Mormonism

[Bluecat]

Ah well, we get into who is (or isn't) a Christian, and who has the right to call it. There is no end to those discussions.

If we use 'Christian' to mean 'a generally moral person' (or at least 'one of whose morality I approve') then almost anyone who seems moral (or with whom I share moral ground) will seem like one.

If we use 'Christian' to mean 'one who subscribes to a set of beliefs (the creed, for instance) and/or behavioural norms (at least in public)', then we have to decide which beliefs, which norms, what forms they have to take.

We may also have to decide whether an item of belief is falsifiable (ie, capable of being disproved) and if it is, whether it has been disproved or not.

For instance, 'I have a purple unicorn in my garden, but it is invisible, intangible and neither eats nor excretes' is not falsifiable, so it can only be a matter of belief. Nobody can disprove it.

Statements like 'the earth is 6000 years old' or 'God lives in a physical form on a physical planet' can be falsified: it's possible to have proof or disproof of it (though of course people tend to vary as to what they accept as proven or disproven). We may find the physical planet mentioned by Joeseph Smith and a physical, embodied god will either be there or not.

'By their fruits ye shall know them' is a very handy rule.

The only problem with using it to assess large groups of people, and especially large groups of people over long time periods, is that we can't find very many such groups whose fruits are consistently good.

I would say the number of groups of people whose fruits have been perfectly good would be... oooh let's see... something around zero?

Personal impression is that the book of Mormon has much of the form of Christianity but not much of the content, whereas the practices vary from pretty close to mainstream American (I've only ever known American Mormons) to quite thoroughly ... um... different.

So, can a Mormon be a Christian?

Can a Randian be a Roman Catholic?

Some reading:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2012/01/16/eliot-weinberger/theological-questions/

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n10/david-haglund/diary

[RabbiO]

Ah well, we get into who is (or isn't) a Christian....

Well, if it helps, I'm not.

[Dan52]

while a joke dan,i would expect better of you.

Try to lower your expectations ......No offense intended... I assume your voting the Romney/Ryan ticket?

Consideriing that the one holy catholic and apostolic church was the one actually founded by jesus christ, I dont see how it can be further from him than a sect created in the nineteenth century Dan.

Christ established his church, he's the foundation of the church. Mormonism has their own separate prophet, their own scriptures, and man made tradition. Catholicism also has its own church tradition, a pope/papacy, worship/adoration of Mary, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, etc. Seventh Day Adventist have their own prophet, scriptures, and invented traditions. The new testament doesn't mention any of these religious tenets and Revelation 22:18-19 warns of adding anything to what's written. For me, the Church is not a place, denomination, or organization, but is comprised of every individual that believe and observes all things commanded by Christ (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus told the apostles that within the church there would be a mixture of “wheat and chaff”, I'm confident that He will sort-out the self-deceived religious zealots from the genuine saints.

We can only compare ourselves to what Jesus actually did and taught I guess.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Dan52

[Ex Nihilo]

I disagree with your characterization of the catholic church Dan. Everything taught as part of the infallible tradition of the church is found either explicitly or implicitly in the holy scriptures and nothing taught in the church is condemned by the scriptures. The trinity, the primacy of the papacy as heir to the office of Peter, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the veneration of the saints, infant baptism, the 7sacraments, the priesthood, special veneration of Mary ever-virgin as the mother of god, all have a connection to the bible....the bible itself is catholic, compiled and canonized by the church. The catholic church cannot trace itself back to any one prophet or preacher. It traces its beginning to Jesus Christ and his apostles. But what about your tradition? If you read the protestant bible, then your reading a bible edited by Martin Luther, not the canonized by the church. If you believe that man is saved by faith alone you are contrasicting the bible because the book of James says exactly the opposite, if you deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist you contradict the bible because it says exactly the opposite in multiple places. If you believe that infants are forbidden from being baptized, then you are teaching something that appears nowhere in the bible. And if you belive that the bible is the only authority, you're not using the bible to do so because, again, it says exactly the opposite. I wonder who exactly is using man-made traditions and their own prophets?

