posted
Well, yeah. But so far no one's told me that they feel hurt when they hear about people discussing the differences between theories on heat transfer research and wish each person would just focus on what's good about their theory instead of comparing and contrasting it to the opposing theory, ya know? Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that's true. Perhaps "...the way a lot of other people approach religion and philosophy" would have been a better rephrase on my part. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, it did show the general rather than specific approach that Mormons take toward religious differences. It is a general swath rather than a razerblade.
But we've seen examples in this thread that the general swath is used by missionaries. I think it was Scott R who said that missionaries will mention the falling away of the church sometime in the first or second centuries. I can't recall if he said they use the apostacy word directly.
That's a broad swath, but it's also a direct counter to something taught by the Catholic Church (and most mainline Protestant churches, I believe, although obviously mjor differences between Protestants and Catholics start to appear later).
Now, there are two ways to teach beliefs. One is to define what it is the Church teaches with regard to a particular belief. For example, I might sum up the Catholic Church's teaching on apostolic succession this way: "Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles. This succession is the underlying basis for the claim of the authority of the Church's teachings." Were I doing a scholarly paper, I would cite various forms of evidence that support the succession.
Protestants disbeleive this teaching, as do Mormons, though for very different reasons. Either group could marshall their own set of reasons and evidence as to why this teaching is incorrect.
The positive statement of why Catholics believe in apostolic succession would be incomplete without a counter to those reasons. A complete teaching of this belief cannot be done without a refutation of either the evidence or the conclusions drawn from the evidence.
Mormon belief contains, very close to its base, the idea that every other Christian denomination has gotten something very important wrong. Examining reasons why ones beliefs might be wrong is an important part of spiritual growth.
I don't really see the difference between what you claim Mormons do with respect to other religions and what other religions do with respect to Mormons (speaking of the idea of classes, not offensive behavior). Frankly, I consider OSC's post to be far more open and demonstrating more mutual respect than not addressing specific points of doctrinal difference, assuming it's done in a context of fostering open discussion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess thats where Mormons and many other Christians differ. To talk about anyone directly other than yourself is considered rude and offensive. Its the whole "mote and beam" problem. Probably the biggest problem, however, is that when it comes to religion there is usually almost no such thing as open discussion. Its more along the lines of open war.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To talk about anyone directly other than yourself is considered rude and offensive.
Your church sponsors people to dedicate two years of their life to go around to strangers and tell them that my church is apostate. Nothing about that is of a different quality because they refrain from saying the word "Catholic" or "other Christians."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Your church sponsors people to dedicate two years of their life to go around to strangers and tell them that my church is apostate. <<
You can choose to look at it this way if you want, Dagonee. I can even understand it.
For obvious reasons, I look at it differently. I think if you were to talk with the missionaries, you'd discover that the core message isn't one of exclusion and division from other churches but on the power of the redemption and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In other words, your church isn't nearly so important in our message as you seem to think.
Ahem, an example, is readily at hand:
"Hatrack became different when it moved from AOL. It became less n00b friendly, and more prone to flame wars. This lasted until TomDavidson signed on in early 1998."
"Scott R is the reason that Hatrack sucks as a forum. He's belligerent, ignorant, and cynical."
There IS a difference, IMO. But we've reached the point of insistence, I'm afraid-- discussion has ceased, we're just waving the same flags around.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if you were to talk with the missionaries, you'd discover that the core message isn't one of exclusion and division from other churches but on the power of the redemption and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Why do you consider the message exlusionary and divisive? (I assume you realize I didn't mean that's all they say.) I believe it was you who said the apostacy is mentioned by missionaries.
quote:"Hatrack became different when it moved from AOL. It became less n00b friendly, and more prone to flame wars. This lasted until TomDavidson signed on in early 1998."
"Scott R is the reason that Hatrack sucks as a forum. He's belligerent, ignorant, and cynical."
