I don't claim to be an expert on Mormonism. I know the history of it and I've done a fair bit of reading, but nothing close to what I've done with traditional Christianity. However, I would like to ask the Mormons on our board if the following youtube video is actually what Mormons believe:
If it is true, please explain the context. I've seen this video several times and I have been told numerous times that it really is what traditional Mormonism believes.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not a Mormon but most of the weirder stuff in that is either folk doctrine which is not canon but also not officially rejected, or represents material taught by early church leaders but which has been rejected by the church since then.
A lot of the stuff about space/stars/planets/gods is from early leaders and some of it is believed by modern Mormons but not something you'd generally learn in Sunday school these days.
The war in heaven thing is real. The one third/two thirds thing is real. The dark skin stuff was another early prophet thing, repudiated by more recent leaders.
The Nephite/Lamanite stuff is more or less what is taught now, without the repeated mention of everyone's skin color. Also the claim about "the Americas" has softened substantially. Originally it was commonly believed that the Native Americans of North America were descendants of the Lamanites.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The dark skin stuff was another early prophet thing, repudiated by more recent leaders.
whereabouts is this part?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll try to watch your video and comment on it when I get home.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Jeff C:
Before addressing the particulars, I'd hope you'd consider two important principles in the background of everything this video is claiming.
1: This video is from the God Makers. It's a video that is expressly designed not to inform people about Mormonism so they can make a better judgement for themselves, rather to steer them into either leaving it, or never joining. Information is secondary to that effort. Accuracy isn't even third.
2: It makes no distinction between speculation and accepted doctrine. Everything is presented as if that's what Mormons believe and actively teach. The stuff we actually do believe is indistinguishable from the stuff that we don't actually answer. For example, imagine somebody presenting Christianity and saying Christians believe that God and Mary are the parents of Jesus, and that Christians believe God came down and had physical sex with Mary and took her virginity, and got her pregnant. (Note: I wrote this before seeing the video actually states Mormons believe this, they don't.)
I am positive there are Christian ministers who have believed that physical sex was involved, and all Christians agree that Mary was pregnant by God, and not by her husband. But to present that as a standard doctrine is misleading. We do not actually know how Mary came to be pregnant by God. I don't think God is limited by sex, we're able to get a woman pregnant without her actually having sex. I would think God is at least as capable as we are.
Anyway, to the video.
We believe that things on Earth are based on how they exist in heaven. That is, our world is patterned after it to some extent. So God has children, raises them, and teaches them, just as a parent would here. We know that sex is involved in reproduction here on Earth. It might follow that sex is unchanged in heaven, and is also how God created us. But that is not taught, we don't know.
The depiction of God creating the Earth for men to be tested on, and the dual plans of Christ and Satan are just at titch off. God's original plan was to give men their agency, Christ simply supported God in that decision. Christ was selected to fill the savior's role, but no vote was taken on the matter, God simply decided.
The doctrine that fence sitters were born black has been taught by some leaders of the church. That can't be denied. But I think it's a chicken/egg scenario. Rather the church at the time of Brigham Young's tenure had stopped giving black people the priesthood, so to justify this, the idea that black people were cursed because they were Cain's descendents, or because they had been neutral in heaven was propagated so that people went along with the ban. False doctrine begets false doctrine in my mind. And I don't say that lightly. I still struggle with that episode of God's church's history. As evidence it is no longer taught, consider this article. I think Apostle McConkie's word's at the end of the priesthood ban are instructive,
"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding."
You should be made aware that Pres. McConkie was one of the major believers that the ban against priesthood ordination for blacks was God's will, even though he personally (I've seen no evidence of this, he was a great man) did not hate black people.
The belief that people born in the church or in America were the most righteous in the pre-existance has definitely been pervasive in the church, but it's not official doctrine, nor does it hold up to a little scrutiny. For one thing virtually every single prophet prior to Joseph Smith, including Jesus was not born with what we would call "white skin". The Book of Mormon *does* discuss two factions of people in its narrative, one god fearing and civil, the other carnal and evil, and that God gave the latter a darker skin so as to make them identifiable to the people of the civil faction. People have extrapolated from that that anybody with dark skin is somehow spiritually inferior to those with white skin, though the Book of Mormon specifically says regarding the unequal way men treat each other,
"For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (emphasis mine)
It is absolutely true that Brigham Young taught that God and Adam were the same being. This belief has been clarified as false by subsequent leaders. President Young was mistaken in his understanding of the creative events that lead to the forming of the world. It is taught currently that Adam as a spirit took an active role in collaborating with God and Christ to actually form this world. I do not believe this is taught outside of Mormonism.
Orson Pratt may have taught what the video claims he did, but I have *never* heard those views articulated in church. I don't think they are held by even a tiny minority of the church. I have never heard that Joseph Smith claimed to be descended from Jesus. Jesus' marital status or paternal status on Earth are both open questions as far as I know in Mormonism. We have not answered them.
As Matt mentioned, initially it was believed in the church (thought note stated in scripture) that all Native Americans were descended from the people discussed in the Book of Mormon. The church has since revised that statement to read that the people of the Book of Mormon were one of the ancestral groups of the people that have come to populate North and South America. In much the same way, it was initially believed that the scope of the Book of Mormon must have covered all of the American continents. But at present Mormon archeology seems to be moving towards the narrative that things happened in a much smaller geographic area.
His brief description of how the Book of Mormon came to be, and Joseph Smith's restoration of the church were pretty accurate. Mormons however are not trying to prove themselves worthy to become transformed into Gods, rather it is in our natures to become like God, much like a baby grows into an adult, and so a combination of our nature, and the choices we make either fosters that outcome, or closes that possibility.
The image of Joseph Smith, Jesus, and God all sitting at the same bench is not something I would say is correct. We do believe that throughout history there have been what are called dispensations of the gospel. For example Moses headed a dispensation, as did Abraham, and in our day Joseph Smith has. So people belonging to a specific gospel dispensation will probably have that head as one of the people witnessing when judgement day comes. There is no evidence that people in heaven all have blond hair, that is a fabrication of the video.
But by no means is Joseph Smith co-equal with Christ or God as the video claims. Our scriptures specifically claim that Joseph Smith has done more for the salvation than any other man *save* Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith did not write that passage, rather John Taylor, who was with him when he died wrote it in his eulogy of him, and it was canonized. The video I am sure is aware of this, and doesn't wish to present the nuanced version. We do not believe that Joseph Smith's blood somehow enables us to become like God. We do believe that God in some sense allowed him to be killed so that his blood would serve as a testament of his words, much like other prophets have been permitted to be murdered for that same purpose.
I hope that answers some of your questions, feel free to continue asking them.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Thanks BB for that perspective. It's very interesting to hear an actual Mormon's point of view on the matter.
I'd also like to ask how Mormons feel about other religions. Does the Mormon church believe that if you aren't a Mormon, you'll go to Hell? Do they believe in Hell at all? How's that work, exactly? Will Christians (Catholics, Southern Babtists, etc.) go to Hell simply for believing in a different version of Christianity? What do Mormons think about the Jews? What about Atheists?
Thanks for the feedback. And these questions are open for anyone to chime in on. I'd like to hear a wide assortment of perspectives, even if you aren't mormon.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Jeff: Mormons believe everybody must accept Christ and his role as their savior if they are to be comfortable living with God in the next life. That conversion does not necessarily need to take place in mortality, though we believe we should be anxiously engaged in spreading the good word so as to promote the happiness of others.
People who do not convert in this life will be given some opportunity in the next life to have the gospel explained to them, and be able to make a fair choice.
Hell is better understood within Mormonism as a state of existence. We regularly call this world a Telestial Kingdom which is essentially what hell is. Essentially if you are OK living at this standard of existence, then you will find hell a perfectly livable place, maybe even much better than here. There is no physical death, sickness, disease, etc. But it's not as happy a place as heaven, which is a place people who actually want to live with God go to. Mormonism describes that were somebody who is not willing to live God's commandments were forced into heaven, they would prefer the fires of hell (so to speak) to the feelings they would have in the perfection of heaven.
I hope that answers your questions. Essentially, you are the judge of where you would feel comfortable ending up.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The church has since revised that statement to read that the people of the Book of Mormon were one of the ancestral groups of the people that have come to populate North and South America.
I'm always wondered where did Mormon's think these people went. Did they all die out without leaving any descendents?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The church has since revised that statement to read that the people of the Book of Mormon were one of the ancestral groups of the people that have come to populate North and South America.
I'm always wondered where did Mormon's think these people went. Did they all die out without leaving any descendents?
No. Plenty of Mormon archeologists have tried to figure that one out. But the BOM does not state that everybody died.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Jeff: I am also a Mormon and wanted to add a few things to what has already been said. In regards to how we feel about other religions, let me first quote Joseph Smith: "“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may.”
God is not partial to any human being. We seek truth wherever it can be found. I have met some pretty amazing people in my life from a variety of religions, as well as pagans, atheists and everyone in between. I have learned things from different people. God works to bring about good things in this world through whoever is willing.
While we have not been told the specifics of many notable figures throughout history, Mormons do believe that God has moved through people such as inspiring the invention of the printing press, or the invention of the Internet, or through people like Mother Teresa, or through the people that supported the civil rights movements.