[RabbiO]

The Pharisees ....were wrong when they assumed Jesus wasnt god.

Those Pharisees may not have been Trinitarians then, but they are now.....

Let's just say we're going to have to agree to disagree on these.

Edited August 24, 2012 by RabbiO

[Ex Nihilo]

Let's just say we're going to have to agree to disagree on these.

lol. Fair enough, everyone has a right to be wrong (myself included?)...

[Dan52]

I disagree with your characterization of the catholic church Dan. Everything taught as part of the infallible tradition of the church is found either explicitly or implicitly in the holy scriptures and nothing taught in the church is condemned by the scriptures. The trinity, the primacy of the papacy as heir to the office of Peter, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the veneration of the saints, infant baptism, the 7sacraments, the priesthood, special veneration of Mary ever-virgin as the mother of god, all have a connection to the bible....the bible itself is catholic, compiled and canonized by the church. The catholic church cannot trace itself back to any one prophet or preacher. It traces its beginning to Jesus Christ and his apostles. But what about your tradition? If you read the protestant bible, then your reading a bible edited by Martin Luther, not the canonized by the church. If you believe that man is saved by faith alone you are contrasicting the bible because the book of James says exactly the opposite, if you deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist you contradict the bible because it says exactly the opposite in multiple places. If you believe that infants are forbidden from being baptized, then you are teaching something that appears nowhere in the bible. And if you belive that the bible is the only authority, you're not using the bible to do so because, again, it says exactly the opposite. I wonder who exactly is using man-made traditions and their own prophets?

These are some of my objections with Catholicism;

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9). Christians believe God is the Holy Father, not the Pope.

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words" (Matthew 6:7). Roman Catholics borrowed the idea of praying with beads (rosary) from the pagan religions.

Catholics are taught the virgin Mary never had sex after Jesus was born and that Jesus had no brothers or sisters, but Matthew 13:55-56 states differently. The Pope teaches that Mary is the mediator between God and man. Catholics also engage in more praising of Mary than Jesus Christ himself and actually pray to her (Hail Marys) to have their prayers answered. "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5).

The Pope says only very special dead Catholic people qualify to be called "saints", but Paul refers to all Christians as saints in 1 Corinthians 1:2, Ephesians 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Romans 1:7.

Catholics claim Peter as the first Pope, but Peter was married; "Now Simon's mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever" (Mark 1:30)

No babies were baptized in the new testament, also baptisms were by full immersion, not sprinkling water.

The concept of confessing sin to a priest is not taught in Scripture. The New Testament does not even teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant, its the Old Covenant where people approached God through the priests, who were mediators between the people and God. But the temple veil tore in two at Jesus death, which symbolically destroyed the dividing wall between God and humanity. We can now approach God directly, without the use of a human mediator. Catholics still seem to hold to the old traditions (Levitical priesthood), but the high priest is not the Pope, Christ became the high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 7:17).

The letters that comprise the new testament may have been officially compiled by the Roman church, but each existed prior to the church canonizing them, and Catholics didn't write them. In fact, the church translated them into Latin more-less hiding the NT from everyone but priest.

For myself, I don't consider the bible to be a collection of man-made traditions. I never denied the presence of Christ when partaking of the sacraments in Holy Communion. Where does the bible say that scripture is not authoritative? The only prophets I accept are all biblical, there's nothing man-made about that since I believe the bible to be inspired by God.

[Ex Nihilo]

I take your points very seriously, Dan, but rather than hijack this thread, I will answer them in another topic. Since I am without a computer and am stuck typing on my cell so this may take a while.

[Padredos Amigos]

According to the Athanasian creed, what makes a christian a christian is his adherence to the Trinitarian faith.

I think that this is why I am Unitarian. Any group that has a prerequisite for being Christian other than believing in Christ always seems to put me off.