I don't find these examples to be parallel to the discussion; they don't even contradict each other. The truth of the former does not rely on the untruth of the latter. And if you mean the first to represent how the missionaries present it, you haven't taken into account that there are still people actively participating in the behavior you call non-n00b-friendly and flame-war prone.
Assuming a missionary is speaking to a believing Catholic, the missonary will be trying not only to show that Mormon doctrine is correct, but that Catholic doctrine is incorrect. Because he can't do the former without doing the latter - the doctrines are in absolute conflict on key points.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you consider the message exlusionary and divisive? (I assume you realize I didn't mean that's all they say.)
I don't consider our message exclusionary or divisive. And you did imply that missionaries went out to preach the apostate nature of other churches. Say what you mean, etc. . .
The example I cited parallels this discussion on the following points-- the first speaks in general terms, and is not insulting. The second is insulting, and personal. Do you really not see the difference? They're not meant to contradict eachother-- they are meant to show two different methods of discussing the same topic.
quote:the missonary will be trying not only to show that Mormon doctrine is correct, but that Catholic doctrine is incorrect. Because he can't do the former without doing the latter - the doctrines are in absolute conflict on key points.
Grr. NO! Or, I hope not. That's what I've been saying-- the goal of showing that the Catholic church is wrong should not even be in the missionary's mind. Teaching the doctrines of the restored Gospel of Christ is the whole point.
If something like pedobaptism comes up, then yes-- the missionary will be called to reinforce the Mormon doctrine, explaining why we baptise the way we do. But even then it's never to be done in the spirit of our doctrine vs Catholic/Baptist/Methodist doctrine.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't consider our message exclusionary or divisive. And you did imply that missionaries went out to preach the apostate nature of other churches. Say what you mean, etc. . .
Of course I said it. I said that's not all they preach.
quote:Grr. NO! Or, I hope not. That's what I've been saying-- the goal of showing that the Catholic church is wrong should not even be in the missionary's mind. Teaching the doctrines of the restored Gospel of Christ is the whole point.
To succeed, at least with a Catholic who believes, they must convince the person that the Catholic Church is wrong on several important doctrinal points. That doesn't mean they have to say it. But it's useless to pretend that's not what they want to do.
quote:But even then it's never to be done in the spirit of our doctrine vs Catholic/Baptist/Methodist doctrine.
It's not a question of spirit. It's a question of logic. If someone believes 2+2=3, and you want to convince them 2+2=4, you will convince them that 2+2 <> 3.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your church sponsors people to dedicate two years of their life to go around to strangers and tell them that my church is apostate.
Then, after I objected:
quote:(I assume you realize I didn't mean that's all they say.)
Then:
quote:Of course I said it. I said that's not all they preach.
Yes, you did say that they preach more than the apostasy. Eventually.
quote:To succeed, at least with a Catholic who believes, they must convince the person that the Catholic Church is wrong on several important doctrinal points. That doesn't mean they have to say it. But it's useless to pretend that's not what they want to do.
It's useless to pretend that missionaries don't want people to convert to Mormonism-- that much is true.
But there's a difference in that and wanting to prove the Catholic church wrong.
But let's not get involved in a discussion on the motivations of Mormon missionaries, please.
quote:It's not a question of spirit. It's a question of logic.
Ah. We disagree. I knew there was something odd about this discussion. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The example I cited parallels this discussion on the following points-- the first speaks in general terms, and is not insulting. The second is insulting, and personal. Do you really not see the difference? They're not meant to contradict eachother-- they are meant to show two different methods of discussing the same topic.
And, yet, as you said, the Mormon missionaries do "talk about the apostasy as something that happened 'back then.'" When you say that, you are saying that the Catholic Church, as it stands right now, is the product of apostacy. We still preach the Nicene Creed. I say it several times a year (sometimes we say the Apostle's creed).
Maybe you just don't appreciate what that means to Catholics (or Protestants) who have made conscious choices about which doctrine to believe. It is very important, and one very close to the core of how they choose to worship and what they choose to believe.
