amen to the Nicene creed, UNLESS one really is a LONG way behind. Despite being a secular saint perhaps? Despite being an unusually decent person? There is something amiss. A mote compared with my beams, but blinding nonetheless.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How can one declare one is following Christ - stumbling, distracted, ignorant, stupid, weak as we are - and NOT say amen to the Nicene creed, UNLESS one really is a LONG way behind. Despite being a secular saint perhaps? Despite being an unusually decent person? There is something amiss. A mote compared with my beams, but blinding nonetheless.
I belong to a way of Christian fellowship that isn't creedal! I have worshipped in a creedal church and don't have any problem with the propositional theology of the Nicene creed (or the Apostles for that matter). But the fact is that in a Congregational church all that is required is a confession that Jesus is Lord. The problem with any language definintion of inclusion is that language can be divisive (even such a simple confession). The number of times I have heard LDS, or JW for that matter among others, using overtly Christianised language to express a wholly different proposition are too many to count. Orthodox Christianity does have the substance of creedal confession at its heart for sure. The problem, I believe, is when the language begins to tie down the spiritual reality. When doctrine and tradition lose the substance of God's gospel and the out going mission into the lives of those whom God loves and for whom Christ died to give the fullest of lives, now and always and forever. Brian D. McLaren has writted a very good look at what this means in "a Generous Orthodoxy." A good read even if you don't/shouldn't agree with everything in it.
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mormon Boy
Shipmate
# 9409
|
Posted
Boy, I can miss a day but the ship just keeps sailing along.
Campbelite, in response to my request for a list of the things that all Christians believe together you posted a link to the Nicene Creed. I have to say, that it sounds pretty good. With one exception (one that I think most of you share) I really don't see where we fall outside of those beliefs.
The Creed states:
quote:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God...
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
The First Article of Faith states:
quote:
WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost
(They can be found in their entirety here )
The Nicene Creed states that God the Father is the Creator of all things and that Christ is the Creator as well. This is a fundamental LDS doctrine, and those of you who have watched illeagal copies of the Temple film can attest to that. (This isn't the only place that is taught obviously)
Of Christ's mission the Creed states:
quote:
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
Well since all of that is demonstrably Biblical, it lines up with what I have been taught all of my life. I don't see where there is any problem there. In addition the Third Article of Faith states that:
quote:
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
Of the Holy Ghost, the Creed states that:
quote:
(He) spoke by the prophets.
Well we certainly claim that Divine Revalation has come to Prophets throughout the history of the world. We also claim that that Divine Revalation has not stopped nor has the need for Prophets.
The Creed closes with:
quote:
We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Once again, this exactly follows LDS doctrine.
The only part I am not in agreement with is:
quote:
And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church
And since that is a small c catholic, I don't necesarily disagree with with this statement because I certainly do believe in an Apostolic and universal Church. In addition to Apostles, we have organized closely along the lines of the Church that Christ set up (sixth Article of Faith):
quote:
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
So I am really not seeing what your beef is if you are saying that whether you are Christian or not is based on the Nicene Creed.
--------------------
For the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not
Posts: 139 | From: Charlotte NC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Mormon Boy: as you suspect, "one holy catholic and apostolic church" for non-Roman Catholics means "one holy universal and apostolic church". It doesn't mean Roman Catholic.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I think we are reaching an impasse here on this topic with regards to creeds, case in point:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
So the purpose of the Creed isn't to exclude people. It's to exclude wrong beliefs about Christ. People are free to change their beliefs accordingly to match what the Church teaches, or not. Or they would be if you'd all vote for me.
Who get's to decide which beliefs are "wrong beliefs"? You can answer if you want, but I am fairly positive it will basically boil down to "my guys voted in these creedal beliefs as "right" and that's good enough for me". Which is fine, until someone uses them to bash people (not saying you are) and someone(s) always does. Just like has been going on up and down the boards this week by some.
I would prefer to let individuals and groups of individuals decide for themselves if they want to call themselves a "follower of Christ" a.k.a Christians. As such, most muslims would not say that, they would say they are a follower of Mohammed. Buddhists would say they are a follower of Buddha or at least his teachings. And so on. If a Mormon tells me (s)he is a follower of Christ, bully for them! Excellent. The water is warm, join the party!
P.S. Sine, I am now clear that your post was deep and loaded with truly profound implications and insight. It was I that erred and I apologize for my lack of aptitude. I will try to do better next time.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If a Mormon tells me (s)he is a follower of Christ, bully for them! Excellent. The water is warm, join the party!
I did say similar to EM when I joined in this discussion. I do think that the personal decision of anyone of whom they favour as deity or religious icon is their free choice. Yep, there is little doubt that the only judge of rightness is the Almighty. I can only say that I run far away from becoming the judge of anyone's justification before God. I am deeply and completely dependant on his Grace and have nothing to boast about meself!!!!. The big problem comes when it is clear that there are more principalities and powers at work in the picture. Jesus warns of those who will claim to be him. The deceptions are deep and wide and I believe that LDS is the product of this measure of deception.
[fixed code]
[ 12. May 2005, 20:27: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And far from the only one. As I can personally testify.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
plaintif cry
Apprentice
# 9271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If a Mormon tells me (s)he is a follower of Christ, bully for them! Excellent. The water is warm, join the party!