Mormonism is a form of Gnostic Christianity. In fact Gnostic thought pervades most American religions - Pentecostals, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists - including the religion of our founder. I would think Gnosticism is more American the any other religious strain.

Having been a member of the Mormon church from my birth up until I was 18, I can promise you that we were not Gnostic. And I rather think that calling the Mormons Gnostics kind of degrades them both. The Gnostics were their own ascetic group with their own mysteries. But being your own group with your own mysteries does not automatically define you as "gnostic".

I disagree. It is available throughout the bible, both old ans New testaments, albeit in veiled and later in primitive form. Since I believe that Christ taught it, his disciples, imho, believed it. Just because a complete and thorough explanation and exegesis of the trinity, as we have it today, does not fall from the pages of scripture does not preclude its existence as an idea among the Christians of the new testament. I am not a bible-only Christian. The bible itself testifies that it does not hold all the lord said or did, nor could it. To pass on the fullness of his revelation, he chose apostles, not a book. The apostles passed on the fullness of faith to the church, which has kept it as its tradition. While the bible is a part if that tradition, it is not the only part. For me, the holy trinity is the Rosetta stone of Christian theology, without it, nothing that we know about christ makes sense. But if you have a poll taken during the New testament times proving that Christians disavowed the idea of the trinity, please share.

Check your history. The idea of Trinity only started turning up about 200 years after Jesus's life. And it was originally an idea in a very few persons mind. God has always tried to keep it simple for us. The idea grew in the minds of the so-called "learned people" and they became certain that they were special because of the "special knowledge" that they held. The churches did not even officially recognize either trinity or unity until it was unified into one central organization under Emperor Constantine in 352. In fact, the word trinity does not even show up in the bible, much like the word rapture.

Most Protestant churches that come to us as offshoots of the Catholic faith still hold very close to their faith of Trinity. But there have always been groups of believers that have not accepted this idea. Such as the amish. No, I am not saying that I am amish.

As I mentioned before, I was a member of the LDS church from very early on. My take on whether they were a cult has always been bled through the lessons that I learned from them as a child.

I guess the answer depends on what you consider a "cult".

My view has always been that a cult is prone to isolationism, absolute belief in their own views, and defensiveness of their religion to the point of violence. Scientology falls into these catagories as they have been known to utilize violence with some of their members and are prone to isolationist actions themselves. The Mormons in their early days were cultists because they were all of these things. Modern Mormons defend their actions by reminding people of the persecution they dealt with, as most cultists did in those days. They will always point out that Joseph Smith died at the hands of a lynch mob in Missouri. But they were cultists.

Modern Mormonism has changed and I don't think that they still qualify for the term 'cult' but they are still different enough that people are nervous about them.

[Zequatanil]

Thank you for the explanation--very enlightening.

II. THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY---from the Catholic catechism, where and when.......

http://www.vatican.v...sm/p1s2c1p2.htm

blessings and peace,

S

Edited September 12, 2012 by Tündér

[Ex Nihilo]

I checked my history, God began revealing himself as

Both plurality and unity from the very beginning, or at least by day 6: " And God (singular) said, Let us (plural) make man in our image, after our (plural) likeness "

Gen 1:26

While the old testament, reveals god as creator, it hints at his other persons. With the incarnation of Christ, the full revelation was given.

John 1 (relevant part):

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made...In him was life; and the life was the light of men....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth...No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

And again in the last chapter of Matthew, when he directs his followers to baptize "in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost"

And in John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

You are right that trinity as a word is not in the bible, but we don't worship words, we worship the reality those words describe, which is all over the scriptures. Tou are also right that not everyone has held those views. That is why the church has had councils and developed creeds to seperate truth from error.

The creeds themselves are both Trinitarian and biblical, as seen below:

I believe (Acts 8:37) in one God (Deut. 6:4), the Father (John 20:17) Almighty (Revelation 1:8), Maker of heaven and earth (Isaiah 51:13) and of all things visible and invisible (Colossians 1:16).