In other words, Mormons aren't any better than non-Mormons. A non-Mormon doesn't have any less chance of getting to heaven than a Mormon. Like BlackBlade said, it comes down to what each individual really desires in their heart of hearts. Do they desire God? Do they desire to live with people who have learned to love and be happy? Are they willing to make sacrifices to stand up for what is right? Or, do they prefer things less than this? We believe the LDS church to be God's official organization on the earth for spreading saving doctrines, performing necessary saving ordinances, providing fellowship, and preparing the world for the return of Christ eventually. Not everyone that will be saved with God will have become a Mormon in this life. Not everyone who was a Mormon will be saved with God.
God is perfectly just. In the end, whether in this life or the next, everyone who truly desires to be with God will be there. They will have learned who Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are and will accept them if they want to. For example, I believe there are atheists who truly desire truth and stand by their beliefs because they believe them to be true, but who would accept God should they receive personal knowledge, in this life or the next, that God is real and is good. There are also other atheists who probably would not accept God should they become aware of Him, for selfish or proud or other reasons.
The real test for each of us, Mormons believe, is whether or not you are willing to accept and follow truth when you gain a personal knowledge of it. When you know for yourself that God has spoken to you, the truth of your desires will come out. Will you hunger to follow that truth, whatever the effort, or will you prefer to follow other things as a higher priority than God?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm always wondered where did Mormon's think these people went. Did they all die out without leaving any descendents?
This article by a Mormon geneticist argues that a small group might have left no detectable genetic legacy, especially since we don't actually know what genetic profile we're looking for.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
I'm finding the responses in this thread fascinating and very educational. For whatever reason(s), I've found it quite difficult to find objective discussions of actual Mormon theology. You either find the Mormon-haters (like the group/people who created this video), or you find believers who don't want to discuss their beliefs because of (well-founded) fears of persecution. (Or, the third choice, which is all too common across every religion in America: You get the people who superficially believe what they believe because that's what their parents and/or social group believe, but can't really explain why or provide any logical reasoning for their beliefs.)
From a protestant Christian perspective (in other words: mine), it seems to me that the primary difference between what I'll call "mainstream Christianity" and Mormonism is entirely centered around the validity of the revelation Joseph Smith had when he transcribed/dictated The Book of Mormon. (I apologize if not including the LDS church in the "mainstream" category is offensive to Mormons... I haven't really ever been able to get a straight answer on whether the church considers itself to be part of "mainstream Christianity" or not)
If Smith's experience with the golden plates of Mormon/Moroni was valid, then the teachings of the book are equally valid. If it wasn't, then they're basically an elaborate tale spun by a man. And, from what I've seen in my (admittedly limited) research, the existence of the golden plates is basically a matter of faith. Smith had 11 witnesses that vouched for the authenticity of the plates, but all of them were either family or close associates, so objective doubt can be cast over whether the witnesses really saw what they claimed to see.
Ultimately, as with many of the miracles in the Bible itself, it's impossible to conclusively prove the authenticity of the miracle/gift of the plates from Moroni... it's a statement of faith. And if Joseph Smith received the revelation of the Book of Mormon, then there's no reason to doubt that he also received the divine inspiration to compose the documents that became the Pearl of Great Price and a portion of the Doctrine and Covenants. (And, essentially, there's no reason to doubt that following Presidents of the Church didn't also receive divine inspiration to clarify and expand the D&C. I realize this is probably a gross oversimplification, but... well, I guess I'm trying to simplify by making broadly generalized statements that certain key points of dogma can only be accepted as faith, and that faith is the base upon which other beliefs can be built.)
A second criticism frequently leveled at Mormons, that of the actively changing canon/dogma, is not at all unique to Mormon theology. In fact, this is a dogma that is shared with Catholicism. At any time, a Pope can make a proclamation "ex cathedra," and it automatically becomes dogmatic belief for Catholics. (The most recent major use of this power was in 1950 to declare the Assumption of Mary as part of Catholic dogma.) Ecumenical councils, such as Vatican II, can change Catholic dogma, as well.
And on top of that, even the foundational Protestant belief of "sola scriptura" (the belief that only the Bible can provide dogmatic principles) does not (and should not, IMO) preclude protestants from seeking a greater understanding of God, his words to us, and how he wants us to interact with the world around us. This is not, by a strict definition, dogmatic belief or canon law, but it is, at the end of the day, what is most important for Christians: living your life as unto Christ.
One of the reasons I think ignorant, inflammatory videos like this are made to attack Mormon beliefs is because some of their core beliefs seem quite different to what other Christians have been taught their whole lives. It's easy to point a finger and derisively yell, "I weren't conceived with no alien sex!!" People who would say and do things like that, however, don't realize that in the early years following Jesus' life on Earth, the concept of partaking in "the body and blood of Christ" was equally foreign to the predominant Jewish and Roman religious beliefs at the time (and probably far more repulsive, as they considered it a form of cannibalism). Intolerance abounds where ignorance is found, and videos like this are a prime example.
(I would love to hear whether any of the Mormon believers on this board agree or disagree with my assessments, by the way. I freely admit that my statements are simply my opinion, and are based on decidedly incomplete facts about the LDS Church and Mormonism.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: A second criticism frequently leveled at Mormons, that of the actively changing canon/dogma, is not at all unique to Mormon theology. In fact, this is a dogma that is shared with Catholicism. At any time, a Pope can make a proclamation "ex cathedra," and it automatically becomes dogmatic belief for Catholics. (The most recent major use of this power was in 1950 to declare the Assumption of Mary as part of Catholic dogma.) Ecumenical councils, such as Vatican II, can change Catholic dogma, as well.
Not exactly. And by "most recent", you also mean "second". Pretty much nothing happens "automatically" in Catholicism. Even ex cathedra statements are meant to reflect the belief of the whole Church, not to radically change it. Sometimes, I wish it were that simple; most of the time, I am glad it isn't.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not exactly. And by "most recent", you also mean "second". Pretty much nothing happens "automatically" in Catholicism. Even ex cathedra statements are meant to reflect the belief of the whole Church, not to radically change it. Sometimes, I wish it were that simple; most of the time, I am glad it isn't.
Of course, you're correct, kmbboots. I was probably generalizing too broadly. As I understand it, an ex cathedra proclamation has always been well-vetted theologically, and it is always followed by the titular "assent of the Church" after the proclamation is made. The "assent" is basically a rubber-stamp in modern times, though, much like (as I understand it) proclamations made by the President of the LDS Church are also "formally accepted" by the church membership after they are made.
I do disagree that radical changes are not introduced into Catholic dogma, though. Perhaps it has never been done through the ex cathedra method, but Vatican II, for example, introduced many changes that, at the time, were considered quite radical.
I didn't realize there had been an ex cathedra pronouncement since the Assumption of Mary... what was it? (I'm honestly asking, not trying to be facetious.)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I haven't really ever been able to get a straight answer on whether the church considers itself to be part of "mainstream Christianity"
I think the LDS church considers itself mainstream Christianity the same way that Fox News considers itself mainstream media.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It was about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and it was before the proclamation about the Assumption. Also, some consider that canonization is also infallible. But other than that, those are the only two.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Thanks BB for that perspective. It's very interesting to hear an actual Mormon's point of view on the matter.
I'd also like to ask how Mormons feel about other religions. Does the Mormon church believe that if you aren't a Mormon, you'll go to Hell? Do they believe in Hell at all? How's that work, exactly? Will Christians (Catholics, Southern Babtists, etc.) go to Hell simply for believing in a different version of Christianity? What do Mormons think about the Jews? What about Atheists?
Thanks for the feedback. And these questions are open for anyone to chime in on. I'd like to hear a wide assortment of perspectives, even if you aren't mormon.
Mormons tend to approach questions about different churches from the perspective of there being one true church instituted by God from the very beginning, and either growing or "dying out" during the various periods of history and having to be reinstituted. The Mormons believe the church to be "restored" rather than newly created by Joseph Smith, with the same core doctrine, practices, and authority of the original church and its iterations through the ages.
We approach other faiths through this lens: other churches may have many true beliefs and do much good, but they do not have everything necessary to bring about the salvation of humankind the way the true church--by default--does. As we believe this is the specific purpose of having a church, this distinction matters quite a bit to us. It's why the Mormons are very missionary-focused, because we believe everybody on the earth present and past needs what the true church provides.
That said, the Mormon church in general does not disparage other faiths and beliefs and actively strives to remind its members to act this way toward others.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I haven't really ever been able to get a straight answer on whether the church considers itself to be part of "mainstream Christianity"
I think the LDS church considers itself mainstream Christianity the same way that Fox News considers itself mainstream media.
If I may preface this by stating that I abhor Fox News, what do you mean? I'm not sure I get it.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It was about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and it was before the proclamation about the Assumption. Also, some consider that canonization is also infallible. But other than that, those are the only two.
Ah, ok, I misunderstood what you meant. Thanks for that clarification!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It recognizes that it's distinct in some ways from what others would call mainstream news/Christianity, but only by being better and more correct.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Eh, that's what I was hoping he didn't mean.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, I see how the comparison would be unflattering if you don't like Fox News. But then, I think any view of a religion from the outside is unflattering. If you don't believe the same things, you sort of automatically believe there's a certain amount of delusion going on. I don't think the comparison was meant to paint the LDS church in an unflattering light compared to other churches, just to reflect the fact that the LDS church considers itself more correct and complete than other religions, in a way that is somewhat distinct from the ecumenical community that some other denominations feel included in.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
In the context of Hatrack, however, Fox News is quite a fashionable target of derision, and in the context of discussing the Mormon church, it's a common (if tired) poke at the church to say we consider ourselves a little superior to others. I was hoping Matt was saying something deeper than just yanking the same chain.