There was an interfaith Christian group at my school, one that specifically held as it's common denominator the Apostle's Creed. A Mormon friend and I had a discussion about whether it was exclusionary. His premise was that it kept him from joining, and he was a Christian, and thus it was exclusionary.
It took a very long discussion before he realized how important "one in being with the Father" and "one holy catholic and apostolic church" was to us. It should be noted that, even though Catholics mean something different with the word "catholic" in the creed, even Catholics use the lower-case form in the creed. And both Protestants and Catholics mean an entity that has existed on earth, under divine guidance and protection and without temporal gaps, since the time of Christ.
It is a major, major improvement that I can say that in the same room with a Methodist or Anglican and realize that, at core, there is a deep commonality that we can share.
Mormon doctrine rejects both those phrases from the most basic shared statement of belief between most Protestants and Catholics. One can't fully believe Mormon doctrine and meaningfully say those terms. And when Mormon doctrine is presented as truth it carries the inseperable message that this most basic statement of belief is wrong.
I see nothing wrong with someone who believes, as Mormons do, in the truth of their doctrine and the benefits to be had by those who choose to live according to it. It's an act of love to be a mission. It doesn't make it any less of an act of love to say
A Mormon who merely stated that there was an apostacy back then and did not specifically refute the evidence and conclusions concerning apostolic succession has no chance of converting me or a lot of other Catholics. One that did not acknowledge the reasoning and evidence underlying my beliefs would not be a successful messenger and would also not be treating my beliefs with intellectual respect.
I would bet a lot of money that Catholics are the subject of more classes about their doctrine amongst Protestant circles than Mormons are. Some of them are simply, "this is what Catholics believe." Some of them are "this is what Catholics believe, here's our contrasting doctrine, and here's the evidence and reasoning that supports our doctrine." Both of these are subject to many errors - some innocent, some not so innocent - but many, many such classes are conducted in good faith. Then there are the Jack Chick-like classes. Whore of Babylon. Sun-God worship. The Pope is the anti-Christ and is in it with the Jews.
Of all these classes, the most open, honest, and useful - to Protestants and to Catholics - are those that say "this is what Catholics believe, here's our contrasting doctrine, and here's the evidence and reasoning that supports our doctrine." It does the honor of not merely contradicting but examining others' beliefs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, you did say that they preach more than the apostasy.
But I never said they ONLY preach the apostacy. I did say what I mean. You read more into it than I said.
quote:It's useless to pretend that missionaries don't want people to convert to Mormonism-- that much is true.
But there's a difference in that and wanting to prove the Catholic church wrong.
They want people to believe a body of beliefs. That body of beliefs contains a very clear statement that the Nicene Creed churches are wrong. In other words, they want X, Y, and Z; therefore, it is a valid and true statement to say they want Y.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I never said they ONLY preach the apostacy. I did say what I mean.
quote:Your church sponsors people to dedicate two years of their life to go around to strangers and tell them that my church is apostate.
Do you see why I objected, Dagonee? As a missionary, I found myself strangely lacking in the desire to tramp around Italy, declaiming the Catholic church as apostate.
quote:That body of beliefs contains a very clear statement that the Nicene Creed churches are wrong. In other words, they want X, Y, and Z; therefore, it is a valid and true statement to say they want Y.
If that were so, don't you think that it would make sense for missionaries to learn something about other churches' doctrine? So that we could successfully dissect the Nicene creed, for example, using the scriptures? Even a list of scriptures to memorize to whittle away the teachings of apostate churches. . . Japanese is taught at the missionary training center, so it should be fairly simple to teach a course on how to deconstruct Protestant/Catholic doctrine.
But you're wrong, and that isn't how we do things. The evidence points to the idea that we don't care what religion you are-- we believe that the Spirit of God will witness that what we teach is the truth, and THEN arguing points of doctrine is less than useless. Because God has already spoken to the heart of the person to confirm the correctness of our teachings, and if you're going to argue with God, well go ahead and try to win THAT one.