And in one Lord (Ephesians 4:5) Jesus Christ (John 17:3), the only-begotten Son of God (John 3:18), begotten of His Father (John 1:14) before all worlds (Colossians 1:17), God of God (Colossians 1:15), Light of Light (Revelation 21:23), Very God of Very God (John 1:1-2), Begotten (Psalm 2:7), not made (John 1:3), Being of one substance with the Father (John 10:30), By Whom all things were made (Ephesians 3:9); Who for us men (1 Corinthians 15:3) and for our salvation (Colossians 1:21-22) came down from heaven (John 3:13) And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:20) of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:27) And was made man (Hebrews 2:14); And was crucified (Acts 2:36) also for us (Romans 4:25) under Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:15). He suffered (1 Peter 4:1) and was buried (Matthew 27:60); And the third day He rose again (1 Thessalonians 4:14) according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4); And ascended into heaven (Ephesians 4:10), And sitteth on the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33); And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 16:27) to judge both the quick and the dead (Acts 10:42); Whose kingdom shall have no end (Isaiah 9:7).

And I believe in the Holy Ghost (Psalm 51:11), The Lord (Galatians 6:8) and Giver of Life (Romans 8:2), Who proceedeth from the Father (John 15:26) and the Son (John 16:7), Who with the Father and the Son (2 Corinthians 13:14) together is worshiped and glorified (Revelation 4:8), Who spake by the Prophets (2 Peter 1:21). And I believe one (Ephesians 4:5) holy (1 Peter 2:5) Christian (Acts 4:10, 12) and Apostolic (Acts 2:42) Church (Colossians 1:18). I acknowledge one Baptism (Ephesians 4:5) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), And I look for the resurrection of the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:16), And the life of the world to come (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Amen.

[Zequatanil]

Yep you are right on--this is in the catechism exactly just made official!--at different times by the councils. If you read the Vatican site I posted .

blessings and peace,

S

[Ex Nihilo]

Thank you for the explanation--very enlightening.

II. THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY---from the Catholic catechism, where and when.......

http://www.vatican.v...sm/p1s2c1p2.htm

blessings and peace,

S

Much better said than my attempt...I've said it before, I do love me some CCC

[Padredos Amigos]

Wow Rattlesnake, nice way to take all of those verses out of context and then start taking one and two words out of their own verses out of context.

The truth is very easy to see and requires no councils or creeds. The Bible was written with the intention to be read by all, thus simplicity and clarity is implicite in its lessons. It is when a person takes just one verse out of its lesson and especially when one takes one, two or three words out of its context to try to justify their arguements that the true lessons are lost.

Matthew 19:17

So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Clearly Jesus is indicating a separate individual and it is not him.

John 20:17

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

Once he clearly states that he is not God.

1 Cor 11:3

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Yet another indication that God is not Christ.

Colossians 1: 9-16

⁹ For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; ¹⁰ that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; ¹¹ strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; ¹² giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. ¹³ He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, ¹⁴ in whom we have redemption through His blood,the forgiveness of sins.

¹⁵ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶ For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Yet another example that while Jesus was the first of all men, the exemplar of humanity, he was not God.

By reading the entirety of the statements do you gather the lesson that was intended to be taught. So many times I have heard others try to take sections out of context to justify their own arguments for a great many things (Rapture, Anti-Alcohol, Anti-Gambling, and the list goes on) that when I see examples such as yours that I just cringe.

I do not expect you to accept my position and I am not trying to convert you, but understand that you will not convert me. The only relevant thing in this argument with the original post was that the Mormons (loosely) accept the trinity.

But then I was also taught as a child that when I died, heaven was going to be on a planet named Kolob.

[Bluecat]

Well, if it helps, I'm not.

Awww, bless you for clearing up that possible confusion, RabbiO.