I honestly don't think much about how the LDS church stacks up with other churches. I view some in a very favorable light myself, and some in a less favorable light, but not simply based on their views toward my church. As far as being part of "mainstream" Christianity, I don't think we are and I don't think we care that much if we're viewed as such or not from a purely religious standpoint. As far as a PR standpoint, sure. We want a spot at the table in some conversations like charitable service, policy toward religion, and other things.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I didn't mean it to be unflattering. Fox News considers itself better/more correct than "mainstream media" while ignoring/pretending that it is actually part of the mainstream by most reasonable definitions.
The only reason I even invoked Fox News was the "mainstream" connection. I find Fox News abhorrent. I do not find the LDS church abhorrent. I spent several hours this weekend driving to/from a baptism, have served as a scout leader (and a number of other non-callings), and the rest of my immediate family are all faithful members of the church.
And yes, LDS church members, from my experience, tend to view the church as superior to all those other churches. It's part of the foundation story of the Church and "one true church" is a staple of the ever-present Mormon testimony.
It's not unique to the LDS church - everyone is in a church that they think is the most right - but it is pretty particular to the LDS church to be so constantly explicit about it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
There is that big ecumenical fray here in America that Mormons just aren't part of. I've always figured that it was mostly because of our differing doctrine; perhaps it's partly because of the perception that Mormons think their church superior? I never got that impression when I was living in Minnesota, where the church is just one more church building among many. But having lived in areas where wards are measured in blocks, not counties, for long enough now, I have more of a skewed vision of what the mainstream is, because by and large my church is the mainstream, and much of the criticism comes from those who find themselves in the minority.
I hope the church doesn't just come off as smugly superior. It is definitely a staple of a testimony to call the church the true church, and the LDS don't make any bones about that. And so I guess it can sound like Mormons are constantly comparing our church favorably to other churches. To me, it's less about one being superior to the other, though. The comparison is a little more matter-of-fact. I know this is the church that has all I need to return with my family to God. That is what I want, and this is the only church where it exists. Yes, the comparison is implicit in that kind of statement, but it's not really a "look how much better we are than our neighbors" comparison, but a "I have all I need here, and I couldn't find what I was missing anywhere else."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I hope the church doesn't just come off as smugly superior.
It's not necessarily smug. It's more like a sense of well-justified confidence. Like how Michael Phelps is of the opinion that he's a better swimmer than other people. The LDS idea of "knowing" (yes, I have to use scare quotes there) things of spiritual import allows for a person to claim superiority without it being smug or boastful from their perspective.
When I was growing up in San Diego a very earnest little Mormon girl once told me "we're not better, we're just more specialer." I think that capture the impression that's made, at least to the more sympathetic outsiders like myself.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
AFAIK (and discussed in other threads), the biggest technical distinction is the rejection of the Nicene Creed. Almost all Christian churches adhere to the Nicene Creed and have it as their foundational doctrine statement (paraphrased or verbatim). Part of the Nicene Creed is belief in (and, by implication, membership of) the holy catholic church. Protestant churches obviously don't place themselves under the authority of Rome (or rather, they reject the legitimacy of the Vatican), but still consider themselves to be part of the same church. So for most Christians, to be qualified as "Christian" you have to at least have the Nicene Creed at the core of your beliefs. The Mormons reject it, which is why they're often considered another religion. (albeit one that shares a lot of similarities with Christianity...)
A question of my own: reading through some of the explanations of Mormon theology in this thread (especially re: soul building and hell), I was once again struck by how similar Mormon theology is to the Irenaen tradition (particularly with respect to C.S. Lewis)... to the point that, when researching various aspects of Mormon theology, I was able to accurately predict their beliefs on various topics. This is somewhat comforting to me, because IMO one of the biggest flaws of mainstream Christianity is their acceptance of St. Augustine's teachings and their rejection/ignorance of St. Irenaeus. (I think Irenaeus's arguments were far more logical) Do you think Joseph Smith and the early church leaders were influenced by Irenaeus and his followers?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Who was Irenaeus and what did he say? Also, thanks for the great feedback so far guys. I am definitely learning quite a bit.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Who was Irenaeus and what did he say? Also, thanks for the great feedback so far guys. I am definitely learning quite a bit.
I'll forewarn you: I'm no theologian, and I'm not sure how much of what I'm about to write is more of "what people who lived thousands of years after Irenaeus thought he said/wished he said/interpreted him as saying" versus "what Irenaeus actually said." Also, my own understanding of theology and philosophy is limited so take what I say with a heavy grain of salt.
St. Irenaeus was an early church leader who was born in the middle of the second century. You've probably seen his philosophy referred to as the Irenaen Theodicy, which I consider somewhat of a misnomer. While it does involve the problem of pain*, it uses the existence of pain as the foundation for a philosophy rather than treating it as a problem that needs solving or explaining.
So...
In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, and all the angels, and all the creatures that walk upon the Earth and swim in it's oceans and fly in the air. But there was still something missing, for God desired to create beings like himself - beings who could think and explore and discover, beings who could love and befriend and be in relationship with each other and himself.
Perhaps the angels were his first attempt at this - but if you make a creature designed to love you and worship you and obey you, is it really love or worship or obedience? Are they really happy, if they have no choice in the matter? This wouldn't do. He wanted more than just servants or pets - he wanted people who could perhaps be his equals, who could experience all that there was and choose to love him (or reject him ) freely. People with souls.
You can't truly create a soul - because if you programmed someone with all the experiences that made them think the way they do, love the way they do, create the way the do, journey the way they do, would they really be a person? Or just a complex robot in the shape of a person? No, at most he could give people a "blank slate" - the souls had to create themselves.
He created the world (perhaps the first of many) and made it unpredictable and dangerous, full of beauty and terror and love and hatred and great rolling planes and jagged mountains, full of all the hardship and challenges and heartbreak and wonder needed to turn a blank slate into a soul. He created man in his image. He gave man free agency and gifted him with the ability to be co-creators - inventers, thinkers, namers.
At first, he kept mankind in a safe and protected place, and lived amoung us and taught us the things we need to know to survive and live and coexist, until we grew to the point where we no longer desired his protection and defied him. So he withdrew his protection and let us loose on the world he created.
But men became extremely wicked, and lost their way. So he spoke to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, he created a holy people to set the example of how to live righteously. He spoke through the prophets and even sent his own son, Jesus, to live a perfect life and teach and set an example for all the world, and to die and take upon himself all the sins of the world.
At the end of time, all the souls God created will have had their journey through this world (and perhaps many more worlds after this one) and will have grown enough in wisdom and understanding to be transformed into the likeness of God as well as his image. They will be gathered into Heaven with God, to live and commune with him forever. Hell exists as an extension of God's mercy - those who choose to reject God's love can go and live apart from him, perhaps in a creation of their own, or perhaps simply in a place free of his presence.
Some Irenaens (like Lewis) are universalists - they believe that, though free will is absolute, God's love is so strong and enduring that in the end everyone will eventually choose to love him and join him in heaven. Others believe that souls are given the choice to unmake themselves, and perhaps "hell" is simply for souls who (for whatever reason) choose not to exist anymore.
I've always admired this philosophy because it seems so more more deep and nuanced and fundamentally loving than St. Augustine's theodicy which is, unfortunately, taught by the vast majority of Christian churches. St. Augustine more or less makes God out to be a vindictive asshole - and it's always made me wonder, "do I really want to spend eternity with someone like that?"
*C.S. Lewis wrote a terrific book by that very title that is more or less a layman's explanation of Irenaen Theodicy. Also see The Great Divorce for his view on Heaven and Hell.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I tend to agree. In fact, I was just browsing local private schools to do some research, and I found one Christian school that required parents to accept their religious creed, which included the statement that the Bible is the final, only, and infallible word of God. On that note alone, I am not sure they would let my son, a Mormon, into their school.
Even though I have accepted Christ as my Savior and everything else on their creed. The fact that I believe God has said more than just what is in the Bible, and that fact that I believe the Bible to not be absolutely perfect (in that it has been subject to tampering hands over the centuries), disqualifies me from saying I am a true Christian in many Christian circles. Even though I love the Bible, have read the entire thing, and find spiritual upliftment in it.
Not to mention I have a deep love for Christ that influences multiple daily thoughts or behaviors for me every day.
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am often sad that I have to expect some resistance when I want to share my love of Christ with a "mainstream" Christian. For me, it mostly translates into wanting to fellowship with other Christians, despite some differing beliefs, only to be told my love for Christ "doesn't count." To be clear, I am speaking about my personal experiences throughout life, not stating this as a common phenomenon for everyone. Also, I am not saying this is always the case. I have met many Christians who really don't care that my doctrine is different in certain ways. They take my word when I say my entire spiritual life revolves around Christ.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I tend to agree. In fact, I was just browsing local private schools to do some research, and I found one Christian school that required parents to accept their religious creed, which included the statement that the Bible is the final, only, and infallible word of God. On that note alone, I am not sure they would let my son, a Mormon, into their school.
If it makes you feel any better, it was probably written that way to keep out Catholics. The fact that it also bars Mormons is just a side-effect.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I would say that the first part of this is true. The biggest obstacle is the non-belief in the Trinitarian nature of God. One God in three persons.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I take umbrage with this statement. There are vast differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism, and fundamentalism (literal biblical interpretation, creationism, etc). What is mainstream? Is the Westboro Baptist Church?
Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian. And the variance across the Christian faith is quite ridiculous.