This would be the charismatic conversion I was talking about earlier
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you see why I objected, Dagonee? As a missionary, I found myself strangely lacking in the desire to tramp around Italy, declaiming the Catholic church as apostate.
Look, you're the one who said they mention the apostacy.
I didn't say you desired to tramp around Italy, declaiming the Catholic church as apostate. I said you went from door to door telling people that the Catholic Church was apostate. What I am trying to get you to understand its that merely saying the apostacy happened long ago or saying a lot of other things at the same time does not change the fact that they are making a statement about the Catholic Church as it is now.
quote:If that were so, don't you think that it would make sense for missionaries to learn something about other churches' doctrine? So that we could successfully dissect the Nicene creed, for example, using the scriptures?
The methods you choose to use don't change the cold, bear fact of the desired result.
quote:But you're wrong, and that isn't how we do things.
I've made no statement about how you do things. Indeed, I've said that how you do things doesn't change the content of your message.
quote:The evidence points to the idea that we don't care what religion you are
Nor have I said you care what religion they are.
Are you denying that, at the end of the day, the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it?
There is no qualitative difference in respect or courtesy shown because you refuse to directly address the differences.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you're wrong, and that isn't how we do things.
That is, "You're wrong. We don't do things as I've described in the paragraph above because. . ."
quote:There is no qualitative difference in respect or courtesy shown because you refuse to directly address the differences.
I'm not sure what you mean-- are you saying that the method of teaching that I've described is less courteous than comparing and refuting religious doctrine?
quote:Are you denying that, at the end of the day, the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it?
Not at all. Conversion is the goal.
But destruction of other religions is not. It may result from our efforts (logically), but it's not something that we're shooting for. As I've said, we don't care.
This point, of course, is covered in my charismatic conversion post above.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what you mean-- are you saying that the method of teaching that I've described is less courteous than comparing and refuting religious doctrine?
No. I'm saying comparing and refuting religious doctrine is no less courteous than the method you've described, and demonstrates greater intellectual respect for competing ideas.
quote:Conversion is the goal.
Does conversion not require "accepting Mormon doctrine as true and choosing to live their life according to it"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
--Are you denying that, at the end of the day, the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it?--
*Not at all. Conversion is the goal.*
--Does conversion not require "accepting Mormon doctrine as true and choosing to live their life according to it?--
"Not at all"= I do not deny that the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it.
quote: I'm saying comparing and refuting religious doctrine is no less courteous than the method you've described, and demonstrates greater intellectual respect for competing ideas.
Okay. We disagree. I've seen very few missionaries that could pull this off without someone being offended.
I've seen very few critics of Mormon doctrine able to pull this off without offending me.
Maybe I'm too sensitive?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not at all"= I do not deny that the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it.
Ah, sorry, I thought not at all meant something else. It's early yet.
quote:I've seen very few critics of Mormon doctrine able to pull this off without offending me.
Out of curiosity, how many of those critics actually got Mormon doctrine right? In my experience, I see a lot of egregious errors made about Catholic doctrine, some of which are known distortions created by very bigoted people. That is offensive to me. It took a very long time for me to believe that some of the people propogating the errors did so in good faith, and I still have a gut reaction to being told I worship Mary.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, how many of those critics actually got Mormon doctrine right?
Many get the literal doctrine right, but miss the intent behind it.
For example, a recent critiscism to pop up is that we believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. It's true, but it misses the point that Mormons believe every soul ever created is the child of our Heavenly Father.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Hatrack became different when it moved from AOL. It became less n00b friendly, and more prone to flame wars. This lasted until TomDavidson signed on in early 1998."
"Scott R is the reason that Hatrack sucks as a forum. He's belligerent, ignorant, and cynical."
If I were one of the frequent posters during the pre-1998 time and thought that we were very n00b friendly then and didn't agree with Tom's 1998-and-later posting style, then I would read the first statement as being no less a direct criticism as the second. No, you didn't name me, but it's obvious you're talking about me and my friends.
