Mormonism

[Zequatanil]

Thanks Rev`rd Rattlesnake-- That is what I also said regarding the second article--we should simply accept each other and know the different faiths. That is why I said maybe I should be a Hindu or Buddhist--well they have problems as well, but not as much as we seem to have. I think maybe Sarkozy, the French president had a point --when he said that religions are the cause of most wars. I find it very disheartening that religion--all of them profess love as their basis, yet they have the most lack of love towards their fellow man. Maybe the Gnostics are right--we are creations of a lesser God.

blessings and peace,

S

Edited August 21, 2012 by sarkany

[Youch]

Is Mormonism a Christian religion or is it a cult?

``Mormonism is not a Christian religion. It is not even a Christian heresy. It is a religion that has no real connection with Jesus Christ, except at a semantic level. It has been allowed to pass itself off as another manifestation of American Protestantism – some Catholics have been remarkably lax on this front – but it is nothing of the sort, denying as it does the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the exclusivity of revelation in Christ. Oddly enough, Mormonism is further from Christianity than Islam itself. There are indeed interesting parallels between the two. ``

http://www.catholich...stian-religion/

http://en.wikipedia....onism_and_Islam

peace,

S

Who cares????

[Voodoo Doctor]

Doctor Griffin is surprised at the evangelical Christians supporting a Mormon for president, because he does not feel that Mormonism and evangelical Christiainity are compatible. Protestants and Roman Catholics have far more in common. Alot of Mormon doctrine is based on Freemasonry and elements of Qabalah found in Freemasonry. Doctor Griffin never hears the more extraordinary elements of Mormonism mentioned, such as the belief thet when some souls die they go to the Moon, after a period spiritual evolution they then go to dwell in the Sun with the other perfected souls. Hell is not a fiery place of torment but living in the darkness away from the presence of God. Mormons believe in eternal progression so that human souls will eventually become gods themselves. No one mentions their "underwear;" they wear a sacred garment with Masonic symbols on it they constantly wear underneath their clothing. Doctor Griffin believes that people are allowed to believe whatever they wish as long as it doesn't infringe upon others, and it is not my intention to criticize. He would not label Mormonism a "cult" any more than any other religion. He just wanted to point out his bewilderment at the fact that Pat Robertson and other evangelicals are so gung ho for Romney after deriding Obama and accusing him of being a closet Muslim. No matter, Doctor Griffin will just have some iced tea and watch from the porch .

http://en.wikipedia..../Temple_garment

http://en.wikipedia....ormon_cosmology

Edited August 22, 2012 by Voodoo Doctor

[panpareil]

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.

[Ex Nihilo]

Couldn't agree more panpareil

[Tsukino_Rei]

Jesus is part of the trinity, and therefore belief in him as not only messiah and savior, but also second person of the godhead is necessary for salvific Christian faith but it is not sufficient. There must also be belief in god the father and god the holy spirit, according to most Christians. People who believe in Jesus but not the One who sent him or the one who came after could hardly be called a christiam, at least in the traditional sense

If Trinitarianism is valid pre-requisite to Christianity then none of the disciples were Christian, nor were their followers

An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament assembly. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "revealed doctrine" foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities, including the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Under the article Trinity we read, "The term ‘Trinity’ is not a biblical term…In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine…As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" (vol. 5, p. 3012).

http://www.yrm.org/t...act-fiction.htm

Trinitarian doctrine, whether it be the belief in three Persons so perfectly united in purpose as to be One (Trinitarianism) or three manifestation of a single being, each manifestation so perfect and complete as to like three Persons (Unitarianism), they find their roots in Babylonian theology. Not in Judaism or the teachings of Christ.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Tsukino_Rei

[Ex Nihilo]

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.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Rev'd Rattlesnake

[Dan52]

Catholics have been remarkably lax on this front – but it is nothing of the sort, denying as it does the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the exclusivity of revelation in Christ. Oddly enough, Mormonism is further from Christianity than Islam itself. There are indeed interesting parallels between the two. ``

I'd classify the Church of LDS as an offshoot of Christianity, even though they have some non-biblical beliefs, they accept and practice much of what the bible teaches. Most Mormons are good people "Ye shall know them by their fruits". Comparing the LDS to Islam is a joke, and Catholics are further from Christ than the Church of LDS ever was imo.

Mormon's accept the trinity, but each of the trio as separate functioning entities.They also accept the revelation of Christ, with what's added in the Book of Mormon. Nice people, just a little confused. From what I understand, they believe some weird things; They think the church is the tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh, they belief Zion is in America, and they think Christ's return will be in Jerusalem and in Jackson county Missouri, where temples will be built. Joseph Smith was chased out of MO, I think some Mormons (Osmonds) even set-up shop in Branson thinking Christ would return there around the turn of the century Smith moved the church to Nauvoo IL (I took the tour) where he was arrested and killed in 1844, he had 4 wives at the time.