Maybe if we come up with a new definition of "mainstream". It seems to me that we're just implying LDS versus non-LDS as the deciding factor.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yes, I think it's a combination of having a scriptural canon that includes the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants (and is open to new scripture when it comes), plus the non-acceptance of the Nicene Creed with a belief in the holy trinity as three separate beings. Those are what I hear cited the most. Mormons do have a lot of beliefs about the nature of God that are pretty radical to the Christianity of the past millennium or two.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian.
I think that would depend on how you define "Christian." Many Christians would say that you couldn't possibly be Christian and believe that people have souls uncreated by God and are intended to become gods themselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I take umbrage with this statement. There are vast differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism, and fundamentalism (literal biblical interpretation, creationism, etc). What is mainstream? Is the Westboro Baptist Church?
Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian. And the variance across the Christian faith is quite ridiculous.
Maybe if we come up with a new definition of "mainstream". It seems to me that we're just implying LDS versus non-LDS as the deciding factor.
You believe that God is a corporeal being who used to be just like us, is not the Prime Mover, and has some pretty strict limitations.
That's just not God to most Christians.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do you think Joseph Smith and the early church leaders were influenced by Irenaeus and his followers?
I think it's extremely unlikely that any of the founding leaders of the LDS church were influenced, even indirectly, by Irenaes or his followers. Joseph Smith had very little religious training of any kind, outside of New England camp meetings. Other early leaders like Parley Pratt, Oliver Cowdrey, and David Whitmer were similarly unschooled in theology. The closest you come to formalized training is Sidney Rigdon who served as Joseph Smith's closest counselor for several years from 1831-1837 (the church was officially founded in 1830, although informal meetings had been occurring since around 1827). Sidney had (IIRC) certified as a Methodist minister and led a Campbellite congregation of 100-200 people in Ohio before joining the LDS church (and bringing much of his congregation with him). As I recall he had very little formal religious training, being primarily self-taught, and I doubt he would have had any exposure to Irenaes' ideas.
You're not wrong, though, about there being a strong strain of Irenaean theodicy in LDS doctrine, especially as it was popularized by C.S. Lewis. You'll frequently hear quotes like the ones following from Lewis in talks by LDS church authorities. So much so, in fact, that he's sometimes jokingly referred to as the 13th apostle.*
quote:It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.
quote:For God is not merely mending, not simply restoring a status quo. Redeemed humanity is to be something more glorious than unfallen humanity would have been, more glorious than any unfallen race now is. . . . And this super-added glory will, with true vicariousness, exalt all creatures.
*The LDS church is led in part by a council of 12 apostles.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I take umbrage with this statement. There are vast differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism, and fundamentalism (literal biblical interpretation, creationism, etc). What is mainstream? Is the Westboro Baptist Church?
Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian. And the variance across the Christian faith is quite ridiculous.
Maybe if we come up with a new definition of "mainstream". It seems to me that we're just implying LDS versus non-LDS as the deciding factor.
LDS doctrine means something different by the word "God" than what is meant by pretty much every other group that considers itself Christian. Also Judaism and Islam. It's not a difference in belief about the character of God, or the actions of God, or the opinions of God, which definitely vary a lot among different denominations. It's a difference in belief about the being of God, even the definition of the word "God."
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:afr, I think the biggest obstacle to ecumenical inclusion is the additional scripture and open canon.
I think it's a mistake to discount that LDS worship a fundamentally different entity than other Christians do. Yes, they call them by the same name, but the God and Jesus LDS worship are very different from how other Christians believe them to be. Mainstream Christianity has more in common, in that respect, with Islam than it does with LDS.
I take umbrage with this statement. There are vast differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism, and fundamentalism (literal biblical interpretation, creationism, etc). What is mainstream? Is the Westboro Baptist Church?
Mormonism has some different doctrines, yes, but it is most certainly Christian. And the variance across the Christian faith is quite ridiculous.
Maybe if we come up with a new definition of "mainstream". It seems to me that we're just implying LDS versus non-LDS as the deciding factor.
You believe that God is a corporeal being who used to be just like us, is not the Prime Mover, and has some pretty strict limitations.
That's just not God to most Christians.
. . . And the Westboro Baptist Church believes in a God who punishes us (with floods, earthquakes, etc) for promoting civil rights.
. . . And the Catholic church believes in a God who portions out his power to saintly humans, making them demi-Gods in their own right.
. . . And the Lutherans and Southern Baptists believe that you can be saved without any real piety.
. . . And the fundies believe that science isn't real.
Most Christian faiths have some skewed beliefs that are pretty much downright blasphemy to the rest of "mainstream Christianity".
To say that the LDS church is closer to the Muslim faith belies a lack of understanding of one or both.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Aros, I submit that you not only do those faiths but your own a disservice by a) misstating their positions; and b) not recognizing the fundamental and severe doctrinal distinctions between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, distinctions that are considerably more profound than "science isn't real."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: To say that the LDS church is closer to the Muslim faith belies a lack of understanding of one or both.
Actually, Squick said that the rest of Christianity is closer to the Muslim faith than to the LDS on this point, not that the LDS church was closer to Islam.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Tom,
I have not stated my faith, have I?
Yes, I have simplified the beliefs of other faiths. But I am no more guilty of this than nearly everyone else in this thread. And I didn't misrepresent them. You're deflecting.
My point isn't that there aren't profound doctrinal differences between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity. There ARE -- I'm quick to concede that point. Rather, I would argue that there are just as many fundamental doctrinal distinctions among the rest of Christianity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Aros, I get the impression you think I'm trying to insult the LDS religion. I'm not. I'm pointing out a fundamental difference between it and nearly all other Christian religions (and Islam, and Judaism).
I suspect your anger over my perceived insult may be coloring your reading of my posts.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'm not angry.
You point out a doctrinal difference. I merely stated that other faiths have severe differences in doctrine. Fundamental, ground-shaking differences. - The righteous in Islam receive virgins and an "eternal erection". - Judaism believes in a lack of heaven and hell, and the practice of magic. - Gnostic schools believe that God is a fallen figure, creating humankind out of vanity.
You can argue that there are fundamental doctrinal differences. I agree. But there are differences among all religions.
You might argue that the LDS church makes some claims and takes some positions that are unique. I will agree wholeheartedly. And again, I will posit that this is true of many churches.
You can claim that unique features of the LDS church make it so that you cannot classify it with the "mainstream", that you cannot call it Christian, or any other such. This is your opinion. Many would share it. I would merely counter that one could make similar arguments about almost any other religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Aros, you certainly misrepresented Catholic beliefs in your post. Not "simplified" but made up from whole cloth.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You can argue that there are fundamental doctrinal differences. I agree. But there are differences among all religions.
Yes, but these religions aren't competing with each other for common mindshare. In many cases a smaller divide between two groups which claim for themselves the same label will be more meaningful than a larger difference between groups that already recognize their distinction from each other.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You can claim that unique features of the LDS church make it so that you cannot classify it with the "mainstream", that you cannot call it Christian, or any other such.
I didn't make any claims about what I classify it. I'm talking about why other Christian religions don't consider you as sharing community with them. To wit, you don't really worship the same God. The name is the same, but the actual entity is different on a fundamental, non-bridgeable level.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
You're free to believe that it's a different God. But the Mormon view is that they worship the God of Abraham. They only difference is their belief that other religions have an incomplete picture of him.
Tangentially, I would like to think that I pray to a different God than the God of the Westboro lunatics. . . .
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Aros, you certainly misrepresented Catholic beliefs in your post. Not "simplified" but made up from whole cloth.
I disagree. I think that the intercession of saints qualifies to be nit-picked in my (albeit glib) summary. From the lay perspective, or even a popular perspective, one could make some pretty interesting suppositions about the nature of intercession.
Furthermore, the Catholic church has a nasty habit of canonizing native deities when they take over nations, with the notion of subjugating native populations.
One could argue that this almost constitutes polytheism. That would certainly cause Catholicism to stand outside "mainstream" Christianity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That would certainly cause Catholicism to stand outside "mainstream" Christianity...
As opposed to the Mormon belief that there are literally bunches of gods, and we can make more?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Aros, you certainly misrepresented Catholic beliefs in your post. Not "simplified" but made up from whole cloth.
I disagree. I think that the intercession of saints qualifies to be nit-picked in my (albeit glib) summary. From the lay perspective, or even a popular perspective, one could make some pretty interesting suppositions about the nature of intercession.
Furthermore, the Catholic church has a nasty habit of canonizing native deities when they take over nations, with the notion of subjugating native populations.
One could argue that this almost constitutes polytheism. That would certainly cause Catholicism to stand outside "mainstream" Christianity.
One could argue that - but it would not be Catholic belief. Saints are not demi-gods. Polytheism certainly would be a problem which is why we make clear that saints are not gods. They are no more divine than the rest of us. They are (ideally*) human examples and intercessors. They are venerated, not worshiped as deities.
*Certainly canonization often carries plenty of political baggage.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Again, Tom, I didn't say that the LDS church had it's own contrasting beliefs. Merely that most churches do.
If they all agreed, there wouldn't be a need for different churches.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
kmbboots -- And many other Christian sects find the practice of intercession to be idolatry at best. It's all a matter of interpretation.
Jehovah's Witnesses consider saluting the flag as idolatry.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What other sects think of the practice is their concern. If you had claimed to be characterizing other people's misconceptions of Catholic belief, you might have been correct. You claimed to be characterizing Catholic belief, so you were wrong.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I was characterizing a specific practice as an abbreviated example. I wasn't attempting to explain why Catholics rationalize their behavior.