A more accurate analogy, from my perspective, would be if I started an annual week-long intensive writing workshop and my students came to Hatrack to tell everyone that finally there was a real Literary Bootcamp -- something that hasn't existed since William Shakespeare died! They wouldn't be interested in comparisons between my bootcamp and others -- but it is important that you realize that this new intensive writing workshop is filling a need that wasn't being met until it was started.
Is that less offensive than if I acknowledged that yes, OSC already offers a very similar workshop, but there are some significant differences, and explained them?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explaining the differences between one church and another isn't offensive. Educating church members about other belief systems can be a very good thing. It sounds like the hatrackers who have participated in such classes have experienced this kind of class.
There are some churches that take a very different approach to talking about other churches/religions. They do it in a very offensive way, and in fact they tend not to talk about real doctrinal differences at all, but merely demonize the other groups. Mormons are often the target of such diatribes, and Dagonee has pointed out that Catholics are also targeted. It sounds to me like nobody here is supporting that kind of church event, so I think a lot of the dispute here is misguided.
I support the kind of class/discussion that Belle and dkw have mentioned. They don't happen often at LDS churches, but they do happen occasionally. Some LDS institutes of religion have instructors that teach entire courses on other religions, but they do it in a more exploratory, informative way, like a college religious studies class. I have attended LDS church meetings where qualified people have been asked to talk to us about, e.g., Islam or Buddhism. If, at the end of the discussion, you think "cool" rather than "boy, are they off base", then you have just listened to a respectful and useful examination of somebody else's beliefs.
On a slightly separate note, I still think there is an important difference between believing that all other churches/religions are wrong and teaching specific "flaws" of a specific church. For one thing, if you're going to talk about how a specific church is wrong, you'd better make darn sure you really do know what that church really teaches. Too often, in making these distinctions, the criticism can be easily refuted by pointing out that "that's not what we believe, anyway." Plus, singling out a specific religion for this treatment sends the message that, while you may not agree with a whole bunch of other churches, you REALLY hate the one you've singled out.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is that less offensive than if I acknowledged that yes, OSC already offers a very similar workshop, but there are some significant differences, and explained them?
If your goal is to educate others on your religion and refute the ideals of other religions then your analogy works.
But that isn't the goal that missionaries go out with. Instead, the goal is to help others feel and recognize the Spirit of God, and invite them to convert to Mormonism. It's not wholly an intellectual discussion. It's not a debate.
Experience has taught me that the Spirit I seek to help people feel is not USUALLY brought on by comparative analysis and refutation. Other missionaries may have other talents that I don't, and can do this sort of thing successfully. (I'm skeptical.)
dkw-- Can you imagine the Mormon who told you that Protestant/Catholic pastors were all liars teaching a room full of Mormons about the punching points in Protestantanism? And doing so fairly? I mean, for heaven's sake, we can't even look on politics with any degree of intellectual even-handedness. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many get the literal doctrine right, but miss the intent behind it.
It's not that they miss the INTENT. It's that they don't accept the first premises.
In other words, Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. That's doctrine. In order for that not to MATTER -- in the way that it might matter to other Christians -- the entire nature of "divinity" has to be reconsidered.
Now, it's possible to do this. It's completely possible to discuss a religion while saying "now, keep in mind that the ramifications of belief Z are NOT X, because this religion does not believe Y, and X only proceeds from Z if Y is also held to be true." But most people lack the sophistication to do this consciously; instead, they INTERNALIZE this.
For example, there's nothing inherently ridiculous about the belief that God has a physical body and lives on Kolob. But many people who haven't already accepted previous tenets of the faith find it unthinkable, even laughable. By the same token, many non-Christians have serious issues with the Trinity; other people find the Scientologist claim of past lives marred by alien attack questionable.
In all these cases, the doctrine is not being misstated, or even having its intent misunderstood; it's just that it's emphasized in a different way, from a different perspective.