[Fawzo]

I like the sacred underwear. Anyone who wears sacred or Holey underwear is ok in my book.

http://www.mormon-underwear.com/

I wonder if Mitt wears his?

Edited August 22, 2012 by Fawzo

[Ex Nihilo]

It they allow him in the temple, he has to...or so I'm told. Glenn beck wears one too.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Rev'd Rattlesnake

[Dan52]

Lighten-up guys, there's nothing funny about magic underwear...

[mark 45]

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

[Tsukino_Rei]

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.

It seems a bit cruel to 'veil' a doctrine that salvation supposedly depends upon. I guess it boils down to whether one buys into the idea that true, redemption-dependant knowledge of god was progressively revealed to politicians, torturers, and murderers throughout history. Personally, I smell rotten fruit.

Suppression of heresies

Main article: Christian debate on persecution and toleration

One of the roles of bishops, and the purpose of many Christian writings, was to refute heresies. The New Testament itself speaks of the importance of maintaining orthodox doctrine and refuting incorrect teachings, showing the antiquity of the concern.^[7]

During those first three centuries, Christianity was effectively outlawed by requirements to venerate the Roman emperor and Roman gods. Consequently, when the Church labeled its enemies as heretics and cast them out of its congregations or severed ties with dissident churches, it remained without the power to persecute them.

Before 313 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches, and there was no true mechanism in place to resolve the various differences of beliefs. Heresy was to be approached by the leader of the church according to Eusebius, author of The Church History. It was only after the legalisation of Christianity, which began under Constantine I in 313 AD that the various beliefs of the Church began to be made uniform and formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the General Councils. Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion prior to Constantine I, and closes the books on the argument, with the weight of the agreement of the over 300 bishops, as well as Constantine I in attendance. [Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west). The number of participating bishops cannot be accurately stated; Socrates Scholasticus and Epiphanius of Salamis counted 318; Eusebius of Caesarea, only 250.] In spite of the agreement reached at the council of 325, the Arians, who had been defeated, dominated most of the church for the greater part of the 4th century, often with the aid of Roman emperors who favored them.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) was the first to argue that his "orthodox" position was the same faith that Jesus gave to the apostles, and that the identity of the apostles, their successors, and the teachings of the same were all well-known public knowledge. This was therefore an early argument supported by apostolic succession. Irenaeus first established the doctrine of four gospels and no more, with the synoptic gospels interpreted in the light of John. Irenaeus' opponents, however, claimed to have received secret teachings from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic Scripture as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.

The first known usage of the term 'heresy' in a civil legal context was in 380 AD by the "Edict of Thessalonica" of Theodosius I. Prior to the issuance of this edict, the Church had no state sponsored support for any particular legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as 'heresy'. By this edict, in some senses, the line between the Catholic Church's spiritual authority and the Roman State's jurisdiction was blurred. One of the outcomes of this blurring of Church and State was a sharing of State powers of legal enforcement between Church and State authorities. At its most extreme reach, this new legal backing of the Church gave its leaders the power to, in effect, pronounce the death sentence upon those whom they might perceive to be 'heretics'.

Within 5 years of the official 'criminalization' of heresy by the emperor, the first Christian heretic, Priscillian was executed in 385 by Roman officials. For some years after theProtestant Reformation, Protestant denominations were also known to execute those whom they considered as heretics. The last known heretic executed by sentence of the Roman Catholic Church was Cayetano Ripoll in 1826. The number of people executed as heretics under the authority of the various 'church authorities' is not known, however it most certainly numbers into the several thousands.

http://en.wikipedia....in_Christianity

Early Christianity

Most nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity (see Apostolic Age) was nontrinitarian, but (depending on which church) believe rather that early Christianity was either strictly unitarian or binitarian or modalist. Typically, nontrinitarians believe Christianity was altered by the edicts of Emperor Constantine I, which eventually resulted in the adoption of Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire during the reign of Theodosius I. Because it was during a dramatic shift in Christianity's status that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its definitive development, nontrinitarians typically consider the doctrine questionable. Nontrinitarians see the Nicene Creed as an essentially political document, resulting from the subordination of true doctrine to state interests by leaders of the Catholic Church, so that the church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire.