Isn't the point of this thread to single out a religion based on an outsider perspective and judge it by our subjective worldview? Oh . . . sorry . . . did I pick the wrong religion to judge?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You can't compare actual Mormon doctrine to misinterpretation of Roman Catholic doctrine and say, "see, this is just as out-of-the-mainstream!"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Aros, my point is that you are mischaracterizing that behavior. If, I am mischaracterizng LDS doctrine and they actually do believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God in three persons, that Jesus is one in being with the Father, that God is infinite and eternal, and so forth, then I am the one who is confused. Is this the case?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
To put that more specifically, the LDS church actually teaches that God has a body, has gender, and is the same type of being as human beings only more advanced. The LDS church actually teaches that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate beings, though one in purpose.
The Catholic church does not actually teach that saints are demigods to be worshiped. In fact, they go through quite a bit of effort to clarify that that is not their teaching.
See the difference?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
The LDS point doesn't contradict most Christian doctrine. It clarifies and expounds upon it.
- A Body: Is there specific scripture that states that God doesn't have a body? The LDS view is an extension of dogma, not a divergence from classical thought. God made man in his image, correct? It is only dogmatic interpretation on the part of a few religious scholars that refutes this claim.
- Gender: The Catholics purport that God has no gender. Most other Christian faiths (including literalists) claim that he is male. Some religions don't clarify.
- The Trinity: The LDS church believes in the trinity. The Catholics describe the trinity as three distinct personages with "one nature". LDS dogma does not contradict this. There are many arguments on both sides of the fence on this subject, but the answers are under debate by all sides of the fence. Many Christian churches have different interpretations of trinity, but it is officially considered a "mystery". We're not going to solve it here.
- The Catholic Church: Intercession means that saints can approach God on your behalf. Most other Christian sects believe that Jesus is our only intercessor. Based on your interpretation of idolatry, many other faiths interpret intercession as such. Does it matter if the Catholics want to split hairs?
I don't see the difference. You're claiming that one doctrine is different from "mainstream" while the other is the same. I don't agree. Each Christian religion has major points of contention with each other. They're all based on the same book -- only interpretation varies.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
This does remind me of an interesting point, however. One thing that Catholicism, Judaism, and the LDS church have in common --- they all believe that there are additional scriptures that are inspired and add to the body of canon in the bible. Also, they all believe in additional, dogmatic interpretation of obscure biblical reference that can apply.
The one difference I see is that the Catholic church and religious leaders can interpret scripture and apocrypha. In the LDS church, every member is encouraged to interpret scripture on an individual basis.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: To put that more specifically, the LDS church actually teaches that God has a body, has gender, and is the same type of being as human beings only more advanced. The LDS church actually teaches that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are separate beings, though one in purpose.
I would add they are often described as "One God" because they form a Godhead together.
1. "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."
You may have seen these verses from the Book of Mormon before.
"As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son;
Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The LDS point doesn't contradict most Christian doctrine. It clarifies and expounds upon it.
By contradicting it, I'm afraid.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The LDS point doesn't contradict most Christian doctrine. It clarifies and expounds upon it.
By contradicting it, I'm afraid.
Syntax Error: Unsupported Assertion
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You can argue that the LDS church is right and Nicene Christianity is wrong. Arguing that the two aren't fundamentally different doctrines on the being of God is nonsense.
You can also argue, as some have right on this forum, that the differences shouldn't matter. But again, you can't reasonably argue that the differences don't exist.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'm not arguing that either are right or wrong. I AM arguing that it is often a matter of interpretation.
The LDS church isn't the only one that takes issue with portions of the Nicene creed. Many Protestant groups do, fundamentalists do, Church of New Jerusalem, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
But in the end, many of the contradictions aren't wholly so . . . it's almost more of a matter of verbage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Aros, you don't get to decide what is important and what is mere verbiage for us. And, sure, other sects have problems with our interpretation. If they don't consider us doctrinally "Christian", they are welcome to do that. I imagine that some do. For the record, we don't consider the baptisms of members of the Church of New Jerusalem or Jehovah's Witnesses to be valid Christian baptisms either. Or Christian Scientists or Christadelphians. If I were to convert to one of those sects, I imagine that my baptism would not be considered valid either.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I've never really understood the ire that pops up when one Christian-related religion declares another one to be "non-Christian". I guess it's that it's an emotional appeal, it's a trick often used to try to destroy rather than a definition to clarify. From a technical aspect: I don't care at all if other people think the LDS Church is a Christian church. I think normally what they mean by it is: "You can't be saved as a LDS". And since I don't think they can be saved without LDS ordinances (we get a little bit of wiggle room since we believe in the efficacy of postmortem ordinances and thus can still believe or allow for non-LDS people being saved) I'm hardly in a place to call 'foul'.
I think the issue becomes when a word is divorced from its emotional meaning so that it can apply to more things, and then used to try to get that emotion to rise up again. An example I ran into a lot when I was serving a LDS mission was the word 'cult'. Someone would say that the Church was a cult. When challenged on it, they'd say the definition of 'cult' was something along the lines of "Small group of people expressing religious or other emotional veneration for an idea, person or system of beliefs". Which fits a lot of dictionary definitions but also fits any religion that the user deems "small". So technically correct, but then they'd use the word as a scare tactic and try to conjure up imagines of helter-skelter style lifestyles and disregard for human decency.
My impression was that most people who wanted to label the LDS church as "not Christian" did so because they knew that most people, or most people they associated with, would convert the phrase "not Christian" to "evil". For my part, if people are really insistent that I believe in a different Christ than they do: meh. Maybe I do. There's certainly some differences, and from my perspective, there are a lot differences. I'm not sure how material they are to living a Christian life and being saved in everlasting glory, but since I'm pretty sure I believe in the real Christ I don't know why I'd be bothered if someone wanted to insist that they believed in a different one. I imagine they feel the same way, otherwise I'd strongly recommend switching faiths. That's just the nature of talks across denominations. It just helps when both parties aren't jerks about it.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just to clarify, I know that people who are non-Christians doctrinally can and often do follow the teachings of Christ as well and often better than those of us who have had a valid Christian baptism. I believe that they are as able to be "saved" as those with a valid Christian baptism. I am certain that they are as capable of being good, holy, people beloved by God.
This doesn't carry emotional baggage for me. My purpose here was to clarify or correct points of theology regarding obstacles to ecumenism.
[ October 16, 2013, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Quite.
I'm making no judgement here on anybody's goodness, evilness, salvation, or lack of salvation. But if you show up in a comparative religions class that I'm teaching and claim that the differences between the LDS and Lutheran views of God aren't any further apart than the Lutheran and Catholic views of God you'd better hope that whatever assignment you make that claim in isn't a large component of the course grade.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I should've been clearer: I wasn't accusing anyone here of trying to trick people or make emotional appeals. I think it's been apparent that people are making doctrinal corrections or clarifications. The experience I was referring to was dealing with people in meat-space. People that tend to be less informed about their religion as well as others as well as more likely to be confrontational (anyone who offers an opinion about if another religion is Christian or not to someone they don't know is likely to be more confrontational). My observations were more about why I think it can be a prickly subject.
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think what might jar some Mormons is that ignoring the doctrinal distinctions we humans make amongst ourselves, that were you to ask Jesus if Mormons, Catholics, Protestants are all "Christians" that he would say yes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It's complicated by the fact that "Christian" is such a loaded word. It would be nice if the question "Do these two sects have enough in common that they should be considered the same religion, or are have they grown apart enough that they should be considered two different religions?" could be discussed separately from the question of who is or isn't "a real Christian."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
BB, the word "Christian" is a distinction that humans have made among themselves. I don't see any reason to assume that Jesus would take a particular position on linguistics.
Certainly according to the definition you're using he would say "yes." If he were asked the question while serving on a panel at a history of world religions conference he might have a more complicated answer.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We do not have a linguistically distinct word for a follower of Christ and somebody who grasps what Christ is.
edit: So Christian seems to cover both, and it creates issues.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Aros, you don't get to decide what is important and what is mere verbiage for us. And, sure, other sects have problems with our interpretation. If they don't consider us doctrinally "Christian", they are welcome to do that. I imagine that some do. For the record, we don't consider the baptisms of members of the Church of New Jerusalem or Jehovah's Witnesses to be valid Christian baptisms either. Or Christian Scientists or Christadelphians. If I were to convert to one of those sects, I imagine that my baptism would not be considered valid either.
It seems to me that you are doing precisely that, with regard to the LDS faith. Maybe I was acting a bit of the devil's advocate. Perhaps it wasn't terribly grown up of me.
Some people on this thread have been judging specific pieces of LDS dogma and deeming it significantly different from "mainstream". In return, I was using a bit of hyperbole and a bit of dramatic criticism of Catholisim to make a point -- even the mainstream Christian religions have HUGE doctrinal differences.
If someone labels themselves a Christian, and if they say they follow Christ, they're a Christian. If they say they're a Buddhist, and all they know about it they've learned from fortune cookies, who am I to judge?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We do not have a linguistically distinct word for a follower of Christ and somebody who grasps what Christ is.
Yes. But we do have a specific theological definition. Whether we should or not is a different question. The fact is that we do and have for roughly 1700 years. Accepting the trinitarian nature of God was pretty much how Christianity was determined once we got around to determining (officially) what was Christian.
I am not insisting or even suggesting that you must use our definition.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Originally, Christians didn't even call themselves that. According to the book of Acts, they called themselves "followers of the Way", and their religion was called "The Way." They were first called "Christians" (i.e, "Little Christs" as a derogatory term (much like the term "Mormon" started as a derogatory term for "Latter Day Saint") which was later adopted. It's not a term Jesus created or ever used.