One thing I hear from a lot of religions -- and Mormons do this as much as, if not more than, most -- is something like "but if you look at it THIS way...." The idea is that just coming out and saying "Yeah, we think this IS the actual body of Christ supernaturally changed from bread in essence without actually changing in any physical, observable, testable way" or "he looked at it through his hat" is something that should be saved for people who already believe it, and therefore won't look askance.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmm . . . I think the teaching method that Dagonee talks about is seen very differently by Mormons. For him, if I understand correctly, you teach your religion by compare, contrast, and logical argumentation so one can look at all sides to determine what to believe. For Mormons you teach the teachings and revelations of God and let the Spirit help a person decide truth and error.
To be more specific, to many Mormons logically arguing for your version of religious truth is actually a sign of Apostacy. Truth, for Mormons, must stand or fall on its own merits by the Power of the Holy Ghost. Any other method is simply human sophistry.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you imagine the Mormon who told you that Protestant/Catholic pastors were all liars
I don't know about dkw, but I don't equate Mormon assertion of their doctrine, including the apostacy, as an accusation of lying. I assume there's room in the belief for people to be in error without being dishonest.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I'm not saying that Mormon missionaries should change how they do things. You do what works for you. I am saying that it's not true to claim that what LDS missionaries do is less aimed at members of other churches than what Belle's church is doing because you never mention other denominations by name.
Dag, I don't either. Apparently the poster I referenced earlier disagreed.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For him, if I understand correctly, you teach your religion by compare, contrast, and logical argumentation so one can look at all sides to determine what to believe.
Not quite. Most teaching within a particular faith should be about what that faith professes. For example, in CCD, I learned what the seven sacraments are, not that some people believe there are only two or one.
It's in apologetics that contrast and compare becomes necessary.
Edit: Your first sentence in the preceeding post is a perfect summary of what I've been trying to convey, dkw.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I've been told by an LDS member on Hatrack that all (and I asked for clarification, the poster did intentionally say all) protestant and catholic clergy are malicious liars and/or deluded, and most are both.
[quote]I assume there's room in the belief for people to be in error without being dishonest.
Yes.
quote:I am saying that it's not true to claim that what LDS missionaries do is less aimed at members of other churches than what Belle's church is doing because you never mention other denominations by name.
EDIT:
Sure it's aimed at members of other churches. We're looking for converts.
I'm not sure exactly how to express my point of view further without devolving into the stubborn insistence that my team does it better.
So let me think these things over and I shall return with something different to say.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(At this point theologically I don't particularly care) However, what dagonee far more eloquently than what I said previously, is saying is extremely true. LDS don't agree with the Nicene creed, which is the one thing that all of the other Christian sects do. In fact, it may be at the point of acceptance of the Nicene Creet where the LDS feel everyone else got off track.
There are the illiterate nutso fearomongers, which is one thing, but this is the area where many of the educated mainline christians have a issue with calling the LDS "christian" even if they call themselves "christian". The liberal varieties of Christian are much more ok with the LDS self-identifying as Christian in the broader "follower of Christ" way, but the conservatives aren't. The fundamental understanding of the nature of God and Christ are very different, between LDS and the Rest of Christendom and if you don't have the same definitions on the nature and being of the Deity, everything else is even more confusing.
For a specific example of this, I point to my great aunt Ruth who converted to LDS though she isn't practicing anymore. One of the very *specific* reasons why she converted is because she *didn't* believe in the Trinity. She thought this out before she converted. She doesn't believe Christ and God the Father are the same being, the whole one being three persons, mystery of the Trinity. This is a cherished belief of the rest of Christianity since the very Early Church. Again this is probably where the LDS believe everybody else went apostate.
It's that deeply, deeply rooted difference,in the Triune Nature of God that the thinking, non-hysterical part of conservative Christendom has a hard time getting past with the LDS, when it comes down to the specifics.