I'm not either, except culturally. I was (a believing and practising) one, once upon a time.

I have lived in places where saying you're not a Christian was tantamount to calling oneself a rabid babystrangler...

[Bluecat]

Most Christian groups believe God is eternal.

By the 1840s, he [Joseph Smith the founder of Mormonism] was preaching that devout men would become gods themselves in the afterlife, and would be married eternally to multiple wives. ‘God himself,’ Smith wrote, ‘is an exalted man, and has not existed for all eternity, but came into existence at some time, and dwelt on earth, the same as Jesus Christ did.’

No trace of "reformed Egyptian" is known to archaeologists. The (genuine) Egyptian papyruses from which Joseph Smith claimed to have translated, by means of a 'seer stone', The Book of Abraham - an account of the prophet's life, by himself - have been found again, and translated by actual Egyptologists. They don't say anything like what he claimed for them, have no mention of Abraham, and date from around 70 AD.

[Youch]

This is the reason why I think it is a good idea to know about different religions if we want to live in peace with each other.

Three responses:

1. Your underlying assumption is that religion is both protagonist and antagonist in the play for peace on earth?? I find that fascinating, and also probably true.

2. Why would I need to know anything about your religion to live in peace with you?????

If members of a religion are not causing you harm in any way, you have no basis to judge your peaceability with them based on religiosity. The converse must then also be true.....since radical members of a particular religion are currently waging war against, for the lack of a more concise term, western culture, and using religious imperative as their justification, then clearly degrees of peaceability can based on religion and supports your notion that knowing more about the underlying philosophy is important to find peace in a hostile environment. Hope I've made my thoughts on the subject clear!!

Then again, some would say it is peaceability via various religions that promotes the peaceful environment not to care what someone else's religion is!

3. Beyond that, if you want to know about a particular religion, Google might be the best portal to find Mormonism to mean whatever you want it to mean, ya know what I mean? But what you won't find are credible references to Mormons causing anything resembling the hate, intolerance, terrorism, oppression, and dysfunction that we find in another. I mean, wouldn't some OTHER religion in the world be MORE of a concern for you to "learn and understand" for peace in the world???

[Zequatanil]

I did say``different religions`` seems to encompass all I would think--it wasn`t simply Mormonism discussed on this board, but a few others, however that is neither here nor there.When one looks at history--99% (not an exact # Yes I could google it!) of all were were due to religion--some say--ban religion entirely. Most counties have a separation of state and church, but even that dosn`t work--this is an impossible situation because the human soul yearns , or want to feel that they are simply not a heap of clay and that there maybe some higher reason for our existence--we have an innate need to know that we to feel that have a reason of being.

True or not, all of us one day will find out -- and this is why there are only a handful of atheists, for even they have a need --looked, looked especially scientifically and could not find, their reason is --thus there is no evidence--there is no god. Hey--they maybe entirely correct!--their truth. But--there is no need to fight over it--as Blades put it--whether he sad it in Elizabethan English, Spanglish or some slang.

Ignorance creates fear and numerous other hostile emotions within us. Why?-- should we be only discussing topics of ``hate, intolerance, terrorism, oppression, and dysfunction`` here and google the rest? Why then discuss anything here?- we can google anything, one dosn`t even have to go to the library anymore--but we discuss it to perhaps come to a clearer idea of `that which we may perceive as truth`--because as once a dear friends told me`` When I was young books were my friends, now I have learnt that many of them lie``.

And--``I mean, wouldn't some OTHER religion in the world be MORE of a concern for you to "learn and understand" for peace in the world???``

--yes I agree with you, and I do that also, would others do the same on both sides for by ``all`` I mean all of humanity--on every side of the fence!!--then we probably would be in less of a mess.

I often have to remind myself that I cannot change anyone`s out look, behaviour, feelings but my own!--if we all did that maybe we would feel different about many things.--which wolf do I feed?

Cherokee legend-

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

blessings and peace,

S