Although nontrinitarian beliefs continued to multiply, and among some people (such as the Lombards in the west) were dominant for hundreds of years after their inception, Trinitarians gained prominence in the Roman Empire. Nontrinitarians typically argue that the primitive beliefs of Christianity were systematically suppressed (often to the point of death), and that the historical record, perhaps also including the scriptures of the New Testament, was altered as a consequence.

Some scholars investigating the historical Jesus assert that Jesus taught neither his own equality with God nor the Trinity (see, for example, the Jesus Seminar).

Nontrinitarians also dispute the veracity of the Nicene Creed based on its adoption nearly 300 years after the life of Jesus as a result of conflict within pre-Nicene early Christianity. Nontrinitarians (both Modalists and Unitarians) also generally claim that Athanasius and others at Nicaea adopted Greek Platonic philosophy and concepts, and incorporated them in their views of God and Christ.^[26]Nontrinitarians also cite scriptures such as Matthew 15:9 and Ephesians 4:14 that warn the reader to beware the doctrines of men.

The author H. G. Wells, later famous for his contribution to science-fiction, wrote in The Outline of History: "We shall see presently how later on all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the Trinity, at any rate from him."^[27]

The question of why such a central doctrine to the Christian faith would never have been explicitly stated in scripture or taught in detail by Jesus himself was sufficiently important to 16th century historical figures such as Michael Servetus as to lead them to argue the question. The Geneva City Council, in accord with the judgment of the cantons of Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, condemned Servetus to be burned at the stake for this and his opposition to infant baptism.

http://en.wikipedia....ntrinitarianism

I see nothing wrong with believing in a Trinity, per se. Multiple interesting religions do. But to claim that it is a requirement for salvation, a requirement to call oneself a follower of Christ, to enforce it using the state, or to torture or put to death those who disagree is, for me, full of problems and, from my own understand when I read the book, not at all supported by the Christian Bible. My interpretation instructs me that there should be some internal alarm bells going off at that point.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Tsukino_Rei

[Ex Nihilo]

I believe that grace is all that is required for salvation. As a Christian Universalist, I believe that that grace has already been given to all by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. However, giving is not the same as receiving. To receive that grace requires a recognition of the one who gives it as one who has authority to give it. The Pharisees rebuked Jesus when he forgave people's sins, saying only god can forgive sins. They were right in that, but they were wrong when they assumed Jesus wasnt god. Jesus said that anyone who sees the son also sees the father (god the creator). When they recognize him as one who has authority to grant forgiveness, ie God, they can accept his gift. Those Pharisees may not have been Trinitarians then, but they are now. It's as assured as is our eventual and total salvation. It's not cruel to keep things veiled until the proper time of their unveiling when one knows that the Good Shepherd wills that not one sheep will ever be lost but that all will come to salvation...nothing not even lack of knowledge will keep us from our home.

[Zequatanil]

Just to throw in some confusion--this is the Catholic official version according to the catechism; may interest some. Sorry for being so long--there is a lot more on the site-- All our catholic secrets

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

Edited August 23, 2012 by sarkany

[Zequatanil]

====In short--

IN BRIEF

261 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

262 The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

263 The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) and by the Son "from the Father" (Jn 15:26), reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the same God. "With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified" (Nicene Creed).

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

265 By the grace of Baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and after death in eternal light (cf. Paul VI, CPG § 9).

<a name="266">266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

blessings and peace,

S

[Zequatanil]

Catholics are further from Christ than the Church of LDS ever was imo.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits" Exactly!

It is now time to take Hermano`s advice----

`When other people attack my faith, I simply answer with silence. I will only have a crisis if I let them disturb my serenity.`

peace to you Dan,

S

Edited August 23, 2012 by sarkany

[Ex Nihilo]

====In short--

IN BRIEF

261 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

262 The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

263 The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) and by the Son "from the Father" (Jn 15:26), reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the same God. "With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified" (Nicene Creed).

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

265 By the grace of Baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and after death in eternal light (cf. Paul VI, CPG § 9).

<a name="266">266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

blessings and peace,

S

Amen to that! I do love my tattered old copy of the CCC. I have a real hard time disagreeing with anything I read in it. Beats the hell out of the episcopal church's catechism imho

[Ex Nihilo]

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.

[Tsukino_Rei]

Just googled Mormon Underpants for my own curiosity. The symbolism is actually quite neat, and some of the designs of the Temple Garments (as they are called by the Church of Latter Day Saints) are quite beautiful.

http://store.lds.org...52_-1_Y_image_0

If I had any personal complaint it would be that were I Mormon living in a hot climate I'd want MUCH skimpier garments if I was going to wear them under my clothes all the time! But I'm not, so to each their own.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Tsukino_Rei