In my own experience, the LDS have even taken some of the same words used by both liberal and conservative varieties of mainline Christian, and applied different twists to the definitions so as to make the concepts basically unrecognizable to more mainline christians. Singing the LDS versions of some hymns that have been around for hundreds of years was quite an eyeopener, cause the words have been decidedly changed from the original historical versions.
But, those who have been raised LDS don't even realize that the definitions of the words and the hymngs are truly different than the rest of Christendom. It's like you are talking thinking you are speaking the same language, when in reality the words are being processed through two entirely different algorithms.
I think Hatrack is one of those places where we can try to productively try to understand each other's algorithms, but it's hard when the processing structure diverges at such a deep level, even if the top level code looks like it has a lot in common.
posted
I was at the debate between Mitt and Ted Kennedy when they were running against each other, and all I can say is Mitt Romney can talk rings around an issue! He was asked question after question and he gave very long-winded, technical sounding responses, but he never once answered even one of the questions that he was asked. I would have a problem with having a President that doesn't answer questions, or he gives you a non-answer to a question. Oh wait! GW's already done that. Sorry, I don't want another of those, no matter what religion they may be. When someone asked Mitt for a straight answer to a question at that debate (towards the end of the debate) he said he didn't have an answer to that and that he would have to look into it and do some research. In other words he needed to know just how not to say what he didn't want to say. (That sentence makes perfect sense... if he didn't want to say " no" to something, he had to find a way to make it sound like he was saying no when what he was really saying was absolutely nothing at all!) Are ya confused yet? Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But, those who have been raised LDS don't even realize that the definitions of the words and the hymngs are truly different than the rest of Christendom.
In my experience, we realize our differences more that you think we do.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT! That would be awsome. We would not only have an honest man as president,( remember Jimmy Carter ) we would also have a skilled politician. ( don't remember Jimmy Carter )
He is an idiot, and I dislike MOST of what he has tried to do to (not for) MA.
And not because he is a Mormon.
(This is Kwea...my wife forgot to log off again. )
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mitt Romney can talk rings around an issue! He was asked question after question and he gave very long-winded, technical sounding responses, but he never once answered even one of the questions that he was asked. I would have a problem with having a President that doesn't answer questions, or he gives you a non-answer to a question.
I've never heard a politician of any party or ideology who ever directly answered a direct question. And ALL "successful" politicians talk rings around every issue. It's been one of my big frustrations in watching debates over the years, but it seems we've set up our system to discourage candidates from EVER committing themselves or giving a straight answer to anything.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have, on some issues at least...but I watched those debates as well and never heard ANY straight answers at all from Mitt....
And what he did to the cities of MA (cuts of aid and illegal denying benifits of collective bargining agreements from years past) , particularily Western MA, is just short of criminal.
And then he tried to deny his own resonsibility/culpibility, and got mad when people didn't believe him.
I hope he DOES run, because he will lose in a landslide.
And then he tried to deny
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds more like a Republican vs. Democrat thing to me. After all, many Republicans would put your list in the positive side of things.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormons who grew up in Utahville, relatively sheltered from other religions.
I grew up in Provo, in the heart of "Utahville," and I'd wager I know at least as much about the history and theology of most major Christian sects as the average layperson in those churches.
Just some anecdotal evidence to balance some equally anecdotal stereotype.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is JenniK being lazy again and not changing user names....
As for Mitt Romney being like most politicians, yes it's true, but the way he "answered " questions could be described as something like this: Q: Mr. Romney was the shirt you were wearing blue? A: Well, not per se, however the range that it fell in was somewhere between the spectrum that was analyzed, and it definitely has a color name.At this time I do not have the exact details and would need to further research this subject before I could give you more information. I believe that the voters should have all the details pertaining to the answer to this question and I will assure you that this matter will have my utmost attention until such time as that information becomes available, at which time I will inform the voters.Thank you.