Since about 325 AD the term "Christian" has been accepted by the vast majority of Christians to mean "one who believes and follows the Nicene Creed". If Mormons wish to change the definition of Christian to include their own beliefs, then it's perfectly fine for them to call themselves Christians. It doesn't bother me. But it's pretty rediculous for them to insist that everyone else change their definition of Christian to include them. It'd be like a Catholic insisting that Jews refer to all Catholics as "Jews", despite different scriptures and doctrine, and then getting angry and offended every time any Jew says "Catholics aren't real Jews."
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Aros, do you think that being called different from the mainstream is an insult, or ..? The LDS church certainly isn't big enough to represent the "mainstream", so I would think you'd just accept that it's different from the mainstream.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Since about 325 AD the term "Christian" has been accepted by the vast majority of Christians to mean "one who believes and follows the Nicene Creed".
I wasn't aware of this. Huh.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The very rough version of this is that when Constantine put his royal stamp of favor on Christianity, it became "important" to know who was Christian and who wasn't. Various questions had to be settled. The nature of God/Jesus was the big question. Also when to celebrate Easter. Go figure.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Aros, do you think that being called different from the mainstream is an insult, or ..? The LDS church certainly isn't big enough to represent the "mainstream", so I would think you'd just accept that it's different from the mainstream.
No, I just think that a few people unfamiliar with the religion are over-accentuating the differences between the LDS faith and other Christian religions. In my humble opinion, it is more accurately grouped with the Protestant faiths.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Since about 325 AD the term "Christian" has been accepted by the vast majority of Christians to mean "one who believes and follows the Nicene Creed".
I wasn't aware of this. Huh.
"Christian" is any of the religions derived from the teachings of Christ. Yes, many Christians attempt to minimize other religions by saying that they aren't Christian. But that doesn't make it so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. Aros, in this case, your humble opinion is pretty humble. While I am not usually a cheerleader for our hierarchy, I am pretty sure that the folks making that call were more familiar with both Catholic and LDS doctrine than you are.
quote: "Christian" is any of the religions derived from the teachings of Christ. Yes, many Christians attempt to minimize other religions by saying that they aren't Christian. But that doesn't make it so.
According to you. But you don't have the authority to decide that for billions of Christians. Again, speaking from a strict theological rather than a casual, social point of view.
Again, not an attempt to "minimize" anything. Other religions are not necessarily "smaller" than Christianity.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Yes, you can say that the LDS church isn't Christian. And I can say that the Catholics are pagan. But, objectively speaking, we're both wrong.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
This is a pretty interesting read. I guess that the Mormons aren't the only Christians that believe humans can "become gods". It seems to be quite the orthodox belief, if more-so in Eastern Christianity.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Yes, you can say that the LDS church isn't Christian. And I can say that the Catholics are pagan. But, objectively speaking, we're both wrong.
Using the definition "follower of a religion derived from the teachings of Christ" Mormons are Christians. Using the definition "teaching in accordance with the Nicene Creed/Chalcedonian formula" they're not.
When Mormons say to someone who uses the latter definition, "you should consider us Christians because we're followers of Christ" it's not persuasive. When you say that that's because the person misunderstands or is unfamiliar with the Mormon religion you're wrong.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
The key is to get clarification. In my experience when people have claimed Mormon's aren't Christian they aren't thinking about the Nicene Creed. They are claiming something more along the lines of "Mormon's don't believe in Christ and worship the devil."
Other times though it has been simple Person 1: "You aren't Christian." Person 2: "What do you mean by Christian?" Person 1: "You don't follow the Nicene Creed." Person 2: "Oh, well you are right I don't."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Yes, you can say that the LDS church isn't Christian. And I can say that the Catholics are pagan. But, objectively speaking, we're both wrong.
Using the definition "follower of a religion derived from the teachings of Christ" Mormons are Christians. Using the definition "teaching in accordance with the Nicene Creed/Chalcedonian formula" they're not.
I would say that, for me, which definition to use is a question of context. The latter definition is the appropriate one to use for conversations about whether someone who is converting needs to be baptised, for example, or for conversations about ecumenism.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*nods* As I said before, it comes down to how you define the word. I know a group of people who call themselves "followers of Christ" who specifically reject the label "Christian", partly due to disillusionment with the church, but mostly because they don't believe the label applies.
Again, Aros, if you want to create your own definition of what "Christian" means, you're free to do so. You need to realize, though, that most of the world outside of your religion defines Christianity in a way that excludes Mormons. Not because they are Mormons, but because LDS specifically believe things that are incompatible with being Christian. Trying to force your own definition on the rest of the world and getting offended when they don't accept it is absurd.
If most of the world defines a "hat" as something you put on your head, and you decide that the word "hat" means "something you put on your feet", well, you're certainly entitled to call your shoes hats. It's all fine and dandy. But if you go out and get offended when you overhear someone else saying "shoes aren't hats" and try to make everyone else accept your new definition (even if they're people who wear neither shoes nor hats) you might get looked at as being a little crazy.
So basically, this argument is unsolvable. According to your definition, are Mormons Christian? Yes, absolutely. According to my definition? No. Can you be a follower of Jesus Christ without being a Christian? Of course! As I mentioned before, there were Christ-followers for 300 years before the word "Christian" was properly defined.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The hat thing is a bit much. If you polled America on "give a brief definition of what a Christian is" do you really think most of them would talk about the Nicene creed?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Basically, there's Christian™ and Christian.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Or even if you polled dictionaries. I don't see anything about the Nicene Creed there. It seems more like Mormons are saying "look I have a hat on my head," and someone else says "No that's a baseball cap, hats have a brim that goes all the way around and is at least 2 inches wide."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The hat thing is a bit much. If you polled America on "give a brief definition of what a Christian is" do you really think most of them would talk about the Nicene creed?
Of course not. And the hat thing is a deliberate simplification.
But we're talking about specifics here, and the reason why most other Christian denominations don't recognize Mormons as Christian. I doubt the majority of Americans even know what the Nicene Creed *is*, let alone what it says or what it means.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
It seems more likely to me that a few self-important Hatrackers have a beef with Mormons. . . .
Nothing new.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yep, Kate and I are well known for our anti-Mormonism.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Because they disagree with you? I think you're wrong too and my whole family and most of my friends are Mormons.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It seems more likely to me that a few self-important Hatrackers have a beef with Mormons. . . .
Nothing new.
That's pretty lame, dude. You have (solidly) lost an argument and your parting shot is that people have a beef with Mormons, despite the fact that no part of anyone's argument was a denigration of LDS beliefs or LDS people. Again, I suspect you think there's some insult inherent in the concept of being different from mainstream...which is just kind of an odd thing to think.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Basically, there's Christian™ and Christian.
Yeah this seems more accurate to me (and I think Stiles has a better hat analogy).
Speaking as a complete layman on the whole issue of Christianity, of course.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It seems more likely to me that a few self-important Hatrackers have a beef with Mormons. . . .
Nothing new.
And you get this from my posts in this thread where I praise Mormon Theodicy and compare it favorably to traditional Christianity? Or the considerable amount of beef I have with Christianity? I mean, if I've ever criticized the Mormon Church on this forum, it's due to one specific aspect of the Church (it's treatment of homosexuals), or issues it has that are endemic to all organized religions. Said criticism is nothing compared to my dislike of IFB Christianity, or mainline Christianity in general.
So no, me saying Mormons aren't Christians is not because I have some vendetta against Mormons. If anything, I think Mormonism is a better religion *because* of the differences.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
This is obviously just one man's experience amongst a specific demographic, but during my LDS mission for 2 years in southern California, almost nobody ever mentioned the Nicene Creed. There were a lot of Christians that loosely fell under the 'Born Again' category of non-denominational Christians. I talked with thousands of people that identified themselves as Christians, and the majority of them were quite vocal that Mormons were not Christians.
They did not cite (except for 1 or 2 exceptions) the Nicene Creed. By and large they had 1 of 2 reasons for making this claim:
1) Mormons were a cult that were gravely deceived and were going to hell if they didn't admit this 2) Mormons didn't believe in the 3 gods-in-1 person trinity (which obviously is a result of the Nicene Creed).
If someone tells me I am not Christian because of point 2, I get it. If someone tells me I am not Christian for point 1, they are also entitled to that belief, but it pisses me off a bit because Mormons aren't a cult and I don't have the same harsh feelings toward their religion. I expect to find many 'mainstream' Christians in heaven.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Or even if you polled dictionaries. I don't see anything about the Nicene Creed there. It seems more like Mormons are saying "look I have a hat on my head," and someone else says "No that's a baseball cap, hats have a brim that goes all the way around and is at least 2 inches wide."
Would you say, then, that all Christians are Jews? So why even call Christianity a separate religion? How do you determine where denominational differenced end and a new religion begins?
Well, one obvious answer is the addition/modification of scripture. I.e, the Christian Bible adds canon to the Hebrew Bible and changes a few of the core beliefs, so it's a different religion. Likewise, the Muslim religion adds canon to the Christian Bible, or rather, retells it in a modified format and adds scripture in the Koran, so it's a different religion. The Mormon religion adds Canon to the Christian Bible, and changes some of the core beliefs, so it's a different religion.
But what are those Core beliefs? The Nicene Creed is basically just a logical explanation of the things Christians hold to be true. You could take an Southern Baptist who goes to Church every week who never heard of no creeds or somesuch, and still get him to explain every aspect of the Nicene Creed and why he believes it. (if not in the same format) And if you take the Catholic Church, and most protestant churches and look at this doctrinal/mission statement, it will align with the Nicene Creed if not being the literal text thereof. I just use "Nicene Creed" to mean "all the things that the Nicene Creed describe." Actually knowing the name and format thereof isn't important.