I did say similar to EM when I joined in this discussion. I do think that the personal decision of anyone of whom they favour as deity or religious icon is their free choice. Yep, there is little doubt that the only judge of rightness is the Almighty. I can only say that I run far away from becoming the judge of anyone's justification before God. I am deeply and completely dependant on his Grace and have nothing to boast about meself!!!!. The big problem comes when it is clear that there are more principalities and powers at work in the picture. Jesus warns of those who will claim to be him. The deceptions are deep and wide and I believe that LDS is the product of this measure of deception.
[fixed code]
[ 12. May 2005, 20:29: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
I wish I had the answers but I haven't got a clue. I just depend on Jesus as my path from feeling blue.
Posts: 34 | From: newcastle-under-lyme | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mormon Boy
Shipmate
# 9409
|
Posted
Plaintiff, what do you mean by:
quote:
there are more principalities and powers at work in the picture. Jesus warns of those who will claim to be him. The deceptions are deep and wide.
I have obviously heard lots of these claims, but I am wondering what specifically it is to which you are referring.
--------------------
For the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not
Posts: 139 | From: Charlotte NC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mormon Boy:
Plaintiff, what do you mean by:
quote:
there are more principalities and powers at work in the picture. Jesus warns of those who will claim to be him. The deceptions are deep and wide.
I have obviously heard lots of these claims, but I am wondering what specifically it is to which you are referring.
I don't think this has any concequence with regards to the fallibility of "Mormonism" whatsoever. Since Joseph Smith did not claim to be Jesus, but only claimed to see Him. This prophecy clearly reveals that people will come testifying that they are Jesus Christ - whereas Prophet Joseph did nothing of the sort.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I was wondering. You feel that what these people believe in is wrong. Yet, some of you a) admit openly that they don't feel that they themselves follow Christ b) have different and contradictory opinions about what one god in three persons means c) have a different view on sexuality than the church for thousands of years had. At the same time, you think that it's OK that you believe what you believe, and that you can live in a different way than what the universal church taught from ancient times. But it's not OK for them to believe what they believe and call themselves Christians.
Instead of being humble, because we don't know all things, you seem to be so sure that you know what it's true and what's false, even if you do not admit that you feel so sure. For example, some of you feel perfectly comfortable with the idea that contraception or pre-marital relationships are OK. Those people think that they are right, and those that think otherwise are wrong. This is a Christianity made to suit one's own wishes, instead of Christ's will.
We have even reached a point when people bash others for saying that they indeed love everybody, as if Christ's commandment was something that is impossible for people to do, or it's something only an elite can do.
I see a so-called Christian forum, where people are rude at each other, get angry, insult other people, make fun of each other and so on. Yet, these people call themselves Christians.
Is this what Christ wants? If this is not what He wants, then why aren't we openly discussing ways to help ourselves and each other, by living according to Christ's will and not according to our will? Why are we focusing on what other people think, instead of asking for help? I think that the community of this forum could help each other live according to Christ's will, if we were more open about it, and we were trying to act like Christ, instead of acting like, well, ourselves.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
I'm not really all that bothered whether Mormons call themselves 'Christian' or not. I have my own definition (anyone who believes in God and trusts Jesus to save them) which a Mormon might well fall within, or might not. My understanding of Mormon theology is that Jesus' work is certainly one of the things they trust in, and an important one, but not the only or necessarily sufficient thing.
Although if they do, I think they ought to make clear (as, to be fair, I think they do) that from their point of view the rest of us aren't really proper believers and are on the edge of their faith - as we believe in a true, but incomplete, revelation.
While there's room for profitable discussion with Mormons, when I looked into Mormonism, I certainly did not feel that believing it would be similar to a change of denomimation within mainstream Christianity. Believing Joseph Smith and his successors have authority is a much bigger leap than believing the same of St Peter's successors, because it means accepting a wholly new (and rather bizarre) theology, not just a few new rules.
Is it true? Well, at the time I knew nothing of the archeological evidence save for a few Mormon tracts giving points in support, but looking at the BofM itself, I have to say I found it entirely unconvincing. The test I was asked to apply was to pray to God to show me whether the Book was true and J Smith was a prophet. I was told that God had promised that I would receive a spiritual witness if I did this (which is a concept I was and am quite comfortable with). I did pray as asked, and that sincerely.
My experience was that the BofM did not ring true. Historically, stylistically, ethically, it read like a modern 'new Bible', not like a genuine historical document. Even without external evidence, I just wasn't convinced. It could easily have been written in nineteenth century America, and I expect that it was. I haven't really considered it since, because I applied the test I was asked to, and it registered a clear 'No'. While I wouldn't apply such a subjective test to, say, the Koran, it is the explicit claim of LDS church that their Book was delivered to them miraculously and will be attested to by God to anyone who prays about it. On that basis: weighed in the balance and found wanting.
[ 12. May 2005, 20:48: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
MormonBoy wrote:
quote:
In addition the Third Article of Faith states that:
quote:
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
I want to make sure I'm understanding this properly. Does the Mormon faith hold that "obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" is required in addition to grace to achieve salvation, that grace alone is not sufficient? Also, what precisely is included in the "Gospel"? Would it encompass the BoM?
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