This is what I meant when I said that he never actually answered a single question that was asked, even when asked for a direct answer. The debate that I am speaking of took place at the Community College that I attended, and ever since I heard him answer questions in the manner I described above, I have profoundly disliked him. This was far before he was elected Governor of MA, and before he slashed funding to Western Massachusetts Police and Fire Departments, schools,cities and towns. In Springfield alone, there was at least 1 fire house that had to close. But, hey at least he ended up with a surplus instead of a deficit, so what if it put the very lives of his constituents at risk! There is no way that I would ever vote for this man for any political office. Hey ...the teachers in Massachusetts finally got the pay raise that they were guaranteed in their contract 3 years ago.....retroactive of course (based on the way he tried to break the legally binding contract..then tried to prevent collective bargaining with the union). I have a friend that is a member of that union and was happy to finally have the money that she should have been getting, but hey, Boston got all the funding it needed and then some.
I guess you could say that I am a little anti-Romney. Ok, make that a lot. I don't care if someone is a republican or a democrat, I am an independent and I vote based on things I have read about the past actions of the candidates; voting history, what the candidate is for or against (and what their past actions say to agree or contradict with), not based on political party affiliation. So, I guess you can't say that it's because I'm a democrat, I just plain don't like the guy.
Thanks for listening to me vent! - JenniK
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JenniK, thanks for pointing out that there'll be LOTS of people who won't vote for him even if they don't care he's Mormon. He'll definitely have an uphill climb.
MPH:
quote:In my experience, we realize our differences more that you think we do.
Silent E:
quote: And in my experience, we realize our differences less than we think we do.
I think you're both right. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny thing is that if you know how I will vote next election please tell me...I haven't made up my mind yet.
I am talking about funds for the CURRENT YEAR he cut, not a future budget....money that the towns HAD to have for things like trash disposal and bridge repair, that had been earmarked SPECIFICALLY for those projects.
About contracts, signed and sealed, that were illegally not honored by the state.
Put it this way..about 10 towns SUED Romney, believeing his actions to be ILLEGAL, and they recieved most of the money that was suppose to be cut originaly.
Those are NOT partisan issues at all, and anyone who thinks they are is wrong.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just curious to the LDS, have you ever looked at a non-LDS hymnbook and compared? Not just the titles which are often the same but the actual words to the songs.
As far as realizing or not realizing differences, I'd say the average jatraquero is not necessarily the average participant in either variety of religion, and again that's why I like hatrack. You totally missed my point if that's what you seized on, since my point was that HATRACK makes for better communication either way, even though the interface can be difficult at times.
posted
Banna, sometimes the differences are actually noted in footnotes at the end of the hymns. For example, at the end of How Great Thou Art, the notes mention a couple of words that were replaced ("works" = "worlds", etc.)
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Christian radio most definitely doesn't count. They are generally more "praise songs" and fewer "hymns"
I'm curious-- what's the difference? This is the Olde Tyme Christian Radio-- sounds like they play records rather than cd's. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... then possibly you are hearing actual hymns. I sat down once with an LDS hymnbook once and a protestant one, and actually got pretty upset.
Not so much from a theological perspective as from an artistic perspective. The composers of the hymns that have been around for hundreds of years, set the music to those words deliberately. To change them to make them line up better theologically with LDS beliefs seems to be a betrayal of original intent, in at least several cases. (It's been a long time though, I'd have to have the hymnbooks side by side again to show specifics.) You see the old masters, would specifically pick melodies and chords and consonance and dissonance based on the words they were composing to. Yeah they are dead, but it bugs me. And the changed words, in several cases completely changed the theological meaning of the song too. IMO.
posted
I have. I have a Methodist hymnal a preacher on my mission gave to me. It's great - lots more Christmas hymns. My comp and I once spent an entertaining session right before bed comparing all the hymns.
As an example, in the LDS hymnal, it's "Let Saints and Angels sing."
The reason for the change is because the LDS don't want to sing doctrine that they don't believe is true, but there are some really beautiful hymns out there that it would be a shame to not include. The hymnbook is supposed to be, among its many uses, another teaching tool, so it wouldn't be good to teach something that we don't believe.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