The LDS flat out reject some of those Core beliefs. Which is fine. Some of those beliefs weren't really decided upon/codified until the 4th century. But that codification was done specifically to define just what the word "Christian" meant and what the core values of the religion called Christianity are. And for the past 1700 years, even after the protestant reformation and the creation of many thousands of denominations, those denominations have adhered to those core beliefs. The Mormon religion, though using Christian scripture, claims to be based on a new revelation and denies some of those core beliefs. Therefore, it isn't Christian, just like Muslims aren't Christians, or Christians aren't Jews.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Dogbreath. I do understand you and I agree with you according to that definition. I just think that the majority of people outside of the blogosphere and the more religiously educated parts of the internet the term Christian means "Follows Christs teachings". So when people say "Mormons aren't Christian" they are generally saying "Mormons don't follow the teachings of Christ".
quote: Would you say, then, that all Christians are Jews?
Well technically Christianity is a continuation of the Jewish religion. So if we were going to get technical the way we have been about the definition of Christian, then yes, you could technically consider Christians Jews.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Isn't there a branch of Judaism that follows Christ? I've heard them called Jews for Jesus, but I don't know the actual name.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Isn't there a branch of Judaism that follows Christ? I've heard them called Jews for Jesus, but I don't know the actual name.
There is such an organization but they are very non-mainstream and I would think most Jews consider a branch of Judaism that follows Christ to be "Christianity."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
They're called Messianic Jews. I went to high school with some of them and attended a service at their congregation once. Basically they follow all the rules of Judaism, meet on Friday night, read from the Torah, and are completely immersed in Jewish culture... except, they believe Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, and worship him as such. They do use the Christian Bible, but don't put nearly as much emphasis on Paul's writings as Christians do. They generally don't refer to themselves as Christians. (I don't know what other Jews call them)
stilesbn: I understand why you might be worried about that. I would argue nobody in this thread seriously thinks Mormons don't follow Christ's teachings, or is trying to disparage LDS in any way.
Those definitions are more than technical - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Gnosticism, and probably half a dozen religions I can't think of right now all branch off from a single tradition. My point was that, with all of those religions, there's a point where you stop using the phrase "denomination" or "sect" or "group" and start using the phrase "religion", and that point is usually when there's a new revelation, new scripture is added, and core beliefs are changed.
Mormonism is a continuation of Christianity much in the same way as Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. We recognize that the vast differences in beliefs, structure, customs, scripture, and doctrine between Christianity and Judaism make them different religions (though similar), likewise Mormonism and Christianity are different religions. You don't colloquially call Christians Jews, so why should we colloquially call Mormons Christians?
Also, there's a logical fallacy present in your argument. If all Jews are worshipers of YHWH, does that mean only Jews are worshipers or YHWH? Does saying "he's not a Jew, he's a Christian" imply "he doesn't worship YHWH?"
Likewise "All Christians are followers of Christ" does not translate into "All non-Christians are not followers of Christ" All A are part of B does not imply all B are part of A. Just because you're part of a group of people that likes (among other things) wearing hats doesn't mean that everyone outside of your group doesn't like wearing hats.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote: I understand why you might be worried about that. I would argue nobody in this thread seriously thinks Mormons don't follow Christ's teachings, or is trying to disparage LDS in any way.
I had moved beyond this thread. I have found everyone in this thread to be quite knowledgeable and respectful. I also consider the people in this thread to be the exception rather than the norm.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Thanks Dogbreath!
Also, do you guys think that as a Christian you are obligated to follow the entirety of the Bible? Which books should be adhered to? I've always wondered about this because of two reasons:
1. Various books refer to the "word" of God, but since so many of the books have been written by different people, how do you know which ones are part of that statement? After all, many of these books were written after Jesus died, so he never had a chance to clarify.
2. Since Paul never actually walked alongside Christ, how are you supposed to take his words/books as 100% true and not opinion like any other human being?
3. Since the Christian bible was compiled and settled on 300 years after Christ's death, how do we know we have the right bible?
I've especially struggled to understand the third one. A friend of mine is a very avid anti-Catholic, but the people who came up with the Bible were, as I understand it, the first Catholics (seems a bit ironic, since he regards the Bible as infallible). With so many books left out of our current version of the Bible, what are we to believe?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Also, do you guys think that as a Christian you are obligated to follow the entirety of the Bible? Which books should be adhered to?
I've always wondered about this because of two reasons:
1. Various books refer to the "word" of God, but since so many of the books have been written by different people, how do you know which ones are part of that statement? After all, many of these books were written after Jesus died, so he never had a chance to clarify.
2. Since Paul never actually walked alongside Christ, how are you supposed to take his words/books as 100% true and not opinion like any other human being?
3. Since the Christian bible was compiled and settled on 300 years after Christ's death, how do we know we have the right bible?
I've especially struggled to understand the third one. A friend of mine is a very avid anti-Catholic, but the people who came up with the Bible were, as I understand it, the first Catholics (seems a bit ironic, since he regards the Bible as infallible). With so many books left out of our current version of the Bible, what are we to believe?
My own opinion:
First, the bible is a series of stories, poems, histories, prophetic writings, doctrinal writings, epistles, and it even has an apocalypse. "Following the whole Bible" is somewhat of an impossible task - do you mean, take it all in to consideration and try to find wisdom from it? There are only a couple places where it actually tell you what to do.
1) Not as many as you think. The belief in the infallibility of the Bible is one of the most illogical, and paradoxically, unbiblical beliefs I've ever run into. The Bible itself never claims to be infallible, and since all of the authors of the Bible didn't realize they would all be compiled into something *called* the Bible, even if there was a verse that said "hey, by the way, all this stuff is like, totally the word of God and infallible" it wouldn't really mean much.
If you want to know what the Bible actually refers to as the "Word of God", read John chapter 1:
quote:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Clearly, the Bible itself refers to the Word of God as being person (implied to be Jesus Christ), NOT any book or collection of writings. Most of the books of the Bible admit human authorship - either by switching to the first person at some point (as Luke does during the parts of Acts he was actually physically present for), or by straight up saying "hey dudes, this is me, the dude who wrote this book." Some books (the Prophets) say "the word of the Lord came upon so-and-so", but even these emphasize that the book is so-and-so's telling of the word of the Lord, not the Word of the Lord itself.
So my own approach is: the Bible is a series of writings about people who God has spoken to or worked through, and that there's a lot of wisdom to be gleaned from it. But humans are imperfect, and their understanding is inevitably colored by their own imperfections and cultural viewpoint. And as always, they weree humans with free will, and were free to misinterpret or misunderstand. It's only when you take the writings in concert with one another, filtered through a cultural lens, and with prayer asking for God's assistance in interpreting the scripture that one can really begin to understand it.
So my understanding is: God speaks to everyone. The scripture is there to help ground us and keep us from misinterpreting what God is saying, but what God is saying helps illuminate and explain the scripture in new ways. Those two, combined with religious instruction (from a pastor or priest or something) and immersion in a community of people who believe like you do and are trying to understand the same scripture, helps you get a good idea of just what God is trying to tell you.
But at the end of the day Jesus Christ is the Word, the Bible is just a book about him.
2) I honestly don't know. I think Paul was a good man, and had a lot of good ideas, and pretty much founded the religion of Christianity. Whether or not that was what Jesus wanted, I have no idea.
3) We don't. The books picked were the ones everyone agreed upon, that (more or less) supported the doctrines and philosophy of the religion they were trying to codify. It was basically a big compromise of a lot of different beliefs and traditions, so the books we have are pretty much the most generic, one size fits all books that everyone could agree on. I know that's a gross oversimplification, and that books were also picked on accuracy, consistency, etc. How Revelation stayed in, I don't know.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Or even if you polled dictionaries. I don't see anything about the Nicene Creed there. It seems more like Mormons are saying "look I have a hat on my head," and someone else says "No that's a baseball cap, hats have a brim that goes all the way around and is at least 2 inches wide."
How do you determine where denominational differenced end and a new religion begins?
Well, one obvious answer is the addition/modification of scripture. I.e, the Christian Bible adds canon to the Hebrew Bible and changes a few of the core beliefs, so it's a different religion. Likewise, the Muslim religion adds canon to the Christian Bible, or rather, retells it in a modified format and adds scripture in the Koran, so it's a different religion. The Mormon religion adds Canon to the Christian Bible, and changes some of the core beliefs, so it's a different religion.
Great logic. And I think a lot of people ascribe to it.
Ultimately, though, isn't the adoption of a Messianic figure a better indicator of what separates Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? Jews don't have one (yet). Christians have Jesus. And Muslims have Mohammad.
We're fiddling with two other definitions. One, additions to canon, is shared by Catholics and most of the Orthodox churches (Greek, Russian, Ethiopian). The other, a rejection of the Nicene Creed, is shared by many Protestant groups and many born-again fundamentalists.
By this logic, isn't the LDS church still Christian? Or are some of these other "Christian" churches possibly not Christian as well?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Thanks Dogbreath!
Also, do you guys think that as a Christian you are obligated to follow the entirety of the Bible? Which books should be adhered to? I've always wondered about this because of two reasons:
1. Various books refer to the "word" of God, but since so many of the books have been written by different people, how do you know which ones are part of that statement? After all, many of these books were written after Jesus died, so he never had a chance to clarify.
2. Since Paul never actually walked alongside Christ, how are you supposed to take his words/books as 100% true and not opinion like any other human being?
3. Since the Christian bible was compiled and settled on 300 years after Christ's death, how do we know we have the right bible?
I've especially struggled to understand the third one. A friend of mine is a very avid anti-Catholic, but the people who came up with the Bible were, as I understand it, the first Catholics (seems a bit ironic, since he regards the Bible as infallible). With so many books left out of our current version of the Bible, what are we to believe?
I can't speak for all Christians, or all Mormons, but here are my reactions to your questions: 1) I accept all the books of the bible (and the Book of Mormon) as inspired. I also think some of the instruction was intended for particular times, and some is intended for all times. Differentiating those is difficult and requires prayer and inspiration. 2) I don't think Paul's words are less valid because he didn't walk with Christ, anymore than Isaiah's or Ezekiel's were. Prophets can have the will of God revealed to them without having lived during Jesus' time. 3) I'm not sure what you mean by "the right Bible". I study the Bible and do my best to follow the teachings I find there. I also find some value in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, but not as much as in the Bible. Being a Mormon, I accept the idea of a broad and living canon and the belief that there is no end to what God can authoritatively say to his children through inspired prophets. As such, I believe God can inspire prophets in any era to speak truth, and that by being sensitive to the Holy Spirit we can know those things that are true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: They're called Messianic Jews. I went to high school with some of them and attended a service at their congregation once. Basically they follow all the rules of Judaism, meet on Friday night, read from the Torah, and are completely immersed in Jewish culture... except, they believe Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, and worship him as such. They do use the Christian Bible, but don't put nearly as much emphasis on Paul's writings as Christians do. They generally don't refer to themselves as Christians. (I don't know what other Jews call them)
In my experience, other Jews call them "heretics". Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:1. Various books refer to the "word" of God, but since so many of the books have been written by different people, how do you know which ones are part of that statement? After all, many of these books were written after Jesus died, so he never had a chance to clarify.
2. Since Paul never actually walked alongside Christ, how are you supposed to take his words/books as 100% true and not opinion like any other human being?
3. Since the Christian bible was compiled and settled on 300 years after Christ's death, how do we know we have the right bible?
1. From the LDS perspective, at least, we believe God calls prophets through whom he reveals his word. We believe the Bible to be a compilation of inspired writings by prophets as well as a collection of accounts centered around the people who had dealings with God. We also believe that much has been lost from the Bible since it was first compiled, and from the individual writings that were gathered into the Bible, whether through deliberate changing or omission or the vagaries of translation over the centuries. We regard the Book of Mormon especially as scripture that anchors what the Bible contains and completes the truths that it has lost.
2. We believe that Paul was a prophet, with an apostolic calling just like that of Peter, James, and John, and enjoyed the same divine inspiration to lead the church that they did after Christ was crucified. Like SenojRetep said, most prophets did not walk alongside Christ, yet we still consider them to speak his word through divine inspiration. We believe one must study the words of the prophets and rely on divine confirmation to know they are true--with Paul's words as with all others.
3. I mostly answered this in #1, but I'll reemphasize that the way to know any scripture is truly the word of God is by studying it, applying it, and asking for divine confirmation that it is true. Personally, I think the Bible is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. It's still changing, though not as drastically as it must have in the first few centuries after Christ.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
Great logic. And I think a lot of people ascribe to it.
Ultimately, though, isn't the adoption of a Messianic figure a better indicator of what separates Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? Jews don't have one (yet). Christians have Jesus. And Muslims have Mohammad.
We're fiddling with two other definitions. One, additions to canon, is shared by Catholics and most of the Orthodox churches (Greek, Russian, Ethiopian). The other, a rejection of the Nicene Creed, is shared by many Protestant groups and many born-again fundamentalists.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I meant more of the combination of all three than just one. As far as rejecting the Nicene Creed - I grew up in a born-again fundamentalist church. We never used the Nicene Creed - indeed, I didn't even know what it *was* until I was about 15. But they did teach "these are the things you need to believe to be saved", and those beliefs coincided with the Nicene Creed. They do, however, *add* a prerequisite to salvation, which is undergoing a mystical experience called being "born again." I can't really tell you how it works, or indeed what it is exactly, and I never really got a clear answer in 15 years of church, but damned if they don't think it's something important and that they've all had it happen to them.
So anyway, I guess they're Christian in that they believe everything that the Nicene Creed describes. OTOH, *they* think they're the *only* Christians since they define "being Christian" as "undergoing a mystical experience where you get born again". I honestly have never heard anyone discuss whether other denominations think fundies are Christians, non-Christians, or just crazy. Like you, I would really rather not classify them as Christians, since their beliefs are so distorted.
quote:[QB]By this logic, isn't the LDS church still Christian? Or are some of these other "Christian" churches possibly not Christian as well?
That would be on a case by case basis, I think. The problem with protestant churches when trying to classify them this way is that for most denominations, there's very little organization or oversight, so pretty much every church has it's own doctrine and it's own beliefs. There are quite a few "non-denominational" churches that have *no* guidelines at all. So I lump them all together as "protestant Christian" even though they might legitimately have beliefs a lot more divergent from Nicene Christianity than the LDS Church. If one of those churches suddenly became an international movement with millions of members...
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, OTOH, is organized with clearly defined doctrine that is universally followed by all it's members, and is IMO culturally, doctrinally, organizationally, and scripturally distinct enough to qualify as it's own religion. As I said before, though, I have absolutely no problem with Mormons claiming to be Christian if they do desire. I just don't think it's an accurate claim. Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
It would be interesting to see some sort of a survey to determine what the generally accepted definition of "Christian" is to the layman.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I agree with those who have said the bible was "inspired" and not necessarily the exactly infallible word of God. It really bugs me when people say that every bit of it is right. That obviously can't be true, since several sections of it contradict one another.
quote:3) I'm not sure what you mean by "the right Bible".
The council of early church leaders at approximately 300AD decided to cannonize what they felt were the best books for their bible. They did this because many of them were not using the same books and had previously disagreed on which books to include. This is why the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible. My point is that since human beings decided which books to include and we were not told which ones to follow (since they all claim to be correct), how do we know which ones are right?
Anyway, great answers from everybody so far.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Ehh. . . I still say that the best definition is self-definition. I don't think any individual has the right to judge someone else's beliefs.
I know a lot of Christians that believe in reincarnation and karma. They are a member of a mainstream Christian sect . . . and they believe in a Hindu afterlife.
If someone identifies as a Christian, I don't feel that I have any right to say that they're not. Just like if they identify as cross-gender. It's up to individuals to categorize themselves.
I suppose there's a difference, however. I could analytically decide for myself that Catholicism isn't Christianity. I could believe that on an intellectual level. But if someone told me they were Christian, I would take it at face value -- regardless of their religion. I'd never tell them that they weren't. I tend to think that there's a big difference between intellectually categorizing a group of people and judging a single person.
Then again, most laymen aren't terribly familiar with doctrine. Neither your average Catholic nor your average Mormon could probably distinguish the difference between the Mormon Godhood and the Catholic Trinity. Nor do they know anything about the Nicene Code. For all intents and purposes, they're both Christian . . . regardless of how you judge their religious doctrine as a whole.
I can understand an intellectual argument that Mormonism isn't Christian . . . I might agree on most points, actually . . . but if you told my Grandma that she isn't a Christian, I'd be mighty tempted to punch you in the nose. Hey . . . maybe I'm not Christian after all? Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:3) I'm not sure what you mean by "the right Bible".
The council of early church leaders at approximately 300AD decided to cannonize what they felt were the best books for their bible. They did this because many of them were not using the same books and had previously disagreed on which books to include. This is why the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible. My point is that since human beings decided which books to include and we were not told which ones to follow (since they all claim to be correct), how do we know which ones are right?
I understand the history, but I'm still not clear on what "which ones are right" even means. Do you mean something like "If God had made the Bible (instead of a council of men), here's what He would have included?" or do you mean "What is the set of books that are sufficiently pure examples of direct revelation from God?" or do you mean "What are the most important words God wants us to know today?" All of those could be interpreted as "the right Bible" but I think they could all be different things. Personally, I think the Bible is somewhat 'overcomplete' in that there's more there than is strictly useful for us today. But I believe what is there was almost entirely inspired by God and appropriate for the time in which it was given.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If you ask a Biblical Literalist, they will say that every word in every book is the word of God, unblemished by the imperfect hands of mortal man.
Yet history shows that it was a group of imperfect mortal men--a committee, which popular wisdom says is even less likely to make a good decision, that determined which of the many Gospels in existence actually were combined into the Bible.
Why was the Book of Judas, or the Book of Thomas left out? Could mortal men have made a mistake and added a fraudulent gospel or excised a divine one?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Which one was that book where jesus was a kid and he was all flaunting his power and striking people blind for disagreeing with him or whatever?
it unsurprisingly was left on the cutting room floor, but i forget its name
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe you're thinking of the Infancy Story of Thomas, also sometimes called the Gospel of Thomas, but not to be confused with the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, which is a collection of sayings attributed to the adult Jesus.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
While I am not usually a cheerleader for our hierarchy, I am pretty sure that the folks making that call were more familiar with both Catholic and LDS doctrine than you are.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I went to high school with some of them and attended a service at their congregation once. Basically they follow all the rules of Judaism, meet on Friday night, read from the Torah, and are completely immersed in Jewish culture... except, they believe Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, and worship him as such. They do use the Christian Bible, but don't put nearly as much emphasis on Paul's writings as Christians do. They generally don't refer to themselves as Christians. (I don't know what other Jews call